Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 25, 2015, 05:18:47 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 618 619 620 621 622 [623] 624 625 626 627 628 ... 1218
15551  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: US House Redistricting: New York on: March 08, 2012, 12:19:48 am
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120306/NEWS01/303060016/Congress-district-Monroe-County

LOL! Slaughterhouse is unhappy about losing the earmuff district now.

I guess when you realize that you might have to campaign once in a while you don't want the 'Rochester based district' anymore.



Slaughter expressed dissatisfaction with the plan. “We are not happy with it,” she said. “They cut the district up pretty much from what we asked for. We were looking for Democratic performance. Frankly, I would have liked to go down to Ithaca.”

She knows that with a determined opponent, she will probably run substantially below the Dem baseline. As it were, I "knew" she would be unhappy, and noted at the time I drew her district in my map, which is what she got, that she would have some issues, and may have to tack a bit, and not be so provocative and embarrassing.

Why is she saying this publically?  Is she agitating for another bi-partisan gerrymander? Sure honey, we will shore you up, if Buerkle is shored up in exchange. Maybe we will give you the part of Syracuse that you would love best.  How about that? 

Because she wants Shelly Silver to redraw the map.


Dean Skelos is calling their bluff.

http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/Wednesday-GOP-Likes-Redistricting-Plan-141789963.html

New York Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos says Republicans could pick up four Congressional seats under the new district lines proposed by a judge this week.
   
Skelos says he likes the proposed congressional lines and there may be little if any change to the federal magistrate's redistricting plan.

Which districts?  If Republicans couldnt pick up NY-01, NY-02, NY-04, and NY-23 in 2010 when indepdendents were more Republican than they will ever be again in our lifetimes and Democratic turnout fell through the floor, they wont be picking them up in 2012. 

The Republican candidate in NY-01 was undermined by the NY GOP establishment (almost as good as the NY TP in throwing sure wins). Otherwise the GOP would have most certainly won there. NY-02 was gerrymandered in 2002 to be beyond reach for the GOP. NY-04 had a weak candidate, and in NY-23 the Tea Party screwed things up by splitting the vote up.

The GOP did have some infighting in NY-01, but keep in mind they still had a $$$ advantage.  Altschuler dumped $3 million of his own funds into the race and still lost.   Opponents very rarely have a $1.5 million spending advantage.

NY-03 actually had more of a GOP gerrymander in 02 than NY-02 did  (the 4th and 5th also became more Democratic at the expense of the 3rd).  King is in more danger than Israel with the current map.

NY-04 is still too Democratic for the GOP to take no matter what the candidate

Considering the margin, any such infighting was likely a critical factor.

Between Israel's skill as a candidate and the amount of changes made, they did enough to put it beyond reach. Four was within reach with the right candidate in the right year because of McCarthy.

I don't really concern myself with King's political future.
15552  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: US House Redistricting: New York on: March 07, 2012, 11:03:40 pm
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120306/NEWS01/303060016/Congress-district-Monroe-County

LOL! Slaughterhouse is unhappy about losing the earmuff district now.

I guess when you realize that you might have to campaign once in a while you don't want the 'Rochester based district' anymore.



Slaughter expressed dissatisfaction with the plan. “We are not happy with it,” she said. “They cut the district up pretty much from what we asked for. We were looking for Democratic performance. Frankly, I would have liked to go down to Ithaca.”

She knows that with a determined opponent, she will probably run substantially below the Dem baseline. As it were, I "knew" she would be unhappy, and noted at the time I drew her district in my map, which is what she got, that she would have some issues, and may have to tack a bit, and not be so provocative and embarrassing.

Why is she saying this publically?  Is she agitating for another bi-partisan gerrymander? Sure honey, we will shore you up, if Buerkle is shored up in exchange. Maybe we will give you the part of Syracuse that you would love best.  How about that? 

not necessarily true. She represented a district entirely within Monroe county in the 1990s. Even in 1994, she still got a solid 56 percent.

The product of serving in a gerry in the 2000's is that she is less capable of performing so well in a not gerry'd seat. Think of Lungren's diminishing returns as an extreme example of a candidate who is less and less effective at wining voters. It does happen as you can see. And putting a candidate in a safe seat for 10 years and letting her adapt, then taking it form her, is another way of producing such a transformation of candidate quality.

I don't know if Lungren is a good example. Maybe Dick Lehman who represented a district that connected the inner city areas from Stockton and Fresno via the Sierras in the 80s would be a better example.

People are more apt to know a current congressman then someone from the 1980's. Tongue
15553  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: US House Redistricting: New York on: March 07, 2012, 10:32:54 pm
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120306/NEWS01/303060016/Congress-district-Monroe-County

LOL! Slaughterhouse is unhappy about losing the earmuff district now.

I guess when you realize that you might have to campaign once in a while you don't want the 'Rochester based district' anymore.



Slaughter expressed dissatisfaction with the plan. “We are not happy with it,” she said. “They cut the district up pretty much from what we asked for. We were looking for Democratic performance. Frankly, I would have liked to go down to Ithaca.”

She knows that with a determined opponent, she will probably run substantially below the Dem baseline. As it were, I "knew" she would be unhappy, and noted at the time I drew her district in my map, which is what she got, that she would have some issues, and may have to tack a bit, and not be so provocative and embarrassing.

Why is she saying this publically?  Is she agitating for another bi-partisan gerrymander? Sure honey, we will shore you up, if Buerkle is shored up in exchange. Maybe we will give you the part of Syracuse that you would love best.  How about that? 

not necessarily true. She represented a district entirely within Monroe county in the 1990s. Even in 1994, she still got a solid 56 percent.

The product of serving in a gerry in the 2000's is that she is less capable of performing so well in a not gerry'd seat. Think of Lungren's diminishing returns as an extreme example of a candidate who is less and less effective at wining voters. It does happen as you can see. And putting a candidate in a safe seat for 10 years and letting her adapt, then taking it form her, is another way of producing such a transformation of candidate quality.
15554  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: US House Redistricting: New York on: March 07, 2012, 10:07:38 pm
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120306/NEWS01/303060016/Congress-district-Monroe-County

LOL! Slaughterhouse is unhappy about losing the earmuff district now.

I guess when you realize that you might have to campaign once in a while you don't want the 'Rochester based district' anymore.



Slaughter expressed dissatisfaction with the plan. “We are not happy with it,” she said. “They cut the district up pretty much from what we asked for. We were looking for Democratic performance. Frankly, I would have liked to go down to Ithaca.”

She knows that with a determined opponent, she will probably run substantially below the Dem baseline. As it were, I "knew" she would be unhappy, and noted at the time I drew her district in my map, which is what she got, that she would have some issues, and may have to tack a bit, and not be so provocative and embarrassing.

Why is she saying this publically?  Is she agitating for another bi-partisan gerrymander? Sure honey, we will shore you up, if Buerkle is shored up in exchange. Maybe we will give you the part of Syracuse that you would love best.  How about that? 

Because she wants Shelly Silver to redraw the map.


Dean Skelos is calling their bluff.

http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/Wednesday-GOP-Likes-Redistricting-Plan-141789963.html

New York Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos says Republicans could pick up four Congressional seats under the new district lines proposed by a judge this week.
   
Skelos says he likes the proposed congressional lines and there may be little if any change to the federal magistrate's redistricting plan.

Which districts?  If Republicans couldnt pick up NY-01, NY-02, NY-04, and NY-23 in 2010 when indepdendents were more Republican than they will ever be again in our lifetimes and Democratic turnout fell through the floor, they wont be picking them up in 2012. 


The Republican candidate in NY-01 was undermined by the NY GOP establishment (almost as good as the NY TP in throwing sure wins). Otherwise the GOP would have most certainly won there. NY-02 was gerrymandered in 2002 to be beyond reach for the GOP. NY-04 had a weak candidate, and in NY-23 the Tea Party screwed things up by splitting the vote up.
15555  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: US House Redistricting: New York on: March 07, 2012, 01:27:53 am
The most acceptable map so far. I very much like that they ended both of the partisan gimmicks in Western NY (Earmuffs and Buffalo split) and they restored Chautauqua to the Southern Tier seat like it has been for decades prior (maybe even a century, I now it was in the 1940's, though there were two Southern Tier seats at that point with the region divided east and west).

I like what they did with Hotchul seat.

They made Buerkle's seat more of a Syracuse metro seat with all of Cayuga. It would have been even better to have found a way to pull it out of all or part of Wayne and give it either Cortland or Seneca. I tried experimenting with that the other day and it messed up my preffered Southern Tier seat. So I guess I approve.

They way they split up the Hincheymander is okay. I tried to make a non gerrymander seat out of the same basic area but the numbers and the boundaries just wouldn't come out right. And contributed to my usuall problem when I draw NY of trying to do too many things at once.

Then you get downstate...

I agree that the Senate GOP should pass a map containing a Jewish dominated South Brooklyn seat even if it is just to score points in the Senate special. That is the one big fail on this court map.
15556  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: US House Redistricting: New York on: March 05, 2012, 08:42:53 pm
Rationale for my proposal:

1. Buff/Roch are similar cities and combined in one district keep from overpowering the suburban/rural portions of western NYS.
2. Making that a solid D allows all the surrounding seats to be highly competitive.  Same with combining D areas into the Albany seat.
3. Where is it written in stone that St Lawrence, Franklin and Clinton be in the same district?
4. I have no care or regard for incumbents' locations.  One doesn't have to live in a district to run in it
5. Racial stats are irrelevant.  Aside from Grimm and Turner, every other seat in NYC will elect a far left liberal Democrat who will vote the same way no matter what race they are.  To me they aren't whites, blacks, hispanics.  They're Democrats.

The rules do care about that, though. Tongue
15557  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: US House Redistricting: New York on: March 05, 2012, 08:40:08 pm
Both the earmuffs and Higgin's distict are ridiculous when you can draw districts entirely within Monroe and Erie counties. I hope they don't go with a least change map. The loss of two seats should preclude that entirely. Roll Eyes
15558  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage? on: March 05, 2012, 08:18:13 pm
Quote
Conservatism has historically preferred outsiders or at least people who can claim to be outsiders. Term Limits are much more popular amongst conservatives then liberals and this is why Governors are preferred to Senators and businessmen are preferred to government officials. This desire is what hampered McCain's 2000 bid. He got the moderates, but he could never unify a coalition of "outsiders" because he was a Senator, in spite of his record of what he did.

You are right about the desire of the Right for term limits. Term limits have their problems -- most obviously they work as much against a competent and effective legislator as opposed to an incompetent or even corrupt legislator. They ensure a more rapid turnover of politicians -- and give more power to unelected lobbyists responsible only to their paymasters. (Government by lobbyists is a novel form of dictatorship!) They force perhaps a revolving door between government, business, and pressure groups. They can also force politicians with strong aspirations for high office to run for offices for which they need more preparation to do well, which is not good for the political process. A four-term Congressional Representative is, ceteris paribus,  more likely to be a more effective Senator than a two-term Representative.  
 
 The line between legislating and governing isn't so clear as it may seem to you.  Mayors and Governors have become Senators, Representatives have become Governors, and city-councilmen have often become Mayors. Knowing what the People want and being able to achieve it within a legislature is a desirable trait in a mayor, Governor, or President.

I am not a supporter of term limits, never said I was. You once again read to much into something and posted a bunch of crap distracting from the core issues of the topic. I never created any line between legislating and governing. I was assessing the desire of conservatives for a Washington outsider. Since you mix your personal view with your analysis all the time, I am not surprised you assume others do so as well.

Quote
It is not surprising that a liberal wouldn't understand this, but that sentiment is only more demanding now then it was then. Because of actions that Bush took on immigration, bailouts and so forth that completely set the base aflame with anger at the establishment and Washington. Thus you had Romney's initial rise to the top in IA and NH in 2007, followed by the rise of Mike Huckabee.


