U.S. Politics

Page 146 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mar 10, 2009
7,279
0
0
So how likely is that Romney will pick Condoleezza Rice as VP?

Electoral associations
Romney: Man; White; Pragmatic; Business/Economy; Moderate.
Rice: Woman; Black; Smart-intellectual; Foreign Policy - Hawk; Conservative.

Contrary to Rubio, she has already been in the Executive branch for a 2 term president.

Condoleezza Rice Endorses Romney Citing His Leadership

Rice is often mentioned as a possible vice presidential pick for Romney because the former Bush administration official would boost his foreign policy credentials, help secure women’s votes and potentially draw black voters who have been loyal to President Barack Obama.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
Now is as good of time as any to say I've pretty much given up on this thread. I like everyone here, and politics just gets in the way of that, as some of you have probably noticed. Plus I'm completely sick of the entire system and have almost no faith or trust in any politician from any party or persuasion. I just got directed here today from the post by Rip, that I see Bala already took care of, so I thought I would make a post.

Cheers everyone, and see you around elsewhere.

:cool:
Ah, no faith in the politicians. Well there is only one force today which seems to govern the world and it is that of the financial markets, though it can only do so because it has filled the void of "governance" created by those who govern politics. For this reason every time the markets react unfavorably to policy, the politicians get down on their knees as if doing penitence before the Almighty. But finance isn't God!
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Interesting - I thought Obama would take a hit after that disastrous jobs report, but the latest polling has him up 7 nationally, up 4 in FL, and up 12 in PA.

But...Solyndra!

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is breaking with Mitt Romney and some Capitol Hill Republicans by expressing support for federal green-energy programs, including the one that provided loan help to the now-bankrupt Solyndra. Murkowski, the top Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said she supports continuation of the Energy’s Department loan-guarantee program for green energy, and more broadly backs a federal role in boosting market deployment of alternative energy...the senator warned against a “knee-jerk” response to Solyndra of seeking to torpedo the entire loan program, which was first authorized in a bipartisan 2005 energy law and modified through the 2009 stimulus law. “I think we need to get through this period and be able to reflect on what it is that actually comes out of these loan guarantee programs. We are focusing right now on the failures instead of also recognizing that we have done good things for the loan guarantee program,” Murkowski said.
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/230947-murkowski-eyeing-chairmanship-mulls-changes-to-green-energy-loan-program

Heh, "knee-jerk".

And this is getting redundant - Romney's rhetoric contradicting his own actions.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-06/romney-critical-of-government-aid-that-helped-bain-profit.html

Mitt Romney likes to say that “government does not create prosperity.” His record in the private equity industry shows otherwise. During Romney’s years as chief executive of Bain Capital LLC, companies owned by the firm received millions of dollars in benefits from a variety of state and local government economic development programs...Asked about the disconnect between Romney’s free market rhetoric and Bain’s track record, Amanda Henneberg, a campaign spokeswoman, said: “It’s not at all uncommon for state and local governments to use competitive incentives and programs to create a favorable business climate.” Yet in his Chicago speech, the former Massachusetts governor decried the “endless subsidies and credits intended to shape behavior in our economic society,” and assailed government “intrusion in the workings of the free marketplace itself.”
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Basically what it's all about.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/the-gops-bizarre-disturbing-passion-for-raising-taxes-on-the-poor/258126/

Two explanations jump to mind. The first is that the modern Republican Party is funded by the very rich. Since the 1970s, electoral politics has gotten much more expensive (in real terms). As political scientist Thomas Ferguson and others have argued, modern political parties have adapted by granting leadership positions to those members best able to bring in large contributions--a strategy pioneered by Newt Gingrich but since slavishly imitated by the Democrats.

The result is that the parties' platforms now reflect the wishes of their major funders, not their median voters. This is why Republican presidential candidates spent the primary season competing to offer the most generous tax breaks to the rich--while Paul Ryan's budget slashes Medicare, a program supported by the Tea Party rank and file. For the rich people who call the shots, it's simply in their interest to lower taxes on the rich and raise them on the poor. End of story.

The other, even-more-disturbing explanation, is that Republicans see the rich as worthy members of society (the "producers") and the poor as a drain on society (the "takers"). In this warped moral universe, it isn't enough that someone with a gross income of $10 million takes home $8.1 million while someone with a gross income of $20,000 takes home $19,000.* That's called "punishing success," so we should really increase taxes on the poor person so we can "reward success" by letting the rich person take home even more. This is why today's conservatives have gone beyond the typical libertarian and supply-side arguments for lower taxes on the rich, and the campaign to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich has taken on such self-righteous tones.
Considering Ryan's "moral budget" comments, I'm betting it's more the latter - the poor have no say or standing in Republican World, so we can do to them what we wish.

And once again proving that they and reality are mutually exclusive, your modern day Republican.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/congressional-budget-office-defends-stimulus/2012/06/06/gJQAnFnjJV_story.html
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,279
0
0
Good news for the the Romney camp:

Mitt Romney raises $17m more than Barack Obama campaign - BBC

Mr Romney and the Republicans raised $76.8m, while the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party brought in $60m.

Mr Romney now has $107m cash on hand, almost matching the $115m Mr Obama's campaign had by the end of April.
One more haul and he is even steven, or aheady betty. :confused:

It's going to be ugly if you live in FL, NC, CO, VA etc.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Bala Verde said:
Good news for the the Romney camp:

Mitt Romney raises $17m more than Barack Obama campaign - BBC



One more haul and he is even steven, or aheady betty. :confused:

It's going to be ugly if you live in FL, NC, CO, VA etc.
They might want to recount that haul, as apparently counting is not one of the Romney teams strong points:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/the-romney-campaigns-route-to-270-doesnt-get-to-270/258195/

Whoops.

"The seven must-win states are Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia". Good luck with that.
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
Bala Verde said:
Good news for the the Romney camp:

Mitt Romney raises $17m more than Barack Obama campaign - BBC



One more haul and he is even steven, or aheady betty. :confused:

It's going to be ugly if you live in FL, NC, CO, VA etc.
You should note that the figures represent May only. Romney is way behind Obama in overall fundraising. Obama has had no primary season. His account is a wad. That may be swinging the other way now. Still looking for a proper link for the real overall numbers.
 
BillytheKid said:
You should note that the figures represent May only. Romney is way behind Obama in overall fundraising. Obama has had no primary season. His account is a wad. That may be swinging the other way now. Still looking for a proper link for the real overall numbers.
Yes but campaign finance was supposed to be a big advantage to obama. It probably still will be but surprising to see Romney do so well.
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
The Hitch said:
Yes but campaign finance was supposed to be a big advantage to obama. It probably still will be but surprising to see Romney do so well.
If the vote is on the economy, then that might be so.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
The Hitch said:
Yes but campaign finance was supposed to be a big advantage to obama. It probably still will be but surprising to see Romney do so well.
Not that surprising. Wall St has ditched Obama for Romney and that's where most of Romney's money is coming from.

Of the top 20 organizations and businesses with donors who contributed to the Obama campaign, not one is a bank or investment firm, according to Center for Responsive Politics data.
...but with one or two exceptions, all of Romney's top 20 are banks or investment firms:

OBama: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00009638&cycle=2012
Romney: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286

I'm guessing that these stats don't include May, but clearly money is not going to be a concern for Obama.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/head2head.php?cycle=2012

As an aside, how the hell did Randall Terry manage to raise a single cent, let alone $160,000??
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
VeloCity said:
Not that surprising. Wall St has ditched Obama for Romney and that's where most of Romney's money is coming from.

...but with one or two exceptions, all of Romney's top 20 are banks or investment firms:

OBama: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00009638&cycle=2012
Romney: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286

I'm guessing that these stats don't include May, but clearly money is not going to be a concern for Obama.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/head2head.php?cycle=2012

As an aside, how the hell did Randall Terry manage to raise a single cent, let alone $160,000??
They alway hedge their bets. Money flowing to both sides as usual. Nothing new under the sun.:rolleyes:
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
BillytheKid said:
They alway hedge their bets. Money flowing to both sides as usual. Nothing new under the sun.:rolleyes:
Not really - unlike 2008 when they were donating heavily to Obama, Wall St and the banks are primarily backing Romney this time. Not surprising, since Romney's offering them what they want.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Romney inadvertently reveals the right's complete inability to make connections:

He says we need more fireman, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It's time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.
God no, no more teachers or police or firefighters. Not that. What we really need is tax cuts for the wealthy! Again! And watch deficits magically disappear!

Is it really any wonder the country goes down the toilet every time Republicans are in charge?

And this by itself should automatically disqualify Romney.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/06/they-have-learned-nothing.html

It would have been one thing to work with the Syrian diaspora to remove Assad and the Baath party when we had a massive military presence in Iraq, right on Syria’s border. In the days just after Saddam’s ouster in 2003, conditions were optimal (if nonetheless imperfect) for overthrowing Assad and replacing his regime with something compatible with American interests. We would not have needed to use U.S. ground forces. Our mere presence in Iraq could have precluded Iran — or, what we see today, an Iraq under Iran’s influence — from trying to protect Assad...Significantly, U.S. intervention could not be confined to Syria and would inevitably entail confronting Iran and possibly Russia. This the Obama administration is unwilling to do, although it should. - John Bolton
So...in addition to invading Iraq, Bolton wanted to invade Syria and "confront" Iran and Russia. And what did Romney have to say about Bolton?

John’s wisdom, clarity and courage are qualities that should typify our foreign policy.
Complete ****ing morons.
 
“Ma se ce li dassero direttamente a noi, no sarebbe meglio?” (“But if they was to give it directly to us, wouldn’t it be better?”) , said my friend T, commenting from the headlines of the dailies from the little bar table about the enth boat of billions destined to the Spanish banks from the EU. T. isn’t exactly an intellectual, as is documented by “was.” Therefore we can’t expect from him a refined consciousness of the mechanisms of financial-economics. However, the suspicion that he is at least partly correct (after the fourth coffee and tenth cigarette it often happens to him) isn’t easy to dismiss.

Because at this point, since the fourth year of a crisis begun in 2008 (thanks to the demented stuffing of financial capital by some grand banks, who were therefore the accomplices or even perpetrators of it all), apart from the public budget cuts that was the only notable intervention, the only other remedy has been the continuous interjection of (public) money to save the American and European banks. I understand the economy about as much as T., that is little. However I wouldn’t say in regards to saving the credit system that it has not quite corresponded to a better circulation of money, and to a favorable access to credit. If they was to give it directly to us isn’t therefore to be taken for granted that we were (was?) to do worse.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Hey yeah, let's put these policies back in place - vote Romney!

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/the-fiscal-legacy-of-george-w-bush/

The 2001 tax cut did nothing to stimulate the economy, yet Republicans pushed for additional tax cuts in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2008. The economy continued to languish even as the Treasury hemorrhaged revenue, which fell to 17.5 percent of the gross domestic product in 2008 from 20.6 percent in 2000. Republicans abolished Paygo in 2002, and spending rose to 20.7 percent of G.D.P. in 2008 from 18.2 percent in 2001.

According to the C.B.O., by the end of the Bush administration, legislated tax cuts reduced revenues and increased the national debt by $1.6 trillion. Slower-than-expected growth further reduced revenues by $1.4 trillion.Putting all the numbers in the C.B.O. report together, we see that continuation of tax and budget policies and economic conditions in place at the end of the Clinton administration would have led to a cumulative budget surplus of $5.6 trillion through 2011 – enough to pay off the $5.6 trillion national debt at the end of 2000.

Tax cuts and slower-than-expected growth reduced revenues by $6.1 trillion and spending was $5.6 trillion higher, a turnaround of $11.7 trillion. Of this total, the C.B.O. attributes 72 percent to legislated tax cuts and spending increases, 27 percent to economic and technical factors. Of the latter, 56 percent occurred from 2009 to 2011.

Republicans would have us believe that somehow we could have avoided the recession and balanced the budget since 2009 if only they had been in charge. This would be a neat trick considering that the recession began in December 2007, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.

They would also have us believe that all of the increase in debt resulted solely from higher spending, nothing from lower revenues caused by tax cuts. And they continually imply that one of the least popular spending increases of recent years, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, was an Obama administration program, when in fact it was a Bush administration initiative proposed by the Treasury Department that was signed into law by Mr. Bush on Oct. 3, 2008.

Lastly, Republicans continue to insist that tax cuts are highly stimulative, often saying that they add nothing to the debt, when this is obviously ridiculous.

Conversely, they are adamant that tax increases must not be part of any deficit-reduction package because they never reduce deficits and instead are spent. This is also ridiculous, as the experience of the Clinton administration clearly shows. The new C.B.O. data confirm these facts.
But "fiscally responsible conservatives" like Ryan and Romney swear that this time tax cuts will have the exact opposite effect. :rolleyes:
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
And if there were any doubt as to who Wall St is backing...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77368.html#ixzz1xgUGvXJJ

Mitt Romney's presidential campaign and the super PAC supporting it are outraising Obama among financial-sector donors $37.1 million to $4.8 million. Near the front of the pack are 19 Obama donors from 2008 who are giving big to Romney. The 19 have already given $4.8 million to Romney’s presidential campaign and the super PAC supporting it through the end of April, according to a POLITICO analysis of Federal Election Commission filings. Four years ago, they gave Obama $213,700. None of them has given a penny to the president’s reelection campaign or the super PAC supporting it.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,279
0
0
That's the way to do it.

Northrop, the parent of soon-to-close Norden Systems in Norwalk, paid Thomas MacKenzie a "severance and bonus" of $498,334 in 2011 before he joined the staff of the committee that oversees defense contracts, according to his annual ethics report on file in the House Stamford Advocate

Funny thing is:
The company paid him a 2010 salary of $529,379, separately from the "bonus and severance" he received in 2011.
MacKenzie, who earns about $120,000 as a committee staffer, had been through the Washington revolving door previously. He worked on the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee for seven years before he joined Northrop Grumman in 2005 as a specialist in Navy contracts.
Sweet deal:

$498,334 "bonus"
$120,000 salary
----------
$618,334

I just looked at the Senate races. It's not as bad for the dems as it appeared before. According to the NYT election coverage, 8 senate seats (out of 33 up for re-election (23 D+I and 10 R) are rated as toss-ups.

It seems the republicans have some trouble fielding good candidates in FL; they are undecided as of yet (3-4 competitors, including a House Rep., Connie Mack).

MN, with Olympia Snowe leaving, might provide the Democrats with a chance to counter some losses, most notably in North Dakota and Nebraska, Missouri

In VA, former Gov Tim Kaine is running against GOP George Allen. VA is currently solidly GOP at the local/state level, but it remains to be seen what the outcome will be during the federal elections

Then there is Nevada, with House member Shelley Berkley running against Dean Heller (R) who was appointed after Ensign resigned. Both won their primaries convincingly, but it seems Heller, according to some reports, is not suffering too much among latino voters, and with a moderately conservative and significant swath of Independents, it's favoring the GOP.

Wisconsin has been a battle ground for the last 2 years and favoured Walker in the recall election, but replaced various R state legislators with Dems. House Democrat, progressive, Tammy Baldwin, is running against a yet to be determined GOP candidate.

The race between Warren (D) and Brown (GOP) in MA is tight.

Surprisingly, for the democrats I think, HI is in play, because the GOP has recruited a strong candidate, former Gov. Linda Lingle, who is popular in the state. She already beat likely D senate candidate Mazie Hirono in the 2002 gov elections with 52%.

If the dems manage to win 4, Biden could become the tie breaker :D
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,279
0
0
The Hitch said:
A weird Bloomberg poll gives Obama a breathtaking nationwide advantage of 13, double what he got in 08, what would be the biggest victory margin since 84, and most importantly, 9 points more than any other poll conducted in the last month, most of which point to a very close election with Obama around +1 or 2

http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/rQyA68BW5P20
The sample seem pretty small (around 1000, with ~750 likely voters). I think I once read that most pollsters use landlines almost exclusively to conduct their interviews, but in the summary it says:

Interviewers contacted households with randomly selected landline and cell phone telephone numbers
I wonder if that has something to do with it? Or have other polls in the recent past also included cell phone interviews? 53% of the respondents were female. I don't know if this is an 'aberration' from previous polls either.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
And this is why deficits go up under Republicans.

YouGov asked: "Which of the following would you support as ways to reduce the nation's budget deficit?" They altered the rules of polling slightly, however, to deny respondents a "don't know" answer. Respondents had to answer something, either yes or no. Denied the "don't know" exit, Democrats favored higher taxes on the wealthy, 77.2%, and cuts in military spending, 46%. Democrats intensely opposed cuts in Medicare and Social Security, only about 5% in favor of either. Just 14% of Democrat answered "none of the above."

Republicans were a very different story. Unsurprisingly, many fewer Republicans supported tax increases on the wealthy (27.1%) and cuts in military spending (15.5%). Yet when denied the "don't know" exit, Republicans were scarcely more accepting of cuts to Medicare or Social Security than Democrats, only 13.5% and 15.% approving, respectively.

A majority of Republicans, 53.3%, answered "none of the above"—no changes to taxes, defense, or entitlements. And there, ladies and gentlemen, is our quandary.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/20/this-is-why-you-re-broke.html
 
Bala Verde said:
The sample seem pretty small (around 1000, with ~750 likely voters). I think I once read that most pollsters use landlines almost exclusively to conduct their interviews, but in the summary it says:



I wonder if that has something to do with it? Or have other polls in the recent past also included cell phone interviews? 53% of the respondents were female. I don't know if this is an 'aberration' from previous polls either.
I remember reading articles about polling in 08 that talked about the impact of.cell phones on polling and how it tended to.skew to younger people or something, the key being that more would pick up a cell phone than a landline and so you get more.cell phone responders , though presumably by now they limit the percentage of cell phone responders in a poll.

Anyhow that does suggest to me that they do use cellphones in polling these days.
As for the sample size, its not small compared to.most. the cnn abc nyt etc monthly polls tend to have a sample size of around 1000 some even less
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY