|
|
Even Maureen Dowd understands what the problem with Clinton's comments is:
On Thursday, Bill Clinton once more telegraphed that he considers Obama a lightweight who should not have bested his wife. Bluntly contradicting the Obama campaign theme that Romney is a heartless corporate raider, Clinton told CNN that the Republican’s record at Bain was “sterling.”
Source.
I strongly suggest that you liberals read all of Dowd's article. It should be a nice wake up call for why Obama is in trouble and why Obama had a really bad week, despite all of this Trump nonsense. I think that there are a few things that she's wrong about (such as chalking up Obamacare's unpopularity to losing the publicity war as opposed to the simple fact that it's a bad bill), but it's still a refreshingly honest assessment of Obama from the left.
|
It would be nice if the OP added in some easy to access info like the intrade odds:
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=84326
and RealClearPolitics poll average:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
and maybe even the electoral map:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html
and anything else like that so that newcomers to the thread have easy access to seeing the current state of the race
|
|
|
On June 02 2012 15:58 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2012 15:15 DeepElemBlues wrote:On June 02 2012 15:02 Defacer wrote:On June 02 2012 14:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:He is actually repeating the same mistake as McCain meaning he has attached or allowed someone more popular/crazy than him to steal and keep the limelight on someone other than him. His Texas win should have been all about Romney yet who was being interviewed by all the news Networks? Trump. So Trump shows up in the news cycle for one day and was immediately shoved off into the memory hole of that news cycle by the dueling press conferences in California and Massachusetts - and this shows that Romney is repeating McCain's mistakes by allowing the limelight to be on someone else. Well, if that's the spin you want to put on it, fine, but it's still weak as hell. No one but Obama partisans getting the vapors cares that Mitt Romney won't dance to their tune about Donald Trump. No one but the most hard-up of political junkies is going to remember a month from now. The truth is, Mitt Romney not denouncing Trump or Ted Nugent or Rush Limbaugh or any of the other wackos out there is energizing the Right. Mitt Romney, unlike McCain, has no integrity or boundaries, and more then happy to let other people fight dirty on his behalf. It allows him to pander to extremists *cough* racists while showing the rest of the GOP that he will do or say anything to win. It's actually a brilliant strategy. http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/mitt-romney-fighting-moderate-wins-over-the-righIt doesn't play into your more self-serving narrative, but it has the benefit of being more accurate. You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to. Are you going to argue that it isn't pandering? Do you actually think Romney agrees with Trump? Or that there are extremely vocal factions of the right that aren't essentially xeno/homophobes?
Are you going to argue that there aren't extremely vocal factions of the left that aren't essentially commie/socialists?
Just because some are doesn't make the majority so. Be fair.
And think about it... Romney has no need to pander to racists or bigots... who else they going to vote for?
|
Electoral college wise... I'm looking at a 5+1 strategy for Romney.
Needs the following : Win everything that McCain won. (178 electoral votes). McCain won 172, but the new census would make it 178. I don't see this as much of a reach. McCain won Missouri by 4,000 votes. That might be the one state that Romney has a chance of losing.
Win NC, IN, FL, OH, VA. These are the 5 must haves. Romeney loses one of these it is OVER. No if's, and's, or but's.
Win one of the following IA, MN, or CO.
That would put Romney at 271-274 electoral votes.
|
On June 05 2012 04:29 RCMDVA wrote:
Electoral college wise... I'm looking at a 5+1 strategy for Romney.
Needs the following : Win everything that McCain won. (178 electoral votes). McCain won 172, but the new census would make it 178. I don't see this as much of a reach. McCain won Missouri by 4,000 votes. That might be the one state that Romney has a chance of losing.
Win NC, IN, FL, OH, VA. These are the 5 must haves. Romeney loses one of these it is OVER. No if's, and's, or but's.
Win one of the following IA, MN, or CO.
That would put Romney at 271-274 electoral votes.
Ouch thats a pretty rough assesment considering I don't see a way Romney wins VA, and while Obama might be damaged goods now in Ohio because of the gay marriage thing I don't see the damage lasting.
I think Romney takes NC, IN, FL (if Rubio, if no Rubio too close to call), CO.
|
I'd lay 10-1 odds that Obama wins the election.........
|
Why do people this election thing serious anymore ? Before Obama, it was all about hope, change and all that stuff....Now 4 years later, everything is not even the same, it is worse. It's not like I blame Obama or Bush or whatever, It's just an old system which is clearly broke, and since we are using the internet, it must be changed. This system was supposed to run in a world where common people wouldn't have access today right now at what the director of CIA had access 40 years ago.
