Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 01, 2014, 10:59:07 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 39
26  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.   
27  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.          
28  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. 
29  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.  
30  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
31  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".           
32  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. 
33  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 
34  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 
35  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. 
36  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.     
37  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Romney Pathways to Victory - Best strategy? (Romney supporters only please!) on: October 19, 2012, 10:45:11 am

I don't think Obama can hold Ohio without neglecting NH, WI, and VA.  likewise if he defends NH, WI and VA he probably can't hang on to Ohio.  Interesting gambit. 

Why do you think he isn't capable of advertising and campaigning in four states over the next few weeks? He also has literally hundreds of campaign offices buzzing in those states and others.

He's being outmaneuvered, momentum is fighting him, and he's competing on ground that is shifting against him (the midwest).  The only way to fight all that is an overwhelming advantage in focus, ads, messaging, personal visits, operatives, etc.  Obviously, you can't be overwhelming if you are spread too thin.       
38  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Romney Pathways to Victory - Best strategy? (Romney supporters only please!) on: October 19, 2012, 08:40:10 am
looks like team Romney is confident they 'have' NC, thus are redeploying NC assets elsewhere.  I would probably move them into Virginia and Ohio.  

I don't think Obama can hold Ohio without neglecting NH, WI, and VA.  likewise if he defends NH, WI and VA he probably can't hang on to Ohio.  Interesting gambit. 
39  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Are Republicans seriously claiming Romney was right on Obama's Libya comment on: October 19, 2012, 07:42:35 am


If Obama called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” in his Rose Garden speech, then he also said the victims of that attack were buried in the “hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery” and that he had visited them at Walter Reed — other comments in that speech not specifically referring to the Benghazi attack.


You are guilty of wishful thinking shadow.  My guess is you want Obama to have been right (even though it really doesn't explain why he than flipped to being wrong again for 14 days) so you are willing to believe this unbelievable lie he told yesterday.   

That's an interesting interpretation of the statement, since Obama clearly mentions it is the troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan who are buried in Arlington and whom he visited at Walter Reed.  Here, I even highlighted it for you. 

"Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourn with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those, both civilian and military, who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."
 

Don't see how it's a lie when its right there in the transcript that the Benghazi attack is being compared to 9/11.


LOL, he didn't specifically say Libya was a terrorist attack.  He goes on to say it was a protest of a youtube video for the next 13 days.  He attempted to completely manipulate the speech (and reality), thus it is fair for me to completely manipulate the speech in order to expose his manipulation.  Turnabout is fair play.  'If, than' statements aren't that hard to understand.  IF: Obama wasn't being misleading in claiming he said it was a terror attack in the Rose Garden speech,
THAN: He also said the victims of that attack were buried in the “hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery” and that he had visited them at Walter Reed
BECAUSE: those are all comments in that speech specifically NOT referring to the Benghazi attack.   

Leave it to Obama to take himself out of context.

I'll let Charles explain it to you:     
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YMwY5zIc4s&feature=g-all-u
40  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Romney Pathways to Victory - Best strategy? (Romney supporters only please!) on: October 19, 2012, 07:28:13 am
[quote author=AmericanNation link=topic=161932.msg3472271#msg3472271

apparently Romney is closing in PA like a freight train!  WI hasn't went R since 84 and PA hasn't since 88... realignment?
 

Bad polls from 3rd rate polling organizations seems like a better bet to me Smiley

But it is nice to dream!
[/quote]

In PA probably a bad poll. 
In WI probably a good poll. (Best public poll in WI is usually Marquette law school) 
41  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Romney Pathways to Victory - Best strategy? (Romney supporters only please!) on: October 18, 2012, 09:34:57 pm
Like I said in the other thread, if Romney doesn't win both Ohio and Virginia, he's done.  Those two combined have the most electoral votes. He should still throw money into CO/FL to keep them in his column.

He doesn't need VA. He needs OH, FL, IA, NH, IN, NC, CO and NE-2 to win. Worst case scenario, he loses IA and NH but wins WI, and he wins. There's a lot of ways he could win this. Plus, nobody's talking but PA, but it's still very much in play.

apparently Romney is closing in PA like a freight train!  WI hasn't went R since 84 and PA hasn't since 88... realignment? 
42  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Two Guesses on: October 18, 2012, 08:38:01 pm
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.     
43  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: The Debate Bounce on: October 18, 2012, 07:31:54 pm
Colorado: Obama 50%, Romney 47% (Public Policy Polling)

Iowa: Obama 51%, Romney 43% (NBC News/Marist)

Wisconsin: Obama 51%, Romney 43% (NBC News/Marist)

The Colorado poll is more favorable to President Obama if Third-Party candidates are included.

It looks much as things were before the first debate, which was very much a do-or-die situation for any chance for Romney.

Romney is even in Wisconsin, so that poll is only off a minimum of 7 points. 
44  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Close Election - Obama Victory on: October 18, 2012, 07:15:57 pm
Romney is going to win Wisconsin, Ohio and probably Iowa, but maybe not NV. 
45  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: The Debate Bounce on: October 18, 2012, 07:13:34 pm

Romney might stop gaining at 50-51
Obama might gain a point or two off his 45-46
OR
Romney hits 52+ territory.

0 to -2.


Gallup: -1
Ras: -1
IBD: -1




It is still early.

yes but state polls and ppp confirm that...

Those are still early polls and most of them are pre debate.  Calm down everyone.
It seems my "shameless" prediction is looking pretty good.   
46  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Are Republicans seriously claiming Romney was right on Obama's Libya comment on: October 17, 2012, 11:55:02 pm
I figure by noon tomorrow Candy will have to walkback her walkback of her walkback.
It's a weird position, by all professional standards she should be fired, but here peers aren't exactly beyond hackery.  So she probably both wants to apologize and claim she did the right thing.   
47  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Are Republicans seriously claiming Romney was right on Obama's Libya comment on: October 17, 2012, 11:49:25 pm
Yes, it's called the plane of 'Reality'.

I'll repost my previous statement.

Let's look at that section of the transcript, shall we. 

"Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourn with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those, both civilian and military, who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."
 

Used Fox so no one can accuse me of only using liberal sources or something.  Also, the link was on hand cause a Facebook friend had it, but let's get into it.   

In the transcript, Obama clearly refers to the attack in Benghazi in the same paragraph as 9/11.  He talks about 9/11 and says "AND THEN last night we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi."  He tied 9/11 back to Benghazi in the very text of the transcript.  The "acts of terror" line applies to the attack on Benghazi just as much as 9/11.

Are you really going to try and argue that line only refers to 9/11 when he brought Benghazi up in the same paragraph in a clear comparison to 9/11 and doesn't switch the topic back to 9/11 before referring to "acts of terror?" 

Is referencing the text of the transcript to show Obama DID refer to the Benghazi attack as an "act of terror" a good enough dose of reality for you?

If Obama called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” in his Rose Garden speech, then he also said the victims of that attack were buried in the “hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery” and that he had visited them at Walter Reed — other comments in that speech not specifically referring to the Benghazi attack.


You are guilty of wishful thinking shadow.  My guess is you want Obama to have been right (even though it really doesn't explain why he than flipped to being wrong again for 14 days) so you are willing to believe this unbelievable lie he told yesterday.   
48  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Romney Pathways to Victory - Best strategy? (Romney supporters only please!) on: October 17, 2012, 11:29:37 pm
If Romney is going to win Colorado, than Ohio and Wisconsin are where you go.  That gets you there.  VA and NH are the 'back up Ohio' -- 17(combined) and 18 EVs respectively.  Iowa and NV would be icing, but probably aren't the deciders this year.  Wisconsin is key, it would make things simple for Mitt.  Iowa only works with Ohio and another state, which is a complicated thread of the needle, so Iowa and NH are the 'back up wisconsin' that requires Ohio.  Let the Mitzkrieg of ads begin.      


Most of this fits with Obama’s New Firewall: Ohio, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/330793/obamas-new-firewall-ohio-iowa-new-hampshire-and-nevada

Is Team Obama blind to dead heat Wisconsin? 
49  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: The Debate Bounce on: October 17, 2012, 11:12:28 pm

He's going to get a negative bounce from winning a debate? You people are shameless, aren't you?

You dems really don't know anything.  The president came in behind, lost on the substance of every important issue, failed to outline a vision or a reason to reelect him, failed to rebut the challengers case that he is a failed president with no plan(specifically on the economy, the #1 issue), committed a major gaff with the Libya thing (Again).  He may have won on points(by being overly aggressive and annoying people), but Romney will win votes and Obama will lose votes, which is kinda the point.   

Exactly what would he have to say that would count as a "vision for a second term" to you?  

You can parse the word "vision" a couple different ways.  Clearly Obama has no PLAN and no reason for a second term, but even his objectives of "more teachers" and "moving forward"  are so weak that I can't say that meets the threshold of "vision".  Bush campaigned for reelection on transforming social security into a permanently solvent system and fostering conditions for pro-american democracy to spread throughout the middle east.  Like those positions or not, they are no doubt 'visionary'.  Obama wants to raise taxes and implement his unpopular healthcare reform. Two things already poised to happen if nothing is done.  Maybe he should "pass a budget" a completely new concept I heard about once.  He just doesn't approach the threshold. 

Krauthammer outlines this in reaction to the acceptance speech. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmZh6mV6M08         

50  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: The Debate Bounce on: October 17, 2012, 04:43:04 pm

He's going to get a negative bounce from winning a debate? You people are shameless, aren't you?

You dems really don't know anything.  The president came in behind, lost on the substance of every important issue, failed to outline a vision or a reason to reelect him, failed to rebut the challengers case that he is a failed president with no plan(specifically on the economy, the #1 issue), committed a major gaff with the Libya thing (Again).  He may have won on points(by being overly aggressive and annoying people), but Romney will win votes and Obama will lose votes, which is kinda the point.   
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 39


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines