Quantcast
    MAIN INDEX RULES & LEGEND LOG IN  

Slowtwitch Forums: Lavender Room:
Obama adviser sums up 2012 choices...

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All  


Cavechild

Apr 17, 12 11:26

Post #26 of 51 (1024 views)
Re: Obama adviser sums up 2012 choices... [klehner] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

"Obama has done little to change the fundamentals of how the economy functions in this country, in no small part due to the obstructionist policies of the Republicans."

So for those first 11+ months when the GOP had to ask permission to close a door in DC, why didn't anything change? Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence over a weekend with a quill and parchment. The ENTIRE constitution was hammered out in 4 months again with quill and parchment.


dave_w

Apr 17, 12 11:31

Post #27 of 51 (1023 views)
Re: Obama adviser sums up 2012 choices... [j p o] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

   Nah, Romney will win even on the likeability numbers because pubs have been saying Obama is the devil (okay, a hard left, communist, etc) for 4 yrs, and more and more people are starting to say to themselves that it may be so, including Obama supporters (read a couple different pieces in the last few days by Obama supporters that wanted the centrist Obama to stay, but were afraid of lefty Obama).


j p o

Apr 17, 12 11:35

Post #28 of 51 (1018 views)
Re: Obama adviser sums up 2012 choices... [Eppur si muove] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Eppur si muove wrote:
My point was humorous, but let me just say this: I think that when they asked the "shares your values" question, they were talking about the values of those polled, not my values. Hence my suggestion above.

Oh I know you were joking.

There just isn't much good news for Romney in that poll. While it is an early poll and unfortunately for all of us we have a lot of campaign yet to endure there is a lot to overcome for Romney. Independents in that poll favor Obama significantly.

One thing I thought was kind of sad was this:
Is a person you admire Obama 44% Romney 25% Both 6% Neither 24% No opinion 1%

So a quarter of the people do not admire either the president or his possible replacement.

And since someone above was talking long term difficulties for the Democrats, if I were a Republican this would worry me greatly:
Non - whites favor Obama over Romney 71 - 23. And since the demographics are trending towards a greater proportion of non-whites that is something to be acutely aware of.


dave_w

Apr 17, 12 11:42

Post #29 of 51 (1008 views)
Re: Obama adviser sums up 2012 choices... [klehner] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

klehner wrote:
Eppur si muove wrote:
Obama has done little to change the fundamentals of how the economy functions in this country, in no small part due to the obstructionist policies of the Republicans.

Do you think that was the obstacle in the first two years of his administration too?


Why would it not have been? Did the Democratic party have a 60 seat majority in 2009/2010?

57 + 2 indepents (Sanders and Lieberman) that caucus with them, and a few sympathetic pubs like Snowe, Collins, Spectre. Add the super-majority in the House, and it was a highly productive time for dems, if not particularly good for the economy.


iRan

Apr 17, 12 11:45

Post #30 of 51 (1006 views)
Re: Obama adviser sums up 2012 choices... [j p o] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

To prove how useless/worthless polls are at this point, I offer this: http://www.gallup.com/...43/Obama-Romney.aspx

This just shows that everyone can find a poll to support their viewpoint. The fact that you put so much "weight" on the two you cited is indicative of your desire to "want" to believe its true.


j p o

Apr 17, 12 11:53

Post #31 of 51 (1003 views)
Re: Obama adviser sums up 2012 choices... [jar1635] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

jar1635 wrote:
To prove how useless/worthless polls are at this point, I offer this: http://www.gallup.com/...43/Obama-Romney.aspx

This just shows that everyone can find a poll to support their viewpoint. The fact that you put so much "weight" on the two you cited is indicative of your desire to "want" to believe its true.

How is the poll worthless? Never did I say Obama would win based on a poll in April. And the only reason I looked it up was it was on TV when I was at lunch so I knew there was a new poll out by CNN. To dismiss it's overall trends is to be putting your head in the sand. Do you actually believe that losing the non-white population 3 to 1 is a good trend for the GOP? I certainly don't think being seen as anti-religion and pro-welfare state is a good trend for the Democratic party. Polls used correctly can be extremely informative.

I put no actual "weight" (and I have no idea why you thought weight needed quotes) on the poll in regards to who will win as it is April 17th and there are over 6 months of campaign for us to suffer through here in Ohio, oh how I love to live in a swing state. I mean, by then we will learn that Obama is black, Romney is rich, Seamus had the shits, and Michelle thinks kids should eat their vegetables. Oh, and Gingrich had sex with the neighbor's cat.


iRan

Apr 17, 12 12:04

Post #32 of 51 (997 views)
Re: Obama adviser sums up 2012 choices... [j p o] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

You are obviously right. Obama is in deep, deep trouble. I'd hate to be that guy.

Didn't you say the above in an earlier post? And, then follow it with the results of the CNN/ORC poll? You'll have to accuse me for assuming the obvious...which is that you believe that because of the poll that Obama hasn't nothing to worry to about, while Romney does.

Losing non-white voters? did the GOP ever have them? I'm pretty sure it was an avalanche in favor of Dems last presidential election, but what happened in 2010? Did they just forget to vote?

You do know that weighting is a common technique used in polling, right? And can be used to alter the outcome of said poll to achieve a particular slant in either direction. In your first and second posts on the polls you gave every impression that you were quite confident that they were accurate and that Obama, again, had nothing to worry about. Hence the use of the quotes...perhaps next time I could use asterisks.

I live in California - a state that actually implements what most liberals can only fantasize about occurring on a federal level - so I don't get to experience the joys of experiencing the onslaught of political campaigns.



BarryP

Apr 17, 12 12:16

Post #33 of 51 (991 views)
Re: Obama adviser sums up 2012 choices... [blueraider_mike] [In reply to] Quote | Reply


Quote:
Jan 2009 133,561,000
March 2012 132,821,000



Why would you compare 2012 to 2009? If I burn down your house in 2009, is it *your* fault that you have less house than you did before you burned it down? A fair evalutaion would be if the government slowed down the recession fats enough, got it turned around, and are growing it fast enough.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485


j p o

Apr 17, 12 12:23

Post #34 of 51 (986 views)
Re: Obama adviser sums up 2012 choices... [jar1635] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

jar1635 wrote:
You are obviously right. Obama is in deep, deep trouble. I'd hate to be that guy.

Didn't you say the above in an earlier post? And, then follow it with the results of the CNN/ORC poll? You'll have to accuse me for assuming the obvious...which is that you believe that because of the poll that Obama hasn't nothing to worry to about, while Romney does.

Losing non-white voters? did the GOP ever have them? I'm pretty sure it was an avalanche in favor of Dems last presidential election, but what happened in 2010? Did they just forget to vote?

You do know that weighting is a common technique used in polling, right? And can be used to alter the outcome of said poll to achieve a particular slant in either direction. In your first and second posts on the polls you gave every impression that you were quite confident that they were accurate and that Obama, again, had nothing to worry about. Hence the use of the quotes...perhaps next time I could use asterisks.

I live in California - a state that actually implements what most liberals can only fantasize about occurring on a federal level - so I don't get to experience the joys of experiencing the onslaught of political campaigns.

Oh for Pete's fucking sake. You twist Axelrod's words to suit your purposes to pretend that Obama's own people are against him, then act like me and CNN have a conspiracy going on when I point out that he is in fact leading in at least one major poll on virtually every single question in almost every demographic besides white men that is not defined by political party.

"You'll have to accuse me for assuming the obvious...which is that you believe that because of the poll that Obama hasn't nothing to worry to about, while Romney does"

No, I won't excuse you. You read into my posts what you have presupposed and not what was actually written. This is going to be a close election. And it will be painful to live through.

If you were running for president, which side of the CNN poll would you rather be on?

"Losing non-white voters? did the GOP ever have them? I'm pretty sure it was an avalanche in favor of Dems last presidential election, but what happened in 2010? Did they just forget to vote?"

If you were head of the RNC would this not be a topic that you would consider in depth? Can the GOP continue to win national elections while losing non-whites 3 -1?

"In your first and second posts on the polls you gave every impression that you were quite confident that they were accurate"

I quoted a poll. It had a lot of questions so it has lots of little pieces of information that can be interesting. Much more in depth than a daily tracking poll from Gallup so more fun to discuss. It comes from a major news organization. I am not personally responsible for CNN's polling. I did not realize that was a requirement before quoting from it. I apologize. I will drive to their office and inquire further tomorrow.

"
Hence the use of the quotes...perhaps next time I could use asterisks."
It appeared that you were using a normal definition of weight and non-ironically. The use of quotes generally denote one or the other. I did not understand why you used them in that situation.







________

Apr 17, 12 12:31

Post #35 of 51 (981 views)
Re: Obama adviser sums up 2012 choices... [LorenzoP] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

LorenzoP wrote:
reading stories like this and the 'never worked a day in her life' - gotta wonder which political party is the more desperate

Maybe it's not that, maybe this is the kind of nonsense that the voters are interested in.

When you have "informed" people saying that a given candidate "doesn't look presidential" you have to wonder . . . no, I guess there is no wondering at all.

The more I look at this stuff, the more it reminds me of high school student council elections. "Hope and Change" is like "more school spirit and candy in the lunch room." And "doesn't look presidential" is like "she's not a cheerleader."

People (the voters) don't grow up; they just get old.


iRan

Apr 17, 12 12:41

Post #36 of 51 (977 views)
Re: Obama adviser sums up 2012 choices... [j p o] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Where did I twist his words? I provided a direct quote. Perhaps you also missed where I said - in two other posts - that it was clearly a slip of tongue and not indicative of who he thinks is the better candidate for growing the economy. I think I said that it was more representative of the mindset that this campaign is operating under - which is to believe that it is still 2008 and that they are not running as the incumbent. Your response to that was to link to a poll and basically stating - through the use of sarcasm - that Obama had nothing to worry about.

The RNC won't worry about losing non-whites because organizationally they are a joke. They couldn't form a cohesive response or action plan if they wanted to, just the same as they couldn't field a candidate strong enough to knock Obama cleanly out - when the situation is practically begging for that to happen. So, no, I don't think they'll ponder the loss of non-white too deeply. At a state level it will happen, but certainly not at the national level.

You can quote CNN polls till the cows come home, I never said I had an issue with it. I simply produced a link to another poll that said the exact opposite and commented on the uselessness of one poll over another. Somehow, that got your panties all in a bunch. Perhaps because it didn't fit with the clean little narrative that you attempted to derive from the CNN poll...but, who really knows (or cares)?


j p o

Apr 17, 12 12:42

Post #37 of 51 (975 views)
Re: Obama adviser sums up 2012 choices... [jar1635] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

jar1635 wrote:
Where did I twist his words? I provided a direct quote. Perhaps you also missed where I said - in two other posts - that it was clearly a slip of tongue and not indicative of who he thinks is the better candidate for growing the economy. I think I said that it was more representative of the mindset that this campaign is operating under - which is to believe that it is still 2008 and that they are not running as the incumbent. Your response to that was to link to a poll and basically stating - through the use of sarcasm - that Obama had nothing to worry about.

The RNC won't worry about losing non-whites because organizationally they are a joke. They couldn't form a cohesive response or action plan if they wanted to, just the same as they couldn't field a candidate strong enough to knock Obama cleanly out - when the situation is practically begging for that to happen. So, no, I don't think they'll ponder the loss of non-white too deeply. At a state level it will happen, but certainly not at the national level.

You can quote CNN polls till the cows come home, I never said I had an issue with it. I simply produced a link to another poll that said the exact opposite and commented on the uselessness of one poll over another. Somehow, that got your panties all in a bunch. Perhaps because it didn't fit with the clean little narrative that you attempted to derive from the CNN poll...but, who really knows (or cares)?

I suppose I should admit that at this point I am just fucking with you because I am bored at work.


iRan

Apr 17, 12 12:50

Post #38 of 51 (970 views)
Re: Obama adviser sums up 2012 choices... [j p o] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Ha! That makes two of us.

Frankly, I'm pretty sure that drives 99% of the LR posts...


klehner

Apr 17, 12 12:50

Post #39 of 51 (969 views)
Re: Obama adviser sums up 2012 choices... [Eppur si muove] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Eppur si muove wrote:
Ah, so you want a 60-seat supermajority.

Apparently the left won't be happy until they have unlimited control over all branches of government, checks and balances be damned.

Of course, many on the right would probably take the same attitude.

What a load of crap. I said Republican obstructionism was in part to blame, and you said in post # 15 "Do you think that was the obstacle in the first two years of his administration too?", implying that hey, the Democratic party was in the majority those two years. I replied that having the majority in the Senate doesn't mean squat unless you have 60 seats according to the rules of the Senate, which anyone who has been paying attention would know. Now you take that and run to "unlimited control over the world" nonsense.

Rob C's rules of posting:

1) Rob C is always right.
2) When Rob C is wrong, see 1)
----------------------------------
Of course, with your ears stuffed with outrage cotton balls, all you heard was, rahrahra, govt comes to get your guns, rhahrahrah, stamp out your FREEEEEDOM! - slowguy


Eppur si muove

Apr 17, 12 13:07

Post #40 of 51 (958 views)
Re: Obama adviser sums up 2012 choices... [klehner] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

If they had the majority in both houses had had any halfway reasonable proposals to offer, they could have swayed a handful of remaining votes to their cause where a supermajority was needed. That was especially true during the "honeymoon" period, when many in the opposition party might have been reluctant to go up against the new president--but even after that period, it's only a paranoid fantasy on your part that 100% of Republicans have been rock-hard "obstructionists."

We're truly fortunate that we have a legislative branch to keep some of the worst excesses of the executive in check. That has been true when Republicans have been in the White House, and it remains true today.
-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.



big kahuna

Apr 17, 12 13:12

Post #41 of 51 (953 views)
Re: Obama adviser sums up 2012 choices... [klehner] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

klehner wrote:
Eppur si muove wrote:
Ah, so you want a 60-seat supermajority.

Apparently the left won't be happy until they have unlimited control over all branches of government, checks and balances be damned.

Of course, many on the right would probably take the same attitude.


What a load of crap. I said Republican obstructionism was in part to blame, and you said in post # 15 "Do you think that was the obstacle in the first two years of his administration too?", implying that hey, the Democratic party was in the majority those two years. I replied that having the majority in the Senate doesn't mean squat unless you have 60 seats according to the rules of the Senate, which anyone who has been paying attention would know. Now you take that and run to "unlimited control over the world" nonsense.

Rob C's rules of posting:

1) Rob C is always right.
2) When Rob C is wrong, see 1)

Well, the Dims didn't have a problem finding a way to get around that whole 60-seat thing when it came to Obamacare, right? Seems to me now that the 'Rats have eaten all the cheese they're trying to find a way to defend their leaving the sinking ship. "Oh, boo hoo! Those mean 'Pubs are standing in the way! It's the 'Pubs fault that we've screwed the economy into a catatonic stupor! Blame them!"

Sorry, dude. You guys screwed it up, and continue to screw it up (I mean, you'd think 'Rats in the Senate could at least have presented a friggin' budget over the last three years, right?) and your man in the Oval Office is going down like a 2-dollar Olongapo City "hostess" come November. Ya follow?


Cavechild

Apr 17, 12 13:15

Post #42 of 51 (953 views)
Re: Obama adviser sums up 2012 choices... [klehner] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

"I replied that having the majority in the Senate doesn't mean squat unless you have 60 seats according to the rules of the Senate, which anyone who has been paying attention would know."


Like say for the first 11 months and 3 weeks of his administration? But hey, I guess there was a big chance that Sanders and Lieberman would side with the GOP.


j p o

Apr 17, 12 13:24

Post #43 of 51 (943 views)
Re: Obama adviser sums up 2012 choices... [Eppur si muove] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Eppur si muove wrote:
If they had the majority in both houses had had any halfway reasonable proposals to offer, they could have swayed a handful of remaining votes to their cause where a supermajority was needed. That was especially true during the "honeymoon" period, when many in the opposition party might have been reluctant to go up against the new president--but even after that period, it's only a paranoid fantasy on your part that 100% of Republicans have been rock-hard "obstructionists."

We're truly fortunate that we have a legislative branch to keep some of the worst excesses of the executive in check. That has been true when Republicans have been in the White House, and it remains true today.

No, the Democrats are not good at that. The Democrats are horrible at getting all of their caucus to vote the party line. The Republicans have been much more successful at that.

Someone above mentioned Snowe and some others. Even when they said they would vote with the Democrats they didn't. But Ben Nelson and most of the rest of the so-called blue dog Democrats would switch sides in a heart beat.


Old Hickory

Apr 17, 12 13:26

Post #44 of 51 (940 views)
Re: Obama adviser sums up 2012 choices... [klehner] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

klehner wrote:
What a load of crap. I said Republican obstructionism was in part to blame, and you said in post # 15 "Do you think that was the obstacle in the first two years of his administration too?", implying that hey, the Democratic party was in the majority those two years. I replied that having the majority in the Senate doesn't mean squat unless you have 60 seats according to the rules of the Senate, which anyone who has been paying attention would know. Now you take that and run to "unlimited control over the world" nonsense.

I wonder how any laws were passed before Congress was a Democratic super majority?


blueraider_mike

Apr 17, 12 13:38

Post #45 of 51 (937 views)
Re: Obama adviser sums up 2012 choices... [BarryP] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

BarryP wrote:

Quote:
Jan 2009 133,561,000
March 2012 132,821,000



Why would you compare 2012 to 2009? If I burn down your house in 2009, is it *your* fault that you have less house than you did before you burned it down? A fair evalutaion would be if the government slowed down the recession fats enough, got it turned around, and are growing it fast enough.

I am using these points as a reference. Jan 2009, Obama's first month as President. March 2012, the last full month that we have data. So we have a starting point and and an ending point - its much more accurate than the employment rate because it looks at the "actual" number of jobs. I am factoring in population growth. Paul "the great economist from the left" Krugman said a modest goal would be to get back to FULL employment in 5 years, PK said it takes 127K new jobs a month just to stay at the same point. I am just crunching numbers based on what the President and his followers promised. Barry, we are not just off, but off by a mile.

Granted, Obama is feeling the pressure of the recession, I don't blame it all on him, although he voted for a bunch of spending while a Senator and was part of the culture when he wasn't running for President. I do recall Bush being blamed for everything, including the recession he inherited. Obama said he would halve the deficit, Obama got everything he wanted the first two years, Obama said unemployment would NEVER reach 8%, Obama is on the clock, he has had almost 40 months to right the ship. Usually when the economy tanks, it comes roaring back - we are all still waiting for the roar.

Does Obama, for the first time in Presidential history, get a pass?


BarryP

Apr 17, 12 14:10

Post #46 of 51 (930 views)
Re: Obama adviser sums up 2012 choices... [blueraider_mike] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

If you are comparing Obama to his own words, then you have a point that he was wrong and you can certainly hold him to it.
-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485


klehner

Apr 17, 12 15:52

Post #47 of 51 (923 views)
Re: Obama adviser sums up 2012 choices... [Old Hickory] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Old Hickory wrote:
klehner wrote:
What a load of crap. I said Republican obstructionism was in part to blame, and you said in post # 15 "Do you think that was the obstacle in the first two years of his administration too?", implying that hey, the Democratic party was in the majority those two years. I replied that having the majority in the Senate doesn't mean squat unless you have 60 seats according to the rules of the Senate, which anyone who has been paying attention would know. Now you take that and run to "unlimited control over the world" nonsense.


I wonder how any laws were passed before Congress was a Democratic super majority?

If you look it up (since you don't know it, apparently), you'll see what changed.
----------------------------------
Of course, with your ears stuffed with outrage cotton balls, all you heard was, rahrahra, govt comes to get your guns, rhahrahrah, stamp out your FREEEEEDOM! - slowguy


AnthonyS

Apr 17, 12 15:59

Post #48 of 51 (921 views)
Re: Obama adviser sums up 2012 choices... [jar1635] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

jar1635 wrote:
"The choice in this election is between economy that produces a growing middle class and that gives people a chance to get ahead and their kids a chance to get ahead, and an economy that continues down the road we are on, where a fewer and fewer number of people do very well, and everybody else is running faster and faster just to keep pace."

Axelrod seems pretty clear on the distinction between Romney and four more years of Obama.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/...quote-as-endorsement
http://bangordailynews.com/...-on-fox-news-sunday/


I'm surprised that a ringing endorsement for Romney, by one of Obama's own advisers, didn't get more coverage. Then again, I was skiing all weekend so maybe I missed it.

Yes they will do everything they can and lie a lot to convince you voting for one or the other really matters. It does not. The only difference between Bush and Obama was the accent coming from the teleprompter. Actually Bush probably used more of his own material. Romney, Obama, get ready for more of the same. We are trudging along right behind Greece and Spain too, only we are a much bigger financial time bomb.
--------------------------------------------------------

You will remain the same person, before, during and after the race. So the result, no matter how important, will not define you. The journey is what matters. ~ Chrissie W.


mojozenmaster

Apr 17, 12 20:31

Post #49 of 51 (906 views)
Re: Obama adviser sums up 2012 choices... [big kahuna] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

like a 2-dollar Olongapo City "hostess"

I spent a lot of time in Olongapo City back in 1983. One of my happiest memories is Naval Gunfire School at Subic Bay. We'd sit in the Sun and blow shit up all day long. Then we'd party with the hotties and drink beer all night.

I miss the Marine Corps and that ain't no bullshit.


**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**


FJB

Apr 18, 12 6:48

Post #50 of 51 (883 views)
Re: Obama adviser sums up 2012 choices... [blueraider_mike] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Cause right now, we are in the worst recovery in our nations history.


Do you really believe the last few years in America were the worst recession and now recovery in history?

Many jobs are going overseas but blame the individual companies for that not the President. The jobs leave because other countries are doing the same or better work for less money and that is a reality that everyone has to live with. The alternative is to keep them here and increase prices and then people would bitch about that.


With the size of homes today, the personal debt to buy junk, the spending on dining out, the multiple televisions, cars, cell phones, computers, malls that are packed etc., you are just going to have a hard time convincing me that Americans are suffering.





First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All  
 
 
 



New Product Intros
Is there a specific event you most closely associate with new product coverage and intros?
Sea Otter
Eurobike
Interbike
Hawaiian Ironman
I'm oblivious