Why would you care about who wins ? Will they solve any issues ? Do they have the power ? Is it even reasonable to think that it is ok to put ONE guy in charge of 300 million ? Gross over-simplification, sure, but still, this is the picture of it. We have the ability to communicate with each other in live time, the time of the "state" is over. People should forget about president or representatives and think what is the political system that would benefit all of us in a better way with the technology that we have today. Transparency was never on the agenda of the "State" back in the day.
Sry if some1 takes this the wrong way but.....as far as I see it, whoever thinks about the election ( and does not work in journalism/politics ) is wasting their time and focus. It's all going down because of the fact that people want to hold on to these basically dead institutions ...
|
On June 05 2012 05:08 Silidons wrote:
I'd lay 10-1 odds that Obama wins the election.........
I'd take those odds. I would bet Obama wins too, but I'd never put it at those odds!
|
On June 05 2012 05:19 bOneSeven wrote:
Why do people this election thing serious anymore ? Before Obama, it was all about hope, change and all that stuff....Now 4 years later, everything is not even the same, it is worse. It's not like I blame Obama or Bush or whatever, It's just an old system which is clearly broke, and since we are using the internet, it must be changed. This system was supposed to run in a world where common people wouldn't have access today right now at what the director of CIA had access 40 years ago.
Why would you care about who wins ? Will they solve any issues ? Do they have the power ? Is it even reasonable to think that it is ok to put ONE guy in charge of 300 million ? Gross over-simplification, sure, but still, this is the picture of it. We have the ability to communicate with each other in live time, the time of the "state" is over. People should forget about president or representatives and think what is the political system that would benefit all of us in a better way with the technology that we have today. Transparency was never on the agenda of the "State" back in the day.
Sry if some1 takes this the wrong way but.....as far as I see it, whoever thinks about the election ( and does not work in journalism/politics ) is wasting their time and focus. It's all going down because of the fact that people want to hold on to these basically dead institutions ...
You have awakened my soul and mind, for I was once blind but now I can see.
Ok now you can go back to various libertarian forums or abovetopsecret to discuss how to stop the New(ish)((kinda old actually)) World order.
|
On June 05 2012 05:19 bOneSeven wrote:
Why do people this election thing serious anymore ? Before Obama, it was all about hope, change and all that stuff....Now 4 years later, everything is not even the same, it is worse. It's not like I blame Obama or Bush or whatever, It's just an old system which is clearly broke, and since we are using the internet, it must be changed. This system was supposed to run in a world where common people wouldn't have access today right now at what the director of CIA had access 40 years ago.
Why would you care about who wins ? Will they solve any issues ? Do they have the power ? Is it even reasonable to think that it is ok to put ONE guy in charge of 300 million ? Gross over-simplification, sure, but still, this is the picture of it. We have the ability to communicate with each other in live time, the time of the "state" is over. People should forget about president or representatives and think what is the political system that would benefit all of us in a better way with the technology that we have today. Transparency was never on the agenda of the "State" back in the day.
Sry if some1 takes this the wrong way but.....as far as I see it, whoever thinks about the election ( and does not work in journalism/politics ) is wasting their time and focus. It's all going down because of the fact that people want to hold on to these basically dead institutions ...
What dead institutions? What system wasn't supposed to run? What in the world do you mean by "the time of the state is over"? Can you explain any of this with any detail, or are you just spouting random nonsense?
Also, Romney and Obama have very different domestic agendas and drasically different economic philosphies as far as inequality and poverty are concerned. Saying that it doesn't matter who wins is a bit rediculous. While the degree to which either can impliment their agendas hinges greatly on the makeup of Congress, Romeny could still dismantly quite a bit of the things Obama has done, and Obama could likewise prevent a Republican controlled Congress from implimenting their agenda.
|
So 3 chambers, 2 possible outcomes. Any americans wanna endevour into the world of hypothetical scenarios?
What are the most likely scenarios and what will the resulting policies be?
Attach some policies you think would fly under these situations and also what you think is completely unrealistic or most likely:
RRR:
RRD:
RDR:
DRR:
RDD:
DRD:
DDR:
DDD:
First letter is the house, second letter is the senate and third letter is the president.
R stands for republican majority and D stands for democratic majority.
Try to keep away from being too hawkishly partisan.
|
On June 05 2012 05:25 forgottendreams wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2012 05:19 bOneSeven wrote:
Why do people this election thing serious anymore ? Before Obama, it was all about hope, change and all that stuff....Now 4 years later, everything is not even the same, it is worse. It's not like I blame Obama or Bush or whatever, It's just an old system which is clearly broke, and since we are using the internet, it must be changed. This system was supposed to run in a world where common people wouldn't have access today right now at what the director of CIA had access 40 years ago.
Why would you care about who wins ? Will they solve any issues ? Do they have the power ? Is it even reasonable to think that it is ok to put ONE guy in charge of 300 million ? Gross over-simplification, sure, but still, this is the picture of it. We have the ability to communicate with each other in live time, the time of the "state" is over. People should forget about president or representatives and think what is the political system that would benefit all of us in a better way with the technology that we have today. Transparency was never on the agenda of the "State" back in the day.
Sry if some1 takes this the wrong way but.....as far as I see it, whoever thinks about the election ( and does not work in journalism/politics ) is wasting their time and focus. It's all going down because of the fact that people want to hold on to these basically dead institutions ... You have awakened my soul and mind, for I was once blind but now I can see. Ok now you can go back to various libertarian forums or abovetopsecret to discuss how to stop the New(ish)((kinda old actually)) World order.
Well you take things for granted. The internet is an extremely revolutionary tool, the state was created before the internet....therefore..... Am I the crazy naive guy when you even take in consideration anything related to elections ? The state works only because most people are very dumb and they need a governing body to take care of them, and also because there are some "bad" people who would probably do some terrible things in complete anarchy. But if you educate the "stupid" and also give a healthy environment for the potentially bad guys to develop under, you probably will have limited occurances of "bad things". Statist people are simple cynics of our time. We can't continue like this either. Business as usual is of the table, we are going into a selfdestruction mode if we don't change for the better.
You make me sad for the human race, because you have already gave up.
|
On June 05 2012 06:50 bOneSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2012 05:25 forgottendreams wrote:On June 05 2012 05:19 bOneSeven wrote:
Why do people this election thing serious anymore ? Before Obama, it was all about hope, change and all that stuff....Now 4 years later, everything is not even the same, it is worse. It's not like I blame Obama or Bush or whatever, It's just an old system which is clearly broke, and since we are using the internet, it must be changed. This system was supposed to run in a world where common people wouldn't have access today right now at what the director of CIA had access 40 years ago.
Why would you care about who wins ? Will they solve any issues ? Do they have the power ? Is it even reasonable to think that it is ok to put ONE guy in charge of 300 million ? Gross over-simplification, sure, but still, this is the picture of it. We have the ability to communicate with each other in live time, the time of the "state" is over. People should forget about president or representatives and think what is the political system that would benefit all of us in a better way with the technology that we have today. Transparency was never on the agenda of the "State" back in the day.
Sry if some1 takes this the wrong way but.....as far as I see it, whoever thinks about the election ( and does not work in journalism/politics ) is wasting their time and focus. It's all going down because of the fact that people want to hold on to these basically dead institutions ... You have awakened my soul and mind, for I was once blind but now I can see. Ok now you can go back to various libertarian forums or abovetopsecret to discuss how to stop the New(ish)((kinda old actually)) World order. Well you take things for granted. The internet is an extremely revolutionary tool, the state was created before the internet....therefore..... Am I the crazy naive guy when you even take in consideration anything related to elections ? The state works only because most people are very dumb and they need a governing body to take care of them, and also because there are some "bad" people who would probably do some terrible things in complete anarchy. But if you educate the "stupid" and also give a healthy environment for the potentially bad guys to develop under, you probably will have limited occurances of "bad things". Statist people are simple cynics of our time. We can't continue like this either. Business as usual is of the table, we are going into a selfdestruction mode if we don't change for the better. You make me sad for the human race, because you have already gave up.
Yeah, okay you're just repeating the same vague nonsense as before.
I'm actually willing to have a discussion about libertarianism. I lean libertarian and it's a topic that is related to this election as many libertarian-like ideas make up the underpinning of the tea party and some Ron Paul supporters--both of which could potentially have a huge impact on this election.
I asked you some serious questions about what you said yet you instead chose to respond to the joke reply. If you're going to just regurgitate the same grossly vague talking points and never actually engage in a discussion, please leave. Some of us would actually like to have a real conversation.
|
On June 05 2012 06:57 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2012 06:50 bOneSeven wrote:On June 05 2012 05:25 forgottendreams wrote:On June 05 2012 05:19 bOneSeven wrote:
Why do people this election thing serious anymore ? Before Obama, it was all about hope, change and all that stuff....Now 4 years later, everything is not even the same, it is worse. It's not like I blame Obama or Bush or whatever, It's just an old system which is clearly broke, and since we are using the internet, it must be changed. This system was supposed to run in a world where common people wouldn't have access today right now at what the director of CIA had access 40 years ago.
Why would you care about who wins ? Will they solve any issues ? Do they have the power ? Is it even reasonable to think that it is ok to put ONE guy in charge of 300 million ? Gross over-simplification, sure, but still, this is the picture of it. We have the ability to communicate with each other in live time, the time of the "state" is over. People should forget about president or representatives and think what is the political system that would benefit all of us in a better way with the technology that we have today. Transparency was never on the agenda of the "State" back in the day.
Sry if some1 takes this the wrong way but.....as far as I see it, whoever thinks about the election ( and does not work in journalism/politics ) is wasting their time and focus. It's all going down because of the fact that people want to hold on to these basically dead institutions ... You have awakened my soul and mind, for I was once blind but now I can see. Ok now you can go back to various libertarian forums or abovetopsecret to discuss how to stop the New(ish)((kinda old actually)) World order. Well you take things for granted. The internet is an extremely revolutionary tool, the state was created before the internet....therefore..... Am I the crazy naive guy when you even take in consideration anything related to elections ? The state works only because most people are very dumb and they need a governing body to take care of them, and also because there are some "bad" people who would probably do some terrible things in complete anarchy. But if you educate the "stupid" and also give a healthy environment for the potentially bad guys to develop under, you probably will have limited occurances of "bad things". Statist people are simple cynics of our time. We can't continue like this either. Business as usual is of the table, we are going into a selfdestruction mode if we don't change for the better. You make me sad for the human race, because you have already gave up. Yeah, okay you're just repeating the same vague nonsense as before. I'm actually willing to have a discussion about libertarianism. I lean libertarian and it's a topic that is related to this election as many libertarian-like ideas make up the underpinning of the tea party and some Ron Paul supporters--both of which could potentially have a huge impact on this election. I asked you some serious questions about what you said yet you instead chose to respond to the joke reply. If you're going to just regurgitate the same grossly vague talking points and never actually engage in a discussion, please leave. Some of us would actually like to have a real conversation.
I look at my reply and I sigh at the stupidity in it. However I cannot a give better reply to what you just wrote.
Sry bro but I can only mumble this thing: Our technology exceeded our institutions. Get over it.
Can't even write much, am ingame atm...Also I have no political ideology, but I guess I would rather lean on libertarianism, because it makes sense, from an optimistic pov. If you wanna be a pessimistic "realist", do what you want, but in the end if we think like that, why would we have the symphonies or the electric bulb ? Can't write anything but vague stuff, go figure.
|
+ Show Spoiler +
Oh god, is Krugman really using Scandanavian countries as one of his vantage points of arguement now? Shoulda just stuck with the fake aliens bro.
As for the poster several places above, I'm thinking RRD or RDR. Either way I don't see much happening over the next 4 years barring a war with Iran.
|
On June 05 2012 05:27 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2012 05:19 bOneSeven wrote:
Why do people this election thing serious anymore ? Before Obama, it was all about hope, change and all that stuff....Now 4 years later, everything is not even the same, it is worse. It's not like I blame Obama or Bush or whatever, It's just an old system which is clearly broke, and since we are using the internet, it must be changed. This system was supposed to run in a world where common people wouldn't have access today right now at what the director of CIA had access 40 years ago.
Why would you care about who wins ? Will they solve any issues ? Do they have the power ? Is it even reasonable to think that it is ok to put ONE guy in charge of 300 million ? Gross over-simplification, sure, but still, this is the picture of it. We have the ability to communicate with each other in live time, the time of the "state" is over. People should forget about president or representatives and think what is the political system that would benefit all of us in a better way with the technology that we have today. Transparency was never on the agenda of the "State" back in the day.
Sry if some1 takes this the wrong way but.....as far as I see it, whoever thinks about the election ( and does not work in journalism/politics ) is wasting their time and focus. It's all going down because of the fact that people want to hold on to these basically dead institutions ... What dead institutions? What system wasn't supposed to run? What in the world do you mean by "the time of the state is over"? Can you explain any of this with any detail, or are you just spouting random nonsense? Also, Romney and Obama have very different domestic agendas and drasically different economic philosphies as far as inequality and poverty are concerned. Saying that it doesn't matter who wins is a bit rediculous. While the degree to which either can impliment their agendas hinges greatly on the makeup of Congress, Romeny could still dismantly quite a bit of the things Obama has done, and Obama could likewise prevent a Republican controlled Congress from implimenting their agenda.
Well; I can infer from the fact that you call them 'very different' that you (sort of) still believe in the system and sort of really think that the policies are that radically different. However some people - me included - have a more 'radical' view, in the sense that we think the system is as flawed as royal absolutism was about 300 years ago.
To make an analogy; because you view them from up close, the differences are really big. But people like me look at it from a far a way distance and the differences are therefore minor.
I am not sure if bOneSeven has similar alternative idas as I do, but I guess he says that the differences are minor for a very similar reason. (Because he looks at it from a pov that is further away from the status quo than you do.)
|
Oh god, is Krugman really using Scandanavian countries as one of his vantage points of arguement now? Shoulda just stuck with the fake aliens bro.
Scandinavia is the last refuge of the welfare statist. The one place where the model hasn't sank into its own muck, so the model works! 40 million people in 4 highly productive economies can be supported by cradle-to-the-grave government, so why can't 700 million in America and the rest of Europe be similarly supported? It's a mystery! There are no real differences, right?
Krugman is always good for a laugh.
To make an analogy; because you view them from up close, the differences are really big. But people like me look at it from a far a way distance and the differences are therefore minor.
Spending a trillion+ less a year is a big difference whether you're looking at it from far away or close-up.
|
On June 05 2012 06:57 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2012 06:50 bOneSeven wrote:On June 05 2012 05:25 forgottendreams wrote:On June 05 2012 05:19 bOneSeven wrote:
Why do people this election thing serious anymore ? Before Obama, it was all about hope, change and all that stuff....Now 4 years later, everything is not even the same, it is worse. It's not like I blame Obama or Bush or whatever, It's just an old system which is clearly broke, and since we are using the internet, it must be changed. This system was supposed to run in a world where common people wouldn't have access today right now at what the director of CIA had access 40 years ago.
Why would you care about who wins ? Will they solve any issues ? Do they have the power ? Is it even reasonable to think that it is ok to put ONE guy in charge of 300 million ? Gross over-simplification, sure, but still, this is the picture of it. We have the ability to communicate with each other in live time, the time of the "state" is over. People should forget about president or representatives and think what is the political system that would benefit all of us in a better way with the technology that we have today. Transparency was never on the agenda of the "State" back in the day.
Sry if some1 takes this the wrong way but.....as far as I see it, whoever thinks about the election ( and does not work in journalism/politics ) is wasting their time and focus. It's all going down because of the fact that people want to hold on to these basically dead institutions ... You have awakened my soul and mind, for I was once blind but now I can see. Ok now you can go back to various libertarian forums or abovetopsecret to discuss how to stop the New(ish)((kinda old actually)) World order. Well you take things for granted. The internet is an extremely revolutionary tool, the state was created before the internet....therefore..... Am I the crazy naive guy when you even take in consideration anything related to elections ? The state works only because most people are very dumb and they need a governing body to take care of them, and also because there are some "bad" people who would probably do some terrible things in complete anarchy. But if you educate the "stupid" and also give a healthy environment for the potentially bad guys to develop under, you probably will have limited occurances of "bad things". Statist people are simple cynics of our time. We can't continue like this either. Business as usual is of the table, we are going into a selfdestruction mode if we don't change for the better. You make me sad for the human race, because you have already gave up. Yeah, okay you're just repeating the same vague nonsense as before. I'm actually willing to have a discussion about libertarianism. I lean libertarian and it's a topic that is related to this election as many libertarian-like ideas make up the underpinning of the tea party and some Ron Paul supporters--both of which could potentially have a huge impact on this election. I asked you some serious questions about what you said yet you instead chose to respond to the joke reply. If you're going to just regurgitate the same grossly vague talking points and never actually engage in a discussion, please leave. Some of us would actually like to have a real conversation.
If you want a discussion on libertarianism, I invite you to start one. Although I accept that my position is a position that is far and far in the minority in the current Western political spectrum, I am always happy to discuss some of the issues with people who are genuinely interested. I am in no mood for someone who is going to be like 'libertarianism is wrong and here is why!!!!!' As you can probably guess, there are sufficient of these people on the interwebs. But I am always interested in having a nice chat about these ideas and explain some things if you have some problems with it.
I would, by the way, say that libertarian ideas underpin some tea party supporters and most Ron Paul supporters, not the other way around. 
|
Spending a trillion+ less a year is a big difference whether you're looking at it from far away or close-up.
That is true; but which one of the two wants to cut a trillion dollars from th ebudget?
I know only one candidate, but he's probably not getting enough delegates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