...Conservative interests -- like cheap labor and tough law enforcement -- can themselves contradict. Conservatives ordinarily want an abundant supply of cheap, dependent, expendable, but competent labor. Greater profits can be made by underpaying workers because they are in no position in which to say no (don't kid yourself -- that is one of the objectives of "Right-to-Work" legislation). But cheap labor is a hardship for those who have no alternative -- and low wages imply hardships to people (children) who have no culpability in the system.

Note well: in a democracy, everything -- including stewardship of the economy -- is a legitimate concern of the elected leadership. It is not enough to say that efficiency is everything; if that efficiency comes with cruelty then the objectives are suspect.  Workers have a right to concern themselves with issues of economic equity that some conservatives consider outside the realm of public debate and action. If Big Business could get away with it America would quickly revert to the norm of the Gilded Age for industrial workers -- kids in the workforce by age 10, 70 hours as the workweek, workers wrecked by 35 and dead by 40.

How did you get that out of an explanation as to why the GOP base hate Washington? More exaggerations of conservative positons, more personal bias, more paranoia, and thus more garbage.

Quote
President Obama was a Senator for as long as Romney was Governor. Before that, he was a backbencher in the Illinois state legislature.

We now get to judge him on his results, and what he was before he was President no longer matters except as description. It would not matter now if the President did as he does after having spent most of his life as a long-haul trucker. We legitimately judge politicians on their results.

The thread is suppose defend longterm incumbents and insiders. That section intially included Lincoln short government experience as well. I removed it to reduce the length. It wasn't meant to be a hit on Obama, but a defense of "alleged" outsiders.
15559  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage? on: March 05, 2012, 08:10:37 pm
Quote
2. Understands the need and importance of balancing a check book and that money doesn't grow on trees. It is easy taxed, borrowed, or printed, each of which puts a cost on the private sector. He also understands the need for efficiency and getting the biggest bang for the buck. Thus he can pursue policies that spend money the most effectively and is thus able to reduce the deficit.

Government can create the money supply. If you try to do so you face a long prison term. A government can of course print money to the extent of private productivity without inflation. Business (except in banks through fractional reserves) cannot create money.

That is not to say that government needs to show economy and efficiency.

Did I not include the printing of money? Ah, yes I did, it appears. That has a limit, which you acknowlege in your post, beyond which there is a cost. It is not unlimited. Therefore there is a great case to be made that the government should set priorities and do what it wants to as efficiently as possible.

Quote
No one is saying that he will literally govern as a CEO. He will govern as a President of the United States. But as a former CEO he has this experience in dealing with the gov't and its economic polices first hand and is thus best able to create an environment for jobs and to balance the budget.

Don't be so sure. A CEO of a defense contractor has a powerful incentive to bleed the government on behalf of his good buddies at the defense contractor. Governor Rick Scott (R-FL), boss of a for-profit network of medical clinics before being elected Governor, has proved wildly unpopular in Florida. Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan, another entrepreneur-turned-Governor, gets approvals far below average. The ability to turn on a dime from loyalty to stockholders or one's own gain to public service is not easy.  Harshness in administrating a for-profit entity that people can quit if they dislike (if one is an oil-field geologist and dislikes Exxon-Mobil one might get a chance at BP)... but a country? It is difficult to uproot oneself even from Syria today.  

I can hardly see an executive suite as anything other than a haven for pathological narcissists, if not high-functioning sociopaths. Corporate executives are hired to enforce the desires of elites who see working people as livestock at best and vermin at worst -- and serving those interests isn't for people of charity and decency.  Recall Enron Corporation as an extreme example... and then some of the predatory lenders and corrupt rating agencies that foisted an economic disaster that threatened the severity of the three-year meltdown that followed the Crash of 1929.

More bias it appears. Again if we were talking about a defense contractor, then one would only vote for them on the assumption that they abandon their personal gain for the sake of the country, as I discussed earlier.

Rick Scott is a horrible politician. Snyder has some potential and his polls seem to be slowly recovering. He isn't a politician by trade, either. Yes, they lack political skills and had to make tough policy choices that were hard for people to accept. Therefore, those with limited political skills will be in a worse position then say an adept politico like Cuomo, or even someone like Scott Walker or Tom Corbett.

The rest of this section of your post is just trash.

15560  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage? on: March 05, 2012, 07:58:41 pm
Nobody is saying that the Gov't can or should be run like a business completely. That is an exaggeration.

Proprietors, or at the least shareholders, own a business. Businesses (except perhaps unions if one considers them businesses) are not set up for the welfare of employees, taxing authorities, creditors, suppliers, or customers. Any good done for these entities is coincidence or a necessary deal with outsiders.

Are you serving any purpose by starting your reponses with the equivalent of a dicationary definition? All you do is piss people off by insulting their intelligence. Roll Eyes

Quote
The argument is that a businessman

1. Understands the impact of government policies on job creation because he deals with it directly. He has to pay the taxes when raised, comply with the new regulations and cope with the gov'ts failure to stop a country from dumping. He therefore can enact policies tailored to maxmising competitiveness and job creation.

Job creation is not a primary concern of employers. If a corporation can increase productivity by reducing its staff it will, as many profitable companies have done even before the financial collapse. Note well that giant corporations frequently hire lobbyists to make such a claim... and of course control the politicians that the giant entity sponsored to electoral success through campaign contributions.

But avoid using the buzzword "competitiveness" when "profitability" is the reality. It may be good for a corporation that it gets outright subsidies, underpays and overworks workers, gets tax burdens shifted to everyone else, gets regulatory relief that might lead to some ecological  disaster or life-taking catastrophe for which the government pays, or even gets a war for profit or control of resources and markets. Any good that comes from capitalism is a byproduct of the profit motive even if the profit comes from meeting human needs and desires.

This is the same thing you said in the first part, only with a mixture of far left cynnicism and anti-business biases mixed in with it.

The hope would be, that one would abandon their personal parochial concerns and serve the interests of the people, once in office. Of course you are in a situation where the determination of whether that has happened or not is determined by one's political slant, chances are the assessments will differ. I am pretty sure your judgement on such matters is wholly adequate based on your long and emense record of fair and unbiased analysis on political matters up to this point.
15561  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage? on: March 05, 2012, 07:46:42 pm
I think the disconnect here is that what you want with politics and politicians is essentially two-fold - you want them to implement your preferred policies. That is, you want them both to pursue the right policies and also be able to implement them.

The latter is a political skill and is why political experience matters. You know that someone like LBJ is able to get things done whereas an outsider (Jimmy Carter, for example) might often be unable to.

The first one is different. Here you might have reason to distrust career politicians. The very term suggests that such people don't share your values precisely because they don't really have any. And their lack of experience with how the world works outside of politics might make them to blind to the problems society faces.

That doesn't really speak well for Romney anyway though.

Running a business and running an economy is very different though. It's amazing how many people on the right seem unable to grasp this. Business success is about having business ideas and being good at management. Not about understanding the world or economics.

For one thing, I am pretty sure that Romney is just as smart in terms of "economics" as he is in "Business". I can't fathom he would do so well at Harvard Business School otherwise. Is there not significant overlap in the programs? I would imagine that one would struggle greatly had he not learned economics both before and during his studies there.

Second of all Romney is not just any business person. He is a former venture capitalist with experiences in many different companies. And you can dig deep and find ways in which he screwed them over or not. But at the end of the day, he did reorganized these companies for a purpose, however "unfair" one can characterize it. In the process, he experienced the effects of government policies directly. Experienced how it affected the decisions either directly or indirectly from actions or inactions of the government. That experience in conjunction with his previous experience as a Governor, and yes knowledge of economics in general, which I am pretty sure he has, is what makes him a good choice.

