U.S. Politics

Page 149 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
Only a couple of months until the election. Anyone getting tired of all the ads already haha. :D

Mitt Romney's tax plan could force 95 percent of the country to pay more, while cutting taxes for the "1%" by tens of thousands of dollars, according to a new analysis from the Tax Policy Center and the Brookings Institution.
Here's what they found: The revenue-neutral Romney plan would raise taxes on a typical family by more than $600. A household making between half-a-million and $1 million would get a tax cut equal to almost twice the disposable income of the poorest 20 percent.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/how-romneys-could-raise-taxes-on-95-of-the-country-in-1-tall-graph/260585/

 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rip:30 said:
<snip, because there's at least some modicum of decency even agmonst those who disagree... except you clearly never got the memo>
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Alpe d'Huez said:
Both of you guys know better than to drag this totally into the mud like that.
Yeah, well the reaction was curious considering I was linking the "progressive" nationofchange.org. Dude's garbage post reminds me of a very famous Viktor Frankl quote.



Might be a bit premature to get too excited about the NY Times poll...

Originally Posted by VeloCity

Obama starting to open up significant gaps in FL, PA, and OH.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/us...ef=todayspaper

FL: +6
PA: +11
OH: +6

Nearly impossible for Romney if he loses all three of those states.
About that CBS/NYT/Quinippiac poll

The internals show that, if people told the truth about how they voted in 2008, the pollsters managed to find a population that voted for Mr. Obama more frequently than actually occurred. It’s certainly possible that, out of political correctness, some people say they voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 when they did not, but no way is it extensive enough to explain the discrepancy.
While this is harder math than I care to do, it’s obvious that in Florida and Ohio, if you assumed that each person told the truth about who he voted for in 2008 and if you reformulate the poll results so that the percentage of claimed Obama and McCain voters match the actual result, then Romney would be leading in Florida and Ohio and perhaps a couple of points behind in Pennsylvania. My instincts tell me that this is about right, and such a reformulation also aligns better with the national Gallup and Rasmussen poll results and President Obama’s job approval ratings.

Thus, this whole argument that Mr. Obama may be tied nationally but ahead in key battleground states is leaky.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/08/about-that-cbsnytquinippiac-poll.php

UPDATE: Richard Baehr comments on the poll at the American Thinker in “Propaganda poll shows Obama ahead.” In a message he comments on this post: “Your numbers on 2008 are a bit off, but you identified the problem. Major sampling error. Common for NYT/CBS polls. Quinnipiac used to be very reliable but this cycle has been much more Dem friendly. Could it be their partners?”
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/08/propaganda_poll_shows_obama_ahead.html

The CBS/NYT model has Democrats a +9 in Florida when in 2008 they were only a +3 and an even split in the 2010 midterms. Ohio’s sample has exactly the split in 2008 (D+8), which is nine points better than Democrats did in the midterms. Pennsylvania’s numbers (D+6) come closest to a rational predictive model, somewhere between 2008′s D+7 and 2010′s D+3, but still looking mighty optimistic for Democratic turnout.

In other words, these polls are entirely predictive if one believes that Democrats will outperform their turnout models from the 2008 election in Florida and Ohio. That would require a huge boost in Democratic enthusiasm and a sharp dropoff in Republican enthusiasm — which is exactly the opposite that Gallup found last week.

CBS/NYT polling: New partner … same issues.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/01/cbsnytquinnipiac-swing-state-polls-show-obama-hitting-50/
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
'Real' Unemployment Rate Shows Far More Jobless

the government releases a separate number called the "U-6," which provides a more complete tally of how many people really are out of work.

The numbers in some cases are startling.
Consider: Nevada's U-6 rate is 22.1 percent, up from just 7.6 percent in 2007. Economically troubled California has a 20.3 percent real rate, while Rhode Island is at 18.3 percent, more than double its 8.3 percent rate in 2007.

Those numbers compare especially unfavorably to the national rate, high in itself at 14.9 percent though off its record peak of 17.2 percent in October 2009.

Only three states — Nebraska (9.1 percent), South Dakota (8.6 percent) and North Dakota (6.1 percent) — have U-6 rates under 10 percent, according to research from RBC Capital Markets.
Election battleground states paint a picture not much more flattering. Florida's U-6 number is an ugly 17 percent, though Pennsylvania and Ohio are both around 14 percent, below the national U-6 average.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/48468748
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
auscyclefan94 said:
Obama getting a little bit worried now?

No. It's a tactic. It's called defining the person as early as possible; in the phase people first get to know him, they want to define the person Paul Ryan and what he stands for. It's the image (they believe) that will stick in their minds and is obviously targeted at the generally apolitical independent voter.

So far it seems to have worked in the case of Romney.

In a Fox News poll conducted Sunday through Tuesday, independent voters favored Mr. Obama by 11 percentage points, an upswing from a four-point advantage Mr. Obama held last month.

A CNN/ORC poll conducted Tuesday and Wednesday found 52 percent of independents held an unfavorable view of Mr. Romney, up from 40 percent who viewed him unfavorably in May shortly after he nailed down the Republican primary race.

NYT
As far as an analysis of his pick goes; I think it might have been evidence of Romney's reading of his internal polling that showed he was just not getting enough traction to get to 50.1%. He needed a game changer. It might actually be evidence that conservatives were not that excited to turn out in droves and he needed to fire up the base, hoping that a greater conservative turn out is going to help him win the election. Otherwise, I don't really see why he picked Ryan (besides that he likes him personally according to reports, and it might make his home state ore competitive), because it seems a liability among independent voters, based on his (pretty radical) budget positions.
 
Romney has fallen bad in the polls last few months. Polls showing Obama with big lead now. only good news for romney is that 2 battleground states which looked like they would go heavily to obama, look now to be in play - colorado and iowa.
 
I personally think it's a bold choice, and a good one on several levels. First, Romney has been consistently slipping in polls, and someone bland, too old or young wouldn't have worked. Next, it really defines what the election will be about. Romney can move fully to the TP right, and run on that ticket against Obama's failures. That will be what's in a lot of general people's minds. Is Obama such a failure that I want him out of there? And, is the extreme plan of the Tea Party really what will help us as a nation?

It also shows, at least in my opinion, and one I think many people share, at what absolutely dismal choices we have. Obama, whose disapproval rating sits consistently around 50-55%, and all the rotten stats the conservatives remind us of how bad things are, that we are aware of because we live it, plus all his broken promises and how little he actually delivered on his hot air talk of hope and change. That's on one side. And on the other is the insane tea party, where Romney and Ryan and their ilk seek to solve the problem in the country that working people and the poor have too much money, and the super wealthy not enough, and the way the nation grows best is if it's every man for himself, and if you have to stomp on each others backs and scratch each others eye balls out, that's competitive democracy in action. And if in the process the giant banks, Enrons, AIGs or just Wall Street or K Street crooks rip you off, buy off the politicians in both parties, and leave you with nothing, that's the way the country works. You should have never allowed yourself to be put into that position in the first place, so you got what you deserve. Deal with it.

Those are our choices.

God Bless America.

:mad:
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,280
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I personally think it's a bold choice, and a good one on several levels. First, Romney has been consistently slipping in polls, and someone bland, too old or young wouldn't have worked. Next, it really defines what the election will be about. Romney can move fully to the TP right, and run on that ticket against Obama's failures. That will be what's in a lot of general people's minds. Is Obama such a failure that I want him out of there? And, is the extreme plan of the Tea Party really what will help us as a nation?

It also shows, at least in my opinion, and one I think many people share, at what absolutely dismal choices we have. Obama, whose disapproval rating sits consistently around 50-55%, and all the rotten stats the conservatives remind us of how bad things are, that we are aware of because we live it, plus all his broken promises and how little he actually delivered on his hot air talk of hope and change. That's on one side. And on the other is the insane tea party, where Romney and Ryan and their ilk seek to solve the problem in the country that working people and the poor have too much money, and the super wealthy not enough, and the way the nation grows best is if it's every man for himself, and if you have to stomp on each others backs and scratch each others eye balls out, that's competitive democracy in action. And if in the process the giant banks, Enrons, AIGs or just Wall Street or K Street crooks rip you off, buy off the politicians in both parties, and leave you with nothing, that's the way the country works. You should have never allowed yourself to be put into that position in the first place, so you got what you deserve. Deal with it.
Those are our choices.

God Bless America.

:mad:
after all, you made the choice to be poor :rolleyes:

good summation of this year's choices
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
I personally think it's a bold choice, and a good one on several levels. First, Romney has been consistently slipping in polls, and someone bland, too old or young wouldn't have worked. Next, it really defines what the election will be about. Romney can move fully to the TP right, and run on that ticket against Obama's failures. That will be what's in a lot of general people's minds. Is Obama such a failure that I want him out of there? And, is the extreme plan of the Tea Party really what will help us as a nation?

It also shows, at least in my opinion, and one I think many people share, at what absolutely dismal choices we have. Obama, whose disapproval rating sits consistently around 50-55%, and all the rotten stats the conservatives remind us of how bad things are, that we are aware of because we live it, plus all his broken promises and how little he actually delivered on his hot air talk of hope and change. That's on one side. And on the other is the insane tea party, where Romney and Ryan and their ilk seek to solve the problem in the country that working people and the poor have too much money, and the super wealthy not enough, and the way the nation grows best is if it's every man for himself, and if you have to stomp on each others backs and scratch each others eye balls out, that's competitive democracy in action. And if in the process the giant banks, Enrons, AIGs or just Wall Street or K Street crooks rip you off, buy off the politicians in both parties, and leave you with nothing, that's the way the country works. You should have never allowed yourself to be put into that position in the first place, so you got what you deserve. Deal with it.

Those are our choices.

God Bless America.

:mad:
This is nice, but, realistically speaking, why are these even considered choices? Let alone decisions....
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
No Ryan bounce, it would appear.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/156545/Reaction-Ryan-Pick-Among-Least-Positive-Historically.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication

Four in 10 Americans rate Mitt Romney's selection of Rep. Paul Ryan to be his running mate as either "excellent" or "pretty good," while 42% call the choice "only fair" or "poor." This even division is among the least positive reactions to a vice presidential choice Gallup has recorded in recent elections. Only George H.W. Bush's selection of Dan Quayle in 1988 generated a higher negative response, although it also generated higher positives.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
John Boehner, 2010:

Representative John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, the minority leader, has praised Mr. Ryan but said the Roadmap would not be a part of the Republican agenda this fall. “There are parts of it that are well done,” Mr. Boehner told reporters last month. “Other parts I have some doubts about, in terms of how good the policy is.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/politics/03ryan.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all?smid=tw-nytimes&smid=tw-nytimes

Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
 
VeloCity said:
No Ryan bounce, it would appear.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/156545/Reaction-Ryan-Pick-Among-Least-Positive-Historically.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication

Four in 10 Americans rate Mitt Romney's selection of Rep. Paul Ryan to be his running mate as either "excellent" or "pretty good," while 42% call the choice "only fair" or "poor." This even division is among the least positive reactions to a vice presidential choice Gallup has recorded in recent elections. Only George H.W. Bush's selection of Dan Quayle in 1988 generated a higher negative response, although it also generated higher positives
And yet Bush went on to come back from behind and win by a landslide;)

The country is more polarized these days so its natural that 42% of people will respond negatively to the pick, since those 42% are Obamas solid base.

Also having lower expectations could help Ryan if he does anything good over the next few months, while Palin was greeted very well then the fall was even greater when people realized she was a total moron.

Finaly i dont really know much about ryan and havent read much since the pick, but it seems to me if he can keep a certain type of Conservative motivated to go vote for Romney come November, then that potential turnout boost could be valuable itself, even if he isnt convincing any so called "undecided voters"
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
Hammer meet nail.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/08/a-few-simple-questions-by-davidoatkins.html

Most of the problems in this country can be laid at the foot of the corporate mass media in this country, that produces childishly shallow red meat to influence the rubes to vote for candidates with stealth policies detrimental to their well being.

Yeah, hold your breath for the media to do their supposed real job. Who was the president that signed the media deregulation bill? :rolleyes:
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
ChrisE said:
Hammer meet nail.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/08/a-few-simple-questions-by-davidoatkins.html

Most of the problems in this country can be laid at the foot of the corporate mass media in this country, that produces childishly shallow red meat to influence the rubes to vote for candidates with stealth policies detrimental to their well being.

Yeah, hold your breath for the media to do their supposed real job. Who was the president that signed the media deregulation bill? :rolleyes:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/romney-advisers-confirm-it-were-running-a-just-trust-me-campaign/2012/08/17/6235b23e-e88d-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_blog.html
The campaign thinks sharing details about what he’d actually do as president would be politically suicidal. As Steve Benen asks: “what does it say about the merit of Romney’s policy agenda if voters are likely to recoil if they heard the whole truth?”
In other words, just elect us because we're not Obama and then we'll tell you what we intend to do, and no one in the media is calling them on it.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,325
0
0
Bala Verde said:
No. It's a tactic. It's called defining the person as early as possible; in the phase people first get to know him, they want to define the person Paul Ryan and what he stands for. It's the image (they believe) that will stick in their minds and is obviously targeted at the generally apolitical independent voter.

So far it seems to have worked in the case of Romney.
No, it is a direct smear campaign. It has happened so often in Politics in Oz and I imagine so in US Politics. They always backfire.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
ChrisE said:
Hammer meet nail.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/08/a-few-simple-questions-by-davidoatkins.html

Most of the problems in this country can be laid at the foot of the corporate mass media in this country, that produces childishly shallow red meat to influence the rubes to vote for candidates with stealth policies detrimental to their well being.

Yeah, hold your breath for the media to do their supposed real job. Who was the president that signed the media deregulation bill? :rolleyes:
It is funny how America lionizes the free press. It is pointed at as something that makes America better than other nations. It is the envy of the world. Yet America probably has the least informative press in the free world. In theory the rights are there. In practice the mass media is a tool of corporate and government propaganda that is no less stifling than any found in totalitarian governments. The only difference is that Americans can pretend that they are free because hypothetically they could set up their own newspaper and print whatever they could afford to print..
 
I have posted about this before, but the media is not set up to be educational, investigative, objective or even factual. Why people think it is or expect it to be is puzzling. The days of Edward Murrow as mainstream or mass media are long gone. Media today are for profit businesses, nearly all owned by large corporations that are publicly traded on stock markets, looking as a priority to make money and please shareholders.

True investigative journalism still exists, several hard working reporters can be found, and shows like 60 Minutes still produce quality with very high standards. But in today's world, to expect this from daily newspapers or broadcasts strapped for cash, and able to better make it with sound bytes and op pieces, is not going to happen.

There are a few other factors at play here. First, politicians often are faced with direct questions presented in that link. They have just become very deft at not directly answering thm, and instead just obfuscating. One could argue that part of the problem is that often the reporter is not allowed to follow up, or repeatedly press for a direct answer. A real part of the blame is our impatient ADD society not demanding a longer discourse or exchange so reporters can compel the politician to answer.

Next, a game is often played where the politician won't talk to specific reporters or even media outlets if that reporter gives them too hard of a time. This can dampen a reporter's ability to get any work at all sometimes. So they are put into a bind where in order to get the story (to get ratings, sell airtime, make a profit for the company), they have to compromise to get any story at all. As a comparison, if Dan Benson, boss here at CN, approached Brad Wiggins next time he saw him and pressed him with some hard Clinic-like questions, what are the odds the following time they crossed paths Brad would even give Dan the time of day?

Next, a lot of media outlets self-emasculate in that they are paranoid of being labeled biased, unfair, "liberal", "conservative", "corporate" etc. they won't even talk to a politician unless they know they can ask equal questions of a rival politician in the name of fairness, or equality. This is so severe, they won't even do it out of the election season, or ask a politician who wins every election by 70% out of fear the phone will ring with complaints, and their reputation will be tarnished as being biased.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 1
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS