EPThttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2925530/posts
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 1143
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2925530/posts | ||
|
Deathmanbob
United States2356 Posts
On November 02 2012 02:49 oneofthem wrote: here's something to discipline the troops. not that you guys are much of a troop. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2925530/posts the bradly effect is so dumb its laughable, they said it was going to happen last election and it didnt. It wont happen this time around either | ||
|
Recognizable
Netherlands1552 Posts
On November 02 2012 02:56 Deathmanbob wrote: the bradly effect is so dumb its laughable, they said it was going to happen last election and it didnt. It wont happen this time around either When something unexpected happens they can dub it bradley effect without explaining anything really. It´s great. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On November 02 2012 02:13 TheTenthDoc wrote: Except Romney winning big among independents can easily be chalked up to more and more conservatives identifying as independent in the wake of the Tea Party. Before 2010, "independent" usually meant moderate. Today it doesn't at all. What? Do you have evidence of that claim? | ||
|
Tula
Austria1544 Posts
On November 02 2012 02:42 BluePanther wrote: Actually my logic is that you're more likely to get a response if it takes minimal work and time for the person to respond. Most people don't mind telling you who they are going to vote for, they hate when they get interrupted for 15 minutes to answer strings of questions. Clicking a button or texting back a single letter is less likely to turn someone away. I actually think texting would get you a higher response rate than phonecalls. But yeah, legality of it might be a little difficult, and you run into generational issues (not that the land line methods of today don't have the same problem). Heh, I'll give you a real world example how wrong you are. As a student of history I was required to write a paper on "modern history" (Zeitgeschichte) including polling 500 people. I thought that would be easy since every student has to write such a paper and we have about 3000 students of history in Vienna. Prepared a nice online survey at a reputable site to the satisfaction of my professor and got permission to send a mass email to our history students asking them to take 5 minutes to answer it. Of 3k students I received 15 answers. (the subject of the poll was our latest election btw). Standing in the middle of a popular street with printed sheets and asking people to fill them out got the required answers in 3 days. So yes phone polling might be problematic (mostly because it takes too long) but for some reason I really cannot explain email polling doesn't work at all either. Texting might have potential, but frankly if you could reduce your poll to a single question most people would answer on the phone as well, but it wouldn't say much either. E.g. a text along the lines of: "answer O for obama or R for romney" would likely generate a few answers, but without any information on how to weigh that sample it wouldn't help anything. Thats why polling calls take so long and why almost no one takes the time to answer them. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there is a distinct sense that obama represents the revenge of the underclass. this is the paranoia that keeps tea partiers up at night. many of the themes motivating the right may not be about his color, but they are only skin deep. so i am expecting historic turnout of anti-obama votes, something greater than the 12% edge mccain had among whites in 2008 | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On November 02 2012 02:49 oneofthem wrote: here's something to discipline the troops. not that you guys are much of a troop. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2925530/posts I wish people who wrote articles knew what they were talking about and did research beyond wikipedia to justify their wishful thinking. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On November 02 2012 02:57 DoubleReed wrote: What? Do you have evidence of that claim? Here. Last analysis I could find was Gallup in early 2012, but the number of "conservative" identifying independents has risen alongside a drop in Republicans. If you slot conservative independents with Republicans you get about equal Democrat/Republican divide as you used to. http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/conservatives-remain-largest-ideological-group.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/151943/Record-High-Americans-Identify-Independents.aspx | ||
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On November 02 2012 02:58 oneofthem wrote: this election is a bit more polarized than the last time around. racial bias is mostly implicit and unconscious. it makes certain kinds of criticism stick better, such as obama is for socialism, big government, redistribution etc. we can find many past presidents to the left of him on these very issues but why is it that he is the poster boy for policies that he does not support or at any rate has not carried out to the full measure. there is a distinct sense that obama represents the revenge of the underclass. this is the paranoia that keeps tea partiers up at night. many of the themes motivating the right may not be about his color, but they are only skin deep. There is no doubt in my mind that race plays a role in some voters minds, but it is such a small fraction of the population that it's not really important. The whole "the right is racist" stereotype isn't correct. | ||
|
jdsowa
405 Posts
What's interesting in the Gallup #s is that, of likely voters, a greater # identified as Republican than Democrat, AND a greater number of independents leaned towards Romney. Now, 8 out of 10 polls seem to show Obama with the lead in Ohio. It's hard to dismiss that. Just by eye you could come to a determination in 5 seconds that, given that, Obama has about an 80% chance to win. Or, like Nate Silver, you can construct this incredibly elaborate database and algorithm to arrive at the same conclusion. Ultimately it all depends on whether the majority of pollsters are ignoring this supposed shift by continuing to poll a demographic that resembles 2008, an election with an enthusiastic Democratic base. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
"Bailout: An Inside Account of How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street." "Bull by the Horns: Fighting to Save Main Street From Wall Street and Wall Street from Itself." Two articles on them: Book review: Crisis mismanagement How America bailed out the banks rather than its citizens Both books show that the Obama administration devoted much more energy and attention to helping Wall Street than to stemming the foreclosure crisis, despite having been given TARP money to do so. Ms Bair recounts how the methodology used to calculate the “stress tests” was cleverly altered so that Citi would keep its tax breaks. This resourcefulness was not applied to help keep people in their homes, however. Whereas incompetence was common—the rules determining which mortgages would be modified were changed nine times in the first year alone—a bigger problem was that these schemes were not designed with ordinary people in mind. When asked how the government’s efforts were supposed to help homeowners, Timothy Geithner, the treasury secretary, responded by explaining that they would aid the banks by slowing down the pace of foreclosures. For all the books’ virtues, they also contain some flaws. Oddly for a financial expert, Ms Bair repeatedly writes that banks “hold” equity when they actually sell it to investors. She also believes that Mr Geithner, an appointed official, acted against the president’s wishes for years. This seems unlikely. Mr Barofsky’s “Bailout” is also more confusing than it need be, going back and forth chronologically without any obvious reason. Both books, however, do something essential: they show the paths not taken. The financial crisis did not have to be so unfair. Article on the HAMP program based on information from the books: HAMP-ering the recovery To be charitable to Mr Geithner and the rest of the administration, they might have thought that the banking system was still in danger, although the enormous bonuses paid out in 2009 and 2010 suggest that those with the best access to information felt otherwise. Moreover, the evidence suggests that the main drag on the recovery has been the overhang of household debt rather than any impairment of the credit channel. Nevertheless, suppose for the sake of argument that the banks needed additional transfers beyond the steep yield curve provided by the Federal Reserve and the implicit government pledge that large banks are not allowed to fail. It is still quite difficult to justify Mr Obama's choice to interpret his mandate to help homeowners as a means for redistributing resources to the financial sector. Mr Barofsky and Ms Bair both report that, as of the beginning of this year, there have been more HAMP failures than successes—a shameful record. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On November 02 2012 03:06 BluePanther wrote: There is no doubt in my mind that race plays a role in some voters minds, but it is such a small fraction of the population that it's not really important. The whole "the right is racist" stereotype isn't correct. Are you limiting your analysis to conscious thought processes? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
DamnCats
United States1472 Posts
And then I will proceed to laugh my ass off at the old people who voted for him as they try to obtain health insurance with vouchers. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On November 02 2012 03:08 sam!zdat wrote: Are you limiting your analysis to conscious thought processes? Depends what you're discussing, but maybe. I mean, if you go into "subconscious racism", studies have shown there isn't a huge difference between the two parties. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On November 02 2012 01:41 armada[sb] wrote: xDaunt this forum is gonna eat you alive for your arrogancy if you're wrong. If you're right you should get some sort of icon. A prophetic one. Let's make something clear here. There would be absolutely nothing to praise about xDaunt's analysis if Romney ended up getting elected. Back when the Republican primary was still going on, xDaunt actually predicted Rick Perry would beat Romney and win the primary, and that he would then beat Obama in the general election. When it became clear Perry had absolutely zero chance of winning the primary, let alone the election, xDaunt switched horses to the obvious Republican candidate, namely Romney. He hasn't actually put forward any kind of valid analysis behind his choice (other than simplistic assertions like "Americans are tired of Obama's failed policies"), or tried to look objectively at the dynamics behind the race and the shifting momentums. Picking the winner does not make one's analysis right. Paul the Octopus used to be able to pick winners pretty often, but I'm not sure it would have had something interesting to say about his choices. edit: and btw, if Obama wins, that won't automatically validate the arguments of people who thought he would win either. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
On November 02 2012 03:21 kwizach wrote: Let's make something clear here. There would be absolutely nothing to praise about xDaunt's analysis if Romney ended up getting elected. Back when the Republican primary was still going on, xDaunt actually predicted Rick Perry would beat Romney and win the primary, and that he would then beat Obama in the general election. When it became clear Perry had absolutely zero chance of winning the primary, let alone the election, xDaunt switched horses to the obvious Republican candidate, namely Romney. He hasn't actually put forward any kind of valid analysis behind his choice (other than simplistic assertions like "Americans are tired of Obama's failed policies"), or tried to look objectively at the dynamics behind the race and the shifting momentums. Picking the winner does not make one's analysis right. Paul the Octopus used to be able to pick winners pretty often, but I'm not sure it would have had something interesting to say about his choices. You forgot the tried and true "Rasmussen is the best since 2004." | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
with romney there's some of this too. democrats try to identify him as a plutocrat financier, which is true, but the kind of arguments that then stick onto him are those that only democrats would make. the strength of this identification would drive voter turn out higher in the case that romney is a financier as opposed to if this identity does not connect. the type of arguments that stick to obama are stuff that are not true, but make people angry in their particular view of the 'eternal political conflict.' the federal government has strong identification with measures that help minorities. the ideological complex is more activated, so to speak, when the target is the appropriate kind. | ||
|
armada[sb]
United States432 Posts
On November 02 2012 03:21 kwizach wrote: Let's make something clear here. There would be absolutely nothing to praise about xDaunt's analysis if Romney ended up getting elected. Back when the Republican primary was still going on, xDaunt actually predicted Rick Perry would beat Romney and win the primary, and that he would then beat Obama in the general election. When it became clear Perry had absolutely zero chance of winning the primary, let alone the election, xDaunt switched horses to the obvious Republican candidate, namely Romney. He hasn't actually put forward any kind of valid analysis behind his choice (other than simplistic assertions like "Americans are tired of Obama's failed policies"), or tried to look objectively at the dynamics behind the race and the shifting momentums. Picking the winner does not make one's analysis right. Paul the Octopus used to be able to pick winners pretty often, but I'm not sure it would have had something interesting to say about his choices. Wasn't here for the Rick Perry shenaningans, thanks for the insight. I get the impression that some people here are just trying to troll the forums knowing that the users are mostly liberal. | ||
|
jdsowa
405 Posts
On November 02 2012 03:18 BluePanther wrote: Depends what you're discussing, but maybe. I mean, if you go into "subconscious racism", studies have shown there isn't a huge difference between the two parties. A majority of the country voted for Obama in '08, and a near majority of Republicans were behind Herman Cain (among a field of 5+ candidates). That's 75% of the population there that has demonstrated a perfect willingness to go with a black candidate. And certainly had Cain won the nomination, he would've received near unanimous Republican support. On that basis, there are very very few people who would deny someone a vote simply because of the skin color. That, to me, would be racism. What a lot of people confuse racism for, is a criticism of black American culture. That's not racism. Even Bill Cosby is critical of black American culture. If someone shows a subconscious bias against a race that disproportionately commits crimes is that racist? Would they show the same bias if a picture of Carlton from The Fresh Prince was flashed on the screen? To me those are deep cultural questions and transcend mere skin color. | ||
| ||
