Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 23, 2014, 10:36:39 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 38
1  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Romney 2012: The Last Great White Campaign on: November 11, 2012, 06:52:47 pm
Dems lost on all the "major" issues, but tricked people with their embarrassing pandering.  Free birth control shouldn't trump the economy, but Chicago found a way.  It will be interesting to see how the D's play this.  You can't keep the base of the party happy (lunatics) and do the much needed work on serious issues.  This incompatibility inevitably leads to a breakup of the coalition to some extent.  The only way to win 'competence credit' is to enact a minimum 80% R economic plan, which poses more political issues in 2014-2016. 

     
2  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Obama will lose the election on: November 05, 2012, 06:34:49 am
Yea, I really don't know that Obama(incumbent) leading Romney(challenger)  48-47 is actually leading.  Also, the turnout model could well be closer to 2010 than to 2008 and the polls have been closer to 08... we will see. 
3  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Which parties' voters drink more alcohol? on: October 30, 2012, 08:51:02 pm
What about the millions of fizzy, yellow, light beer guzzling NASCAR and football fans (I am admittedly a part of the latter)? I can assure you that Republicans consume just as much, if not more beer, than their Democratic counterparts. Democrats probably win on liquor and fruity mixed drinks, for what it's worth.
That's another fun thought. Who drinks more of certain drinks. First thoughts.

Scotch: Republicans
Bourbon: Republicans
Fine Wine: Democrats
Cosmos: Democrats
Mass produced beer: Republicans
Microbrews: Democrats
etc.

Republicans win on Brandy consumption.  R leaning Wisconsin Germans account for 15% of the nation's consumption by themselves. 
4  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: What't the most likely map on Election Night? on: October 29, 2012, 08:38:26 am



Romney only needs one of the greys or both of the greens.  Obama has to sweep everything but one of the greens. 
5  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Sarah Palin: "Shuck and jive ends with Benghazi lives" on: October 27, 2012, 09:08:04 am
Palin has more than Obama.  

Dude you only have to hear them speak for a couple of minutes to know she's a dope and he's of at least a bit above average intelligence.

That's dialect bias.  You can put a clip of Palin making a good point and a clip of Obama making a stupid point next to each other and Obama will sound/look more intelligent.  Most people and the media will have that impression, which is why I wouldn't support Palin -- if I personally liked her as a candidate in the first place (which I don't).  So, once you get beyond a baseless impression you would have to weigh each body of work.  The similarities are quite amazing...
both:
think poorly on their feet
have poor command of most issues
are so dependent on slogans you wonder if they have anything behind the rhetoric (Palin probably has a more realistic "vision", but mostly because she chose better people to copy from)
Get sidetracked into small pointless issues, making themselves smaller and smaller
etc etc

Palin at least has a track record of good decision making skills on her side.  You can't get around that, other than pretending it doesn't count or doesn't exist or something.   
         
6  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: The Official 2012 Campaign Ad Thread on: October 27, 2012, 08:46:24 am
And Republicans wonder why young people and women don't vote for them.
...Obviously, We don't understand that voting is like sex and that every (young) women would prefer to have sex with Obama this time.  Seriously, please continue your war on women.     
7  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Sarah Palin: "Shuck and jive ends with Benghazi lives" on: October 27, 2012, 08:37:53 am
I just wanted you to reconcile your "foolish" looking contradictions into coherence.  That doesn't make me "look foolish". 

As for qualifications, you could say you don't care about them or they aren't important, but you can NOT deny that Palin has more than Obama.  She more than successfully ran 3-4 enterprises, while Obama has never run a single enterprise successfully.  Perhaps he did a good job at the Harvard Law Review, but he is secretive about that and thus we don't really know, thus hard to judge.  Obama does have reading skills and probably writing skills, but Palin has those as well, so that is a wash.  Neither is bright, but BO went to more prestigious schools...  So, once again we are back to Obama's college background as a qualification for POTUS.  His econ 101 class is really paying off.       
8  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: The Official 2012 Campaign Ad Thread on: October 26, 2012, 01:32:02 pm
I cannot believe actual human beings are upset by that ad. It was silly, stupid, uncouth, beneath the dignity of the presidency.

Further proof that Obama is completely dependent on tricking the dumb - low information voter into voting for him.  

Uh, everyone is, AN. It's impossible to win with only smart people+.
Possible to win without basing your entire campaign / governance on catering to dumbs.  Look at everyone of Ryan's congressional campaigns, Ron Johnson, Scott Walker, etc etc.     
9  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Sarah Palin: "Shuck and jive ends with Benghazi lives" on: October 26, 2012, 12:03:17 pm
This woman could have been Vice-President. Says it all really.

I would agree if you admitted that Obama and Biden are both the same or worse.  Biden is clearly insane and BO has revealed himself to be not just a lightweight, but also not at all bright.  Palin is also more qualified than Obama, which should either qualify her for VP or disqualify BO from the presidency. 
10  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Sarah Palin: "Shuck and jive ends with Benghazi lives" on: October 26, 2012, 10:04:04 am
It's called observing Republican rhetoric and how they've reacted to the first black president in a histrionic and often racist way. It's not just about his policies at all! Remember, he's a lazy, drug dealing, terrorist sympathizing, Muslim socialist who wants to enslave whites and probably isn't a real American.

And "shuck and jive" is just another example of the blatant racism that Republicans pretend is nothing when people call it out. It is still a racial term to most people, Sarah Palin knows it, and she loves when people defend her by saying it isn't racist because it gives cover to the fact that she was intentionally using coded language to embolden the actual racists who follow her. And that's a fact, jack. Smiley

Yes Sarah Palin is both stupid AND an evil genius coding secret messages that all whites know the meaning of AND have no idea what they mean/that they exist.  She also put hidden messages in Zeppelin albums that you can hear when you play them backwards.   
11  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: The Official 2012 Campaign Ad Thread on: October 26, 2012, 09:56:25 am
I cannot believe actual human beings are upset by that ad. It was silly, stupid, uncouth, beneath the dignity of the presidency.

Further proof that Obama is completely dependent on tricking the dumb - low information voter into voting for him. 
12  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Sarah Palin: "Shuck and jive ends with Benghazi lives" on: October 25, 2012, 12:06:40 pm
The term "shuck and jive" has been non racial for 40 to 50 years, but when Sarah Palin uses it... O' boy we're back in the 1850's all of a sudden. 

Weird how "jive talker" is a perfect description of Obama, but this phrase is horribly off key.     
13  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Is it possible to be "cool" and support Mitt Romney? on: October 25, 2012, 11:33:06 am
In Canada, you are assumed to love Barack Obama, and if you don't, you're nuts.

That's the entire rest of the world, not just Canada.  And it wouldn't necessarily be Barack Obama, but rather any Democratic presidential nominee.

The US is certainly a strange and unique place.

exceptional.  

Worse.

Only if you define the middle class as "the rich".  The entrenched super rich class owns the democrats.   They try to build a winning coalition as cheap and 'radical' as they can because you can mold 'untethered people' more easily to do/support what you want.  It's like giving candy to children.  Here's a free phone, here's free birth control, here's a racial quota, let's "go after" the 'rich' and make things 'fair', here's a government contract, here's a grant, here's a regulation to make you feel better...  It's literally throwing candy around treating everyone like children, but don't pay attention to what I'm doing over here, and never mind how we messed that up, THEY WANT TO TAKE THE CANDY AWAY!!!        

No, the rich prefer the Republicans, Amna.  The 'middle class' is just a few petite bourgeois, doctors, lawyers, and that sort of thing.  The vast, vast majority of Americans are poor or 'working class' persons.
The rich prefer Republicans, but the super-rich prefer Democrats.
super powerful people as well.  This tends to corespond to some sort of monopoly-ish powerful institution backed by or protected by the government or the dem party.   

Their is the tendency of inheritance based-majority wealth to be dem,
whereas individual based wealth to be R. 

The aviator scene is just profoundly insightful
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br-ljup5Bow
14  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Who won the Debate? on: October 23, 2012, 02:58:39 pm
Obama didn't deliver a knockout punch. Romney didn't implode. It's debatable about who won.

However, I voted Romney, because he came out as far more presidential than Obama did.

How is someone more "presidential" if he says things that are inaccurate and appears incompetent in that area?

Obama loses on fact checks about 10 to 1.  Obama's childish 'tantrums' really were beneath his office and Romney is obviously a man of substance, but more importantly (for gauging the impact of the debate) he looked Presidential.  It's amazing to watch Romney next to Obama, because he looks younger, more energetic, more in command, and obviously more competent.  
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Two Guesses on: October 22, 2012, 10:33:40 pm
The realignment will be the midwest "rust belt" becoming fairly R or at least not leaning dem.  WI, PA, MI, MN all in play and going half or more R is crippling to the Ds.  The combination of a successful Romney administration and popular R Govs and Sens locally will begin to cement the shift.   
16  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Who won the Debate? on: October 22, 2012, 10:27:27 pm
Obama did a poor job of defending his record and was childish at times.  
Everyone will miss that when Obama tries to defend himself/ attack opponent he completely fails to outline an agenda for the future or explain how he will be better/ less of a failure.

Romney was super presidential and he probably just closed the deal.  Obama needs a hail marry at this point.  

I consider this to be a Romney "win", but people will try and pretend that this debate occurred in a vacuum and that Obama's vote losing, lie filled performance was technically under Marquess of Queensberry rules a win for the president.          
17  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Is Obama finished? on: October 22, 2012, 10:01:22 pm
In all seriousness, with two weeks to go, things are looking pretty damn bad for Obama right now

But not over.  If we start seeing good polls for Romney in OH and in some of NV, CO, IA, WI and NH, it is over. 
I think Romney just sealed the deal.  Obama needs some major shake up now. 
18  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Are Republicans seriously claiming Romney was right on Obama's Libya comment on: October 20, 2012, 10:23:02 am
It was one of those semantical cf's.  The Obama administration did handle the matter poorly. They look incompetent. Does anyone disagree with that?
It plays into a long running pattern.
Did BO call fort hood a terrorist attack?  No.
Did BO attend daily security briefings? No.  
Did BOs administration get a continuing forces agreement in Iraq?  No.
Did the admin ignore the loud chorus shouting concerns about who the rebels in Egypt and Iraq are?  Yes.
Did BO want the trial of KSM in lower Manhattan? yes
Did BO want to move Gitmo to Illinois AND give the detainees constitutional rights? yes
Did BO campaign on how the detainees deserve Geneva convention rights, despite meeting zero requirements of that convention?  Yes.  
etc, etc, etc,

BO has displayed a combination of neglect and incompetence on security issues that can't be ignored.  Lying and covering up on security to boot is another layer of failure.  

Obama at least pretends to be interested in domestic policy.  His comments "Bump in the road" and "not optimal" highlight his chilling lack of perspective/interest/competence on security and foreign policy.  
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Two Guesses on: October 19, 2012, 02:13:17 pm
Pray tell who can enforce bankruptcy/austerity on a sovereign state?  And if the GOP can win nationally exclusively by turning their base out, why can't the Dems?  You realize there are lots of people out there that aren't voting this year because they think Obama didn't do enough, right?
Well, our states aren't exactly "sovereign".  We are part of a Union of states, which has some guidelines to it.  One thing of interest is that the states gave up their 'right' to print their own currency.  Also, Almost every state bans itself from running a deficit in it's own state constitution.  States have rights of course, but things get tricky if a state fails to meet serious obligations on a huge scale.  The closest thing to a scenario like this is a large corporation going into bankruptcy.  The bondholders and bankruptcy judge / appointed manager start taking over.  If the Feds step in, they would really be able to do whatever they wanted (in exchange for their money).  All of these things cause major ripple effects.    

The only similar historical example I know of is Newfoundland's collapse in the 30's.  The 'British Empire' stepped in and re-gained control of the sovereign state in exchange for meeting it's obligations.        

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

http://www.heritage.nf.ca/law/collapse_responsible_gov.html
20  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: What happens if Obama wins the Electoral College and Romney wins Popular Vote on: October 19, 2012, 01:57:28 pm
Republicans wouldn't pass NPV after an Obama EC win/Romney PV win.  If they did, CA and other large blue states would just change state law to have automatic registration and mail ballots to every social security number in the state.  There would be nothing anyone out of state could do to stop it.
Exactly, Republicans won't move to remove a pillar of THE REPUBLIC.  If a structural change is coming it would be: 'House-district electoral votes' in the big bankrupt states like Illinois and California.     

Not a chance in heck they would ever go along with that unless all of the former Confederate states did the same. 

Dems can still get NPV on their own terms the next time have a wave.

Dems probably will have diminished power in Illinois and California (one way or another) when they go into receivership. 

What can creditors do to a state if it simply ignores its debts?  I'm curious because I honestly don't know the answer.  Obviously the next Dem trifecta would bail them out with federal funds, so why not just sit it out and wait?  Or go Huey Long on state and local taxes.  There will always be some businesses (particularly tourism in CA) that simply can't leave...   
It gets real crazy real fast.  Lots of variables are at play, you would have wars going on at the political level, in the courts, in the financial community (a bond default would be quite devastating, local vs state vs federal battles, wild shifts in power/authority via several possibilities, elected officials forced to cede power to unelected administrators, etc. 

You are right that their needs to be a major disincentive in defaulting on obligations.  That's were I could see potential political restructuring in some circumstances.  A federally appointed governor with broad authority is an actual possibility.  I'd be like the State went back into territorial status. 

I could see Illinois escaping by shaping up in a hurry. California, not so much.  It isn't likely, but you could see a new SOCAL state emerge out of the process, which may well be named "Reagan".           
21  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: What happens if Obama wins the Electoral College and Romney wins Popular Vote on: October 19, 2012, 12:36:10 pm
Republicans wouldn't pass NPV after an Obama EC win/Romney PV win.  If they did, CA and other large blue states would just change state law to have automatic registration and mail ballots to every social security number in the state.  There would be nothing anyone out of state could do to stop it.
Exactly, Republicans won't move to remove a pillar of THE REPUBLIC.  If a structural change is coming it would be: 'House-district electoral votes' in the big bankrupt states like Illinois and California.     

Not a chance in heck they would ever go along with that unless all of the former Confederate states did the same. 

Dems can still get NPV on their own terms the next time have a wave.

Dems probably will have diminished power in Illinois and California (one way or another) when they go into receivership. 
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Two Guesses on: October 19, 2012, 11:51:54 am
...Sure, they may well do that, which would likely cause a serious breakdown in the dems ability to be a national party. 



A Neo-'Rockefeller'-ish brand of Republicans based in the powder blue states lead the party. 
The Green States face Bankruptcy/Bond default/Austerity. 

The dems faced with perpetual defeat turn to A powerful southern based Bush-Clinton-esque political family to break up the southern block. 



The NE will always be in opposition to the Deep south and thus eventually realigns.
This re-balances the parties 269-269 
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Future of the parties on: October 19, 2012, 11:47:55 am


A Neo-'Rockefeller'-ish brand of Republicans based in the powder blue states lead the party. 
The Green States face Bankruptcy/Bond default/Austerity. 

The dems faced with perpetual defeat turn to A powerful southern based Bush-Clinton-esque political family to break up the southern block. 



The NE will always be in opposition to the Deep south and thus eventually realigns.
This re-balances the parties 269-269 
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Two Guesses on: October 19, 2012, 11:02:35 am
This would all indicate a trend back to where there are both cultural liberals and conservatives in both parties and an end of the New Deal. Basically 2020 could be the anti-1960...basically a socially liberal Gilded Age where the Republican party is basically the Federal Party...and unless the Democrats coalesce in a particular reigion (this is an unless argument and not given because of the Senate goes R its because the Republicans were winners in every party of the country), the Republicans will eventually be up against reigional opposition parties. Maybe the Green Party in the West coast, The Libertarian Party in the West and Northeast and maybe some American party in the South and Midwest. Basically, that's what the Gilded Age basically was. The Democrats had a lock on the south, were very weak anywhere else and various "Not Republicans" were a semi-viable alternative outside of the South.   
That is plausible. 

I've been trying to think of ways the dems could transform into a viable party if it abandoned it's twisted policies/constituents or was finally faced with perpetual defeat.  Regional opposition makes a lot of sense.  They could try to split the electoral college 4 or 5 ways if they ever had a coalition in the house.     

This is ridiculous.  You sound just like all the liberals in 2009 crowing that it would be 2030 before the Republicans were competitive outside of the South.  There is a presidential nominee in a statistical tie running on the most liberal platform in a generation.

umm, I said "IF".  Obviously several major things would have to happen.  Most people don't know enough history to understand that things stay the same and complex systems continue to work, until they stop working and then massive shifts/changes occur really quickly. 
25  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: What happens if Obama wins the Electoral College and Romney wins Popular Vote on: October 19, 2012, 10:53:32 am
Republicans wouldn't pass NPV after an Obama EC win/Romney PV win.  If they did, CA and other large blue states would just change state law to have automatic registration and mail ballots to every social security number in the state.  There would be nothing anyone out of state could do to stop it.
Exactly, Republicans won't move to remove a pillar of THE REPUBLIC.  If a structural change is coming it would be: 'House-district electoral votes' in the big bankrupt states like Illinois and California.     
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 38


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines