President Obama Re-Elected - Page 1173

On November 04 2012 06:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:

when has it been "debunked"?


according to RCP. Romney is ahead in VA.

On November 04 2012 06:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:

the undecided vote traditionally breaks away from the incumbent. conventional wisdom holds that they will likely break to Romney by a about 3 to 1 or maybe even higher.


his odds say Obama has a 67 percent chance of winning a state he is behind in.... you'll forgive me if I think Nate Silver is a bit biased in which polls he uses.

On November 04 2012 06:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:

when has it been "debunked"?

On November 04 2012 06:45 Feartheguru wrote:


How can you possibly know who the undecided vote is favoring lol.

On November 04 2012 06:45 Feartheguru wrote:


How can you possibly know who the undecided vote is favoring lol.

On November 04 2012 06:45 paralleluniverse wrote:

22 polls out today. Obama wins 19. Romney wins 1. There are 2 ties.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/nov-2-for-romney-to-win-state-polls-must-be-statistically-biased/

On November 04 2012 06:45 Feartheguru wrote:


How can you possibly know who the undecided vote is favoring lol.

On November 04 2012 06:59 Feartheguru wrote:


So..... if the RCP says Romney is ahead while 5 other polls show Romney being behind, those other polls must all be wrong, since they are going against the all powerful truth known as RCP am I right?

On November 04 2012 06:57 mynameisgreat11 wrote:


You predict wins in states where Obama has huge leads. Might as well declare California for red while you're at it.

On November 04 2012 06:57 Feartheguru wrote:


It's up to you to bring up consistent cases of the phenomena being true, then for me to show how the correlation does not exist.

On November 04 2012 07:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:

RCP is an aggregate.


within the MoE is not "huge leads"...


unless conventional wisdom would suggest that it is so, than the burden usually falls on the challenger of that wisdom.

On November 04 2012 06:59 Feartheguru wrote:


So..... if the RCP says Romney is ahead while 5 other polls show Romney being behind, those other polls must all be wrong, since they are going against the all powerful truth known as RCP am I right?

On November 04 2012 06:57 mynameisgreat11 wrote:


You predict wins in states where Obama has huge leads. Might as well declare California for red while you're at it.

On November 04 2012 06:57 Feartheguru wrote:


It's up to you to bring up consistent cases of the phenomena being true, then for me to show how the correlation does not exist.

On November 04 2012 07:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:

RCP is an aggregate.


within the MoE is not "huge leads"...


unless conventional wisdom would suggest that it is so, than the burden usually falls on the challenger of that wisdom.

On November 04 2012 07:06 DoubleReed wrote:
Both 538 and RCP are saying that Virginia is incredibly close, so I don't know why anyone is saying it's going one way or another. Shrug.

On November 04 2012 04:45 coverpunch wrote:

This is quite a series of mischaracterizations.

Ben Bernanke has been insistent that quantitative easing was a necessary and vital policy to stave off disaster and kick off growth, and he's been forced to admit subsequently after each round that its effect has been smaller than he thought and MUCH smaller than economic theory has suggested. Which he already knows because he spent the 90s criticizing Japan for doing too many rounds of QE. It doesn't work. The banks aren't asking for liquidity but for some reason the Fed is giving it to them anyways.

Stimulus is NOT the answer. Who the hell is the government going to give money to? People who can't afford their standard of living? That's a moral hazard. Companies that lose money? That's stupid and crazy. Companies that make money? Maybe, but companies that make money already get money. People that can afford their standard of living? Possibly, but that's a hard sell to the public (see, tax cuts).

Interest rates that are low isn't an indication that the government has a blank check to create massive debt. There are many different reasons why that can happen. If you don't see the folly in that, you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near debt, especially not debt that you want other people to help pay off. If a debt crisis comes, we won't see a long period of warning signs, it will be a sudden massive ballooning of the problem.

How effective are balance sheet policies? After nearly four years of experience with large-scale asset purchases, a substantial body of empirical work on their effects has emerged. Generally, this research finds that the Federal Reserve's large-scale purchases have significantly lowered long-term Treasury yields. For example, studies have found that the $1.7 trillion in purchases of Treasury and agency securities under the first LSAP program reduced the yield on 10-year Treasury securities by between 40 and 110 basis points. The $600 billion in Treasury purchases under the second LSAP program has been credited with lowering 10-year yields by an additional 15 to 45 basis points.12 Three studies considering the cumulative influence of all the Federal Reserve's asset purchases, including those made under the MEP, found total effects between 80 and 120 basis points on the 10-year Treasury yield.13 These effects are economically meaningful.

Importantly, the effects of LSAPs do not appear to be confined to longer-term Treasury yields. Notably, LSAPs have been found to be associated with significant declines in the yields on both corporate bonds and MBS.14 The first purchase program, in particular, has been linked to substantial reductions in MBS yields and retail mortgage rates. LSAPs also appear to have boosted stock prices, presumably both by lowering discount rates and by improving the economic outlook; it is probably not a coincidence that the sustained recovery in U.S. equity prices began in March 2009, shortly after the FOMC's decision to greatly expand securities purchases. This effect is potentially important because stock values affect both consumption and investment decisions.

While there is substantial evidence that the Federal Reserve's asset purchases have lowered longer-term yields and eased broader financial conditions, obtaining precise estimates of the effects of these operations on the broader economy is inherently difficult, as the counterfactual--how the economy would have performed in the absence of the Federal Reserve's actions--cannot be directly observed. If we are willing to take as a working assumption that the effects of easier financial conditions on the economy are similar to those observed historically, then econometric models can be used to estimate the effects of LSAPs on the economy. Model simulations conducted at the Federal Reserve generally find that the securities purchase programs have provided significant help for the economy. For example, a study using the Board's FRB/US model of the economy found that, as of 2012, the first two rounds of LSAPs may have raised the level of output by almost 3 percent and increased private payroll employment by more than 2 million jobs, relative to what otherwise would have occurred.15 The Bank of England has used LSAPs in a manner similar to that of the Federal Reserve, so it is of interest that researchers have found the financial and macroeconomic effects of the British programs to be qualitatively similar to those in the United States.16

To be sure, these estimates of the macroeconomic effects of LSAPs should be treated with caution. It is likely that the crisis and the recession have attenuated some of the normal transmission channels of monetary policy relative to what is assumed in the models; for example, restrictive mortgage underwriting standards have reduced the effects of lower mortgage rates. Further, the estimated macroeconomic effects depend on uncertain estimates of the persistence of the effects of LSAPs on financial conditions.17 Overall, however, a balanced reading of the evidence supports the conclusion that central bank securities purchases have provided meaningful support to the economic recovery while mitigating deflationary risks.

Source: http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20120831a.htm

In a hard-hitting 2000 paper titled “Japanese Monetary Policy: A Case of Self-Induced Paralysis?” Bernanke declared that “far from being powerless, the Bank of Japan could achieve a great deal if it were willing to abandon its excessive caution and its defensive response to criticism.” He proceeded to lay out a number of actions the Bank of Japan could take. And he called on Japanese policy makers to act like F.D.R. and do whatever it took: “Japan is not in a Great Depression by any means, but its economy has operated below potential for nearly a decade. Nor is it by any means clear that recovery is imminent. Policy options exist that could greatly reduce these losses. Why isn’t more happening? To this outsider, at least, Japanese monetary policy seems paralyzed, with a paralysis that is largely self-induced. Most striking is the apparent unwillingness of the monetary authorities to experiment, to try anything that isn’t absolutely guaranteed to work. Perhaps it’s time for some Rooseveltian resolve in Japan.”

Bernanke had some specific proposals that could serve as advice for the Fed today. One set of options would have it take a larger role in financial markets. Short-term interest rates may be zero, unable to go lower, but longer-term rates aren’t. So the Fed, which typically buys only short-term U.S. government debt, could expand its portfolio, buying long-term government debt, bonds backed by home mortgages and so on, in an effort to drive down the interest rates on these assets. This is the strategy that has come to be known, unhelpfully, as quantitative easing.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/magazine/chairman-bernanke-should-listen-to-professor-bernanke.html

On November 04 2012 06:18 Defacer wrote:
If Romney loses:

This fucking Republican Bubble has to burst. IT NEEDS TO, if they ever plan on ever winning an election. This perception and mythology that Republicans and conservatives have created around the Obama presidency is fucking ridiculous.

Obama isn't perfect, but he did save the Auto industry, prevent a great depression, add 4.5 million jobs, reform health care, reform student loans, cut 1 trillion in spending, end the war in Iraq, liberate Libya, and killed Osama Bin Laden and most of Al Qaeda's key operatives in four years.

Conservatives insist that Obama is an abomination, or the worst president in US history. Pffft. He isn't even the worst president in the last 8 years.