I would arge that an economics professor is just as ill suited, to run an economy. That you would seek someone with diverse experiences, is rather obvious. If Mittens was "just a business executive", you would have a point.
15562  Election Archive / 2012 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: PPP: Romney +1 in Ohio on: March 04, 2012, 09:58:04 pm
On Ben Ferguson's radio show, after interviewing Rick, Ferguson read an article that says that Rick isnt' focusing in on any specific areas but is targeting the state as whole. That explains the low turnout in "Rick areas" of WA and MI. How is that lack of campaign staff working for ya?

It also said that Rick is expected to do well in the South and West, while Romney plans to run up the margins in the NE and the Suburbs around Colombus.

I would say that Romney wins Hamilton county as well. Particulary those weathy suburbs in the Eastern part of the county that used to form the base of the old OH-02 and was what catapulted Portman to victory in a primary for that House seat back in the early 1990's. Romney also wins the core of Cinncinatti. I would also think that Dayton might go to Romney.
15563  Election Archive / 2012 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: PPP: Romney +1 in Ohio on: March 04, 2012, 09:50:21 pm
Is this the first day or the whole thing?
15564  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Santorum says gasoline prices caused recession on: March 04, 2012, 09:49:08 pm

This isn't the first time I have heard this notion. An energy expert on Armstrong Williams back in 2009, claimed energy prices were the primary cause and TN radio talker Ben Ferguson back in 2010. It is often spouted as a way to defend opposition to bailouts and supports for struggling home owners.

Lol, Santorum is on Ferguson's radio show right now.


He sounds angry and pissed off.

He got hit hard on FNS this morning. Stumbled over the fact that he gave only 2% of his income to charity, tried to blame it on Bella, then Wallace revealed that he gave only 3% back in 2007. He also completely fell apart over the "Obama is snob" and trying to explain that. On top of all that he was sick and it showed.
15565  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Santorum says gasoline prices caused recession on: March 04, 2012, 09:40:12 pm

This isn't the first time I have heard this notion. An energy expert on Armstrong Williams back in 2009, claimed energy prices were the primary cause and TN radio talker Ben Ferguson back in 2010. It is often spouted as a way to defend opposition to bailouts and supports for struggling home owners.

Lol, Santorum is on Ferguson's radio show right now.
15566  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage? on: March 04, 2012, 09:38:38 pm
Nobody is saying that the Gov't can or should be run like a business completely. That is an exaggeration.


The arguement is that a businessman

1. Understands the impact of government policies on job creation because he deals with it directly. He has to pay the taxes when raised, comply with the new regulations and cope with the gov'ts failure to stop a country from dumping. He therefore can enact policies tailored to maxmising competativeness and job creation.

2. Understands the need and importance of balancing a check book and that money doesn't grow on trees. It is easy taxed, borrowed, or printed, each of which puts a cost on the private sector. He also understands the need for efficiency and getting the biggest bang for the buck. Thus he can pursue policies that spend money the most effectively and is thus able to reduce the deficit.

No one is saying that he will litterally govern as a CEO. He will govern as a President of the United States. But as a former CEO he has this experience in dealing with the gov't and it's economic polices first hand and is thus best able to create an environment for jobs and to balance the budget.

Conservatism has historically prefered outsiders or atleast people who can claim to be outsiders. Term Limits are much more popular amongst conservatives then liberals and this is why Governors are prefered to Senators and businessmen are prefered to government officials. This desire is what hampered McCain's 2000 bid. He got the moderates, but he could never unify a caolition of "outsiders" because he was a Senator, inspite of his record of what he did.

It is not surprising that a liberal wouldn't understand this, but that sentiment is only more demanding now then it was then. Because of actions that Bush took on immigration, bailouts and so forth that completely set the base aflame with anger at the establishment and Washington. Thus you had Romney's initial rise to the top in IA and NH in 2007, followed by the rise of Mike Huckabee.

President Obama was a Senator for as long as Romney was Governor. Before that, he was a backbencher in the Illinois state legislature.
15567  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Who will the Anti-Romney be on Super Tuesday? on: March 04, 2012, 09:18:38 pm
Hello Jedi, been a long time.


You still supporting Newt or is the sign real rather than "ironic"?

I still don't really like Romney and prefer Gingrich but I sure as hell don't want Santorum as the nominee to have an epic fail come November so I'm supporting Romney since Gingrich won't win the nomination anymore.

Why would Santorum be any worse then Newt in a General Election?

Social Issues - Econimic Issues = epic fail and when he does talk about them it makes you want to hide, such as the new thread where he said gasoline prices caused the recession. Gingrich might still lose but at least he would focus on the economy.

And $2.50 gas as a matter of policy doesn't want to make you hide? Tongue

I paid $3.79 a gallon earlier in the week, so I'd prefer that to what we have here right now. Tongue

But he can't give you that without either a massive recession or somehow skipping the necessary couple of years to bring production on line. It is legitimate to criticize Obama on energy, he can't take credit for Bush oil production to to cover his own anti-energy philosophy, but at the same time, we can't make impossible promises like that.
15568  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Santorum says gasoline prices caused recession on: March 04, 2012, 09:14:05 pm
George Will also had a good point about this a week ago on Stephenapolos (Sorry George for butchering your name. Tongue). He said that it is a psychological connection between high gas prices and bad times. People associate high gas prices with 1970's and the perceived bad times then. They associate the high gas prices with the recession and bad times to follow in 2008.

So Rick was trying to channel this and connect. But he fumbled the ball considerably, because of his weaknesses and lack of top level staff.
15569  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Who will the Anti-Romney be on Super Tuesday? on: March 04, 2012, 09:00:00 pm
Hello Jedi, been a long time.


You still supporting Newt or is the sign real rather than "ironic"?

I still don't really like Romney and prefer Gingrich but I sure as hell don't want Santorum as the nominee to have an epic fail come November so I'm supporting Romney since Gingrich won't win the nomination anymore.

Why would Santorum be any worse then Newt in a General Election?

Social Issues - Econimic Issues = epic fail and when he does talk about them it makes you want to hide, such as the new thread where he said gasoline prices caused the recession. Gingrich might still lose but at least he would focus on the economy.

And $2.50 gas as a matter of policy doesn't want to make you hide? Tongue
15570  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Santorum says gasoline prices caused recession on: March 04, 2012, 08:57:40 pm
Actually, didn't the price shock happen immediately before the bubble burst?

Gas prices peaked in August of 2008. Housing began its collapse back in 2006 and the credit crunch began in mid 2007, followed by the actually start of the recession in December 2007. The Gas price peak did precede the collapse of Lehman which people seem to equate with the bubble bursting. That was more of a realization point. A realization of just how screwed we were economically.
15571  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Santorum says gasoline prices caused recession on: March 04, 2012, 08:54:30 pm
Over simplification, but certainly gas prices have a horrendous affect on the working poor and lower middle-class. It's hard to work a low paying job, pay for a mortgage and utilities (not that rent is any different), and spend 300 dollars a month on gasoline (in some instances obviously lower, in others much more). Extreme increases in heating prices, while not directly related to oil, are another killer. Not to mention that these kinds of gas prices make everything more expensive, most obvious of all being food. 

Both parties squeeze the poor in different ways, this is just the most glaring example of how out of touch the Democrats are with the people they like to claim as their primary constituents. It's not an issue of Obama being able to control oil prices, but it is an issue of the Democratic establishment's refusal to consider any options, and their appearing to show absolutely no concern.

There are more people out there struggling to get by due to gas prices than there are members of the Sierra Club. It's not just stupid, it's stupid politics for the Dems to not even give the appearance of wanting to do something about it.

'Big Oil' seems to be doing just fine. Why not impose a windfall tax on their profits and pass the revenues from that down to consumers in the form of gas tax relief?

Did I say anything about wanting to help 'Big Oil'?

I think taxes on the oil companies (coupled with price controls so that it can't be passed on the consumer) to partially fund subsidies, along opening up new areas for exploration, would be a huge step in the right direction. Just taxing oil companies though isn't going to help anyone, especially if it's merely to fund some kind of tax cut. It's the price at the pump that matters for people struggling now.

