|
Post by Let It 🩸 on Oct 22, 2012 17:33:18 GMT -5
All the people on the village green, are gathered around their TV screens, to hear the government about to speak about soldier boys and Jesus freaks..... So who else is watching the 3rd and final debate tonight (on Foreign Policy)? it's paramount you get laid. God bless.
|
|
|
Post by Let It 🩸 on Oct 22, 2012 17:34:45 GMT -5
it's also paramount Mitt Romney talk as much as possible tonight to further reveal his idiocy.
God bless.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Oct 22, 2012 19:58:34 GMT -5
Here we go, bitches.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Oct 22, 2012 22:21:11 GMT -5
so l4e, what do you think of romney agreeing on and endorsing practically all of the president's foreign policies? or does this debate not matter like the last one?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2012 23:03:14 GMT -5
There were a lot of similarities between their views, but most issues had subtle differences. That said, the one topic which the Pres. should have destroyed Romney is foreign policy, but it didn't come across like that.
I don't think this debate is going to move the needle in either direction. Pretty lack luster overall.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Oct 23, 2012 0:26:47 GMT -5
In my opinion, this was the least important of the three debates. The first put Romney back in the race, the second, stopped Obama's free fall, I think the third keeps the status-quo (both candidates tied in the National polls, with Obama having an advantage in the electoral college).
This is basically it for the rest of the race other than the jobs report numbers which come out three days prior to the election. I don't think any economist has predicted horrendous job numbers, so Obama should actually be solid in that.
If we have the same race today as we have in election day, then I think Obama will win......barely. The race has become close in Pennsylvania, but it would take something catastrophic for Obama to lose whatever he has left there. So I expect him to win Pennsylvania. I expect him to also win Ohio. Just about every polls except for 2 have show him with at least a 1-3 point lead there. The only two that didn't Suffolk and Gravis Marketing (which showed a tie, but has a Republican lean of 3-5 points). I expect him to win Wisconsin where only one poll has shown him with a less than 2 point lead. And I expect him to win Nevada where he's averaged a 3-4 point lead.
Romney will take Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado.
Iowa is probably Obama's safety net at the moment.
At the moment, Obama has a slightly larger margin of error and a more direct path through the electoral college than Romney. And I think this debate keeps it that way.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Oct 26, 2012 17:08:37 GMT -5
A detailed reasoning of why Obama holds a slight advantage and why Nate Silver's forecast has Obama at the odds of winning as it has. Obviously, Conservatives will disagree, though every argument I've seen, especially in National Review, or how Silver's system may be "flawed" have been fairly feeble and poorly constructed arguments against him. Well anyways, he attempts to depend his method again. No doubt it will fall on deaf ears: fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/oct-25-the-state-of-the-states/
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Oct 27, 2012 11:54:10 GMT -5
sandy is going to make things tough for the president, but as long as he doesn't fuck it up like bush did with katrina, i don't think it'll kill his chances. hopefully sandy is nothing but an overblown hype. (and i'm not saying that for political reasons.)
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Oct 27, 2012 12:21:01 GMT -5
No, Sandy won't kill his chances. Seriously.
Ever since Katrina, the White House has been overly sensitive to what happens with natural disasters.
In terms of it being an October surprise:
Both candidates will probably turn down the campaigning a bit while this is happening because neither want to look like they're not being Presidential.
Presidents tend to look best during natural disasters (unless you're Bush) because the nation usually comes together and looks toward their leader.
Unfortunately, it may affect how effectively people are able to get to the polls, but of the states which will be affected, only Virginia voting has a real chance of swinging because of the storm. In Ohio, it actually might be an advantage for Obama where he's way ahead in early voting.
In the end, in terms of the election, I don't see an October surprise happening.
Hopefully everyone on the east coast remains safe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2012 18:41:44 GMT -5
No, Sandy won't kill his chances. Seriously. Ever since Katrina, the White House has been overly sensitive to what happens with natural disasters. really? why was obama back on the campaign trail today, then? these poor people in new york, new jersey and other places are cold, hungry, homeless, and running out of time and hope with a nor'easter expected to hit in the middle of next week. all we heard after katrina was 'it's bush's fault.' why then, isn't it obama's fault now?
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Nov 2, 2012 19:34:57 GMT -5
No, Sandy won't kill his chances. Seriously. Ever since Katrina, the White House has been overly sensitive to what happens with natural disasters. really? why was obama back on the campaign trail today, then? these poor people in new york, new jersey and other places are cold, hungry, homeless, and running out of time and hope with a nor'easter expected to hit in the middle of next week. all we heard after katrina was 'it's bush's fault.' why then, isn't it obama's fault now? Erm, because his election is four days and his opponent decided to take only one day off and go back on the campaign trail to attack his opponent while he's dealing with a national emergency. First, Bush never even landed in New Orleans. Let's get that fact straight. He flew over New Orleans. Secondly, Chris Christie, the Governor of New Jersey has said that Obama has done everything by the book and has done a great job. In fact, the Governor of every state that has been hit by the Hurricane have said that Obama and his staff have done the best job possible. And have constantly been in contact and have taken down whatever red tape may be in the way to get relief to the East Coat. Thirdly, Obama did a tour of the states that were hit and suspended his campaign his campaign for four days. Just because he's campaigning doesn't mean he can't over see the situation with Sandy. The President's job is to be able to multi-task. That's what he's elected to do. To have multiple situations on his plate going on around the world and having the ability to deal with it. Seriously, I know that things are bad on the East Coast, but to say that Obama hasn't done everything in his power to help the East Coast is bullshit. The response to Sandy on the East Coast, has been far far far better than what happened in a mostly impoverished South after Katrina. In a area I might add that was far less equipped and had far less infrastructure to handle situation that the East Coast has been given. Where people were trapped in their homes and in facilities for weeks. The response to Sandy has been far quicker than Katrina. It probably doesn't seem like that because at the moment, all people on the East Coast see is chaos, but it has been far better. In the end, what makes the East Coast more complicated to address is the sheer volume of people who live there. And to expect that some how even 50% of the people affected by the Hurricane will have returned to normalcy by now is being unrealistic. He's sent National Guard troops, he's sent food, water, is opening up an Oil pipeline/reserve to give more diesel fuel to the East Coast, along with 10 more million gallons of fuel to be sent, medical officials have been sent, and he's declared health emergencies in New York and New Jersey (which basically tells the insurance companies, Medicaid, Medicare, and Children's Services to get off the back of anyone in those areas trying to receive medical help) I'm fairly sure the people in New Orleans wish they got the same response time and money that the East Coast is receiving and will receive. I'm sorry, but next time you go with a talking point, defend it better. Things are bad on the East Coast, but to say that Obama hasn't done what is within his power and isn't still doing so, is utterly wrong. I mean for fuck sake, even Romeny isn't criticizing the President on Sandy. You know why? Because even in the 21st Century, a hurricane is still a hurricane. And it's going to take a bit of time to return to normalcy. But the steps to do so have been taken and will probably continue to be taken. And Obama is probably continually briefed about the situation on the ground and what more they can do to help. But there has been NO governor of any of the states have criticized Obama for the job that he done.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Nov 2, 2012 19:35:25 GMT -5
Stay safe Idler
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Nov 6, 2012 22:22:15 GMT -5
Not looking good for Romney.
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Nov 6, 2012 22:36:05 GMT -5
What a depressing election cycle. A battle of the who is the lesser of two evils it seems to have been.
Usually the American election cycle is more engaging.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Nov 6, 2012 23:20:01 GMT -5
President Obama has been re-elected
|
|
|
Post by Let It 🩸 on Nov 6, 2012 23:27:44 GMT -5
it's too bad nothing's gonna get accomplished since republicans are gonna do whatever it takes to sabotage anything positive happening.
but we did avoid having an idiot mormon from fucking up the world even more.
Forward.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Nov 6, 2012 23:47:44 GMT -5
sorry, l4e. obama's back for four more years!
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Nov 7, 2012 18:35:11 GMT -5
Seriously did not see that one coming. Egg on my face, for sure!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2012 18:43:44 GMT -5
this country is in big trouble.
|
|
|
Post by thomaslivesforever on Nov 7, 2012 20:13:39 GMT -5
How so~?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2012 20:23:26 GMT -5
in 4 years when you're paying $7-$8 for a gallon of gas, and 50% more at the grocery store, then you can tell me. the middle class is going to get murdered.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2012 20:28:09 GMT -5
obama's motto is, 'print more, spend more'.
if you think inflation in this country is out of control now, you ain't seen nothing yet.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Nov 7, 2012 20:31:07 GMT -5
in 4 years when you're paying $7-$8 for a gallon of gas, and 50% more at the grocery store, then you can tell me. the middle class is going to get murdered. Erm, okay. $7-8 worth of gas as America becomes less dependent on foreign oil. Even if Romney was elected, America is suppose to become energy independent within the next 15 years. So that call's going to take a long time. And 50% more for groceries would require high inflation and basically a return to a state worse than the great depression. If that's the case then I don't think it would matter much who we elected.
|
|
|
Post by thomaslivesforever on Nov 7, 2012 20:31:38 GMT -5
Well i'm in England where we have seen significant spending cuts for the last few years and it will be your turn soon. You can't have it so good for so long as we are learning now. Someone has to deal with it and Obama came in to power in the depths of an economic crash. The 20% tax cuts Romney was proposing just seemed completely unrealistic. Whoever was elected would have been forced to deal with it.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Nov 7, 2012 20:38:15 GMT -5
obama's motto is, 'print more, spend more'.if you think inflation in this country is out of control now, you ain't seen nothing yet. I would say that policy goes for about 95% of the politicians in Washington no matter their party affiliation. Check Bush. And actually check Reagan too. Spending actually increased under Reagan, which caused inflation to become lower. And the deficit tripled under Reagan. I respect you idler. But you speak with talking points in politics it seems like, and most of the time the problem with talking points is that they're poorly researched.
|
|