The only way you're going to get any Republicans to go along with taxes and subsidies is to allow greater drilling. The Democrats aren't willing to do that.

No, my point is they seem to be doing just fine; hence, my suggestion of a windfall tax on their profits but then in itself, if feasible, is only a short-term solution

Oh, and on drilling, I'd be more to the Republicans than Democrats, in addition to supporting feasible alternatives. BTW, ain't drilling in the US at record high levels right now? If so, the Democrats can't be that obstructionist

From what I have seen it is the delayed result of the areas Bush opened up, leased and permitted that are just now coming on line. Even Mary Landrieu is calling the Obama administration a hinderence to future production because of the delayed and denied leases and closed off lands. She even called out Salazar (and the administration by exention) for using dishonest rhetoric to distract from Obama's record on this.
15572  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Who will the Anti-Romney be on Super Tuesday? on: March 04, 2012, 08:41:14 pm
Hello Jedi, been a long time.


You still supporting Newt or is the sign real rather than "ironic"?

I still don't really like Romney and prefer Gingrich but I sure as hell don't want Santorum as the nominee to have an epic fail come November so I'm supporting Romney since Gingrich won't win the nomination anymore.

Why would Santorum be any worse then Newt in a General Election?
15573  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Who will the Anti-Romney be on Super Tuesday? on: March 04, 2012, 08:29:19 pm
Hello Jedi, been a long time.


You still supporting Newt or is the sign real rather than "ironic"?
15574  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Santorum says gasoline prices caused recession on: March 04, 2012, 08:24:39 pm
I was listening to Todd Schnitt the day of the MI primary (which was where he criticized the Romney campaign's organization which I agreed with and related here a couple of days ago). On there, someone called in and claimed that the housing market collapse was caused by the rise in gas prices causing the decling in SUV and Truck sales. This led to layoffs and shift cancellations which then caused people to default on their mortgages. Schnitt, who was broadcasting from MI that day but is normally a Tampa show, explained that while that may have been the case in MI locally, the overall housing problem was in the works for years and decades before prices rose in 2008.

So while ignorant, it may have been a strategy to take advantage of ignorance and limited vision of the housing problem on the part of the MI electorate. Of course Santorum has little top level staff and certainly no strategy beyond spouting far right nonesense for the purpose of rallying the base to his side. Thus it being a purposeful strategy probably gives Rick too much credit.

This isn't the first time I have heard this notion. An energy expert on Armstrong Williams back in 2009, claimed energy prices were the primary cause and TN radio talker Ben Ferguson back in 2010. It is often spouted as a way to defend opposition to bailouts and supports for struggling home owners.

That said, it is not an entirely incorrect. It did have a impact because it contributed to the decline in consumer spending in 2008. But the vast bulk of that decline was baked into the pie by the collapse in credit which started in 2007, which in turn resulted from the housing collapse beginning in mid 2006. I do think Santorum has a good understanding of economics, though not as good as Mitt's. The problem is that he is completely unscripted and makes this stuff up as he goes. It is the opposite extreme of Mitt's problem and it is of no better a circumstance. When you have candidates who pride themselves on not having top level staff like Cain, Gingrich, and Santorum, this is a problem which you will get from that. It is one of the reasons no tea party candidate has survived. The campaign fundamentals still exist regardles of whether one is tea party and the penalties for failing to note those rules is dire for a candidate. The lack of an organized TP candidate, simply because they have changed every six weeks but also because of a purposefull choice to be unscripted to curry some kind of populist favor, is exactly why Romney is going to win this nomination now.
15575  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Government / Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread on: March 04, 2012, 07:34:43 pm
I am fairly certain that the Senate was supposed to start on March 2nd, not stop. Atleast that is how it was way back in the day. Senators these days. Tongue
Pages: 1 ... 618 619 620 621 622 [623] 624 625 626 627 628 ... 1218


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines