Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vacante

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

    Originally posted by joecct View Post
    Scooby, you knee jerker, you!!

    We've thrown trillions of federal dollars at education. Can you say that kids are better educated now than before the federal government got involved in education?
    We've thrown trillions of federal dollars at combating poverty. Can you say that they've reduced poverty in any way shape or form?
    Oh come now, it's not the libstains fault that they can't see all the parts of a whole.

    Comment


    • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

      Originally posted by joecct View Post
      Scooby, you knee jerker, you!!

      We've thrown trillions of federal dollars at education. Can you say that kids are better educated now than before the federal government got involved in education?
      We've thrown trillions of federal dollars at combating poverty. Can you say that they've reduced poverty in any way shape or form?
      I just said abolish 'em. Things aren't getting better by squeezing money away from them either. If it's hopeless it's not worth doing. Let the States and Locals figure it out.
      **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

      Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
      Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

      Comment


      • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

        Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
        I just said abolish 'em. Things aren't getting better by squeezing money away from them either. If it's hopeless it's not worth doing. Let the States and Locals figure it out.
        Not sure if serious.

        Comment


        • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

          Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
          Not sure if serious.
          I'm totally serious. I'm sick of the government doing everything half ***. If they can't do it right then stop doing it at all.
          **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

          Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
          Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

          Comment


          • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

            Of all people, Kos defends Romney (from a purely political angle.) The gist of the argument is Romney can't do anything that merely continues the current narrative arc. Trying to turn this into 1979 may be ridiculous, but he has no other choice. Everything is a Hail Mary from here on out.

            So here's the equation: Had Romney played it correctly—issued a rote denunciation of the violence and proclaimed that we all stood together in unity (like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell did), Romney would've won the same kind of soft praise that Obama has enjoyed.

            Problem is, that soft praise wouldn't get him anywhere past that 20 percent chance of victory, and he'd have one less day (hence one less news cycle) to eat into the president's lead. So he has to attack. And sure, he's more damaged today than he was yesterday, but really, is a 15 percent chance of winning that much worse than a 20 percent chance? Either way, he's headed to defeat. This way, at least he goes down fighting.
            Cornell University
            National Champion 1967, 1970
            ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
            Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

            Comment


            • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

              Fascinating analysis for the next time some knuckedragger starts bleating about 1980 again...

              Exploding the Reagan 1980 Comeback Myth
              Nate Cohn


              After an Obama bounce prompted a wave of articles about Romney's dwindling chances, Romney’s pollster Neil Newhouse published a memo detailing the case for a comeback. Perhaps the most striking element of the memo was the complete absence of polling data, but his strained reconceptualization of the 1980 race was also highly unusual. Newhouse contended that Carter led by nearly 10 percentage points in late October and asserted that this year would see a rerun of that campaign. While the myth of a Reagan comeback figures prominently in American electoral history, it turns out that it's just that: a myth.

              The legend of Reagan's epic comeback is largely the result of anomalous Gallup polling, which even showed a Carter advantage over the final month of the campaign. But if RealClearPolitics or Pollster.com had existed in 1980, the conventional wisdom would have been a little different. In fact, Reagan held a lead from mid-September onward and had a two or three point lead heading into the debates. Private polling conducted for the Reagan and Carter campaigns showed the same thing. Reagan's 10 point victory is a precedent for sweeping undecided voters, but it isn't a model for a come-from-behind victory (I am hardly the first to make this observation, as John Sides and Greg Sargent have been leading this charge for some time).

              The problem for Neil Newhouse, of course, is that without the 1980 model, there isn't any example of a challenger coming from behind to defeat an incumbent president. The leader of mid-September polls has gone onto win the popular vote in every election since 1948, and then it was the incumbent who pulled off the comeback. Now, unprecedented obviously doesn't mean impossible. Only ten post-war presidents have run for reelection and there aren’t many lessons to be gleaned from the predestined blowouts where an incumbent continuously holds a substantial lead through November, leaving us with only five interesting races involving incumbents: 1948, 1976, 1980, 1992, and 2004. And if you ask me, 1976 and 1948 aren’t entirely analogous, since Ford and Truman were running for the presidency for the first time.

              But many still interpret 1980 as a favorable precedent for Romney, since it is proof that a race can change in the final days. But in retrospect, the signs of Reagan's big victory were apparent well in advance of his actual surge, and that isn't true for Romney today. Reagan’s post-convention bounce foreshadowed his eventual finish, as he seized nearly 50 percent of the vote compared with his final tally of 51 percent, and above the 46 percent threshold for victory in a year when John Anderson would take more than 8 percent of the vote. In every post-war election involving an incumbent, the winning challenger has seized a majority of voters after his convention. Unlike George W. Bush and Reagan in 1984, Carter did not cancel out his opponent's bounce with a larger one of his own. While Reagan’s lead vanished after the DNC as many of Reagan’s supporters returned to the undecided column, Carter only edged up to the upper-thirties or low-forties, presaging his eventual 41 percent finish.

              Reagan quickly reclaimed the lead after the DNC (if he ever lost it), but it wasn’t until the end of the campaign that most voters who indicated their support for Reagan following the RNC returned to his side. In retrospect, this should have been predictable. The voters that flocked toward Reagan already demonstrated their willingness to vote for him, never indicated any intention of voting for Carter following the DNC, and uniformly disapproved of the president’s performance.



              A similar pattern occurred in in 2004. Kerry won the debates and latent Kerry voters that supported him after the DNC but became undecided after the RNC returned to his side. Conversely, many of Bush's post-RNC supporters returned to undecided. But on Election Day, Bush won 50.7 to 48.3 -- a result that mirrored Bush and Kerry's respective bounces, just as the 1980 results mirrored Reagan and Carter's bounces.



              In races involving a well-known incumbent unlikely to be redefined over the final months of the campaign, the conventions represent a fleeting moment when persuadable voters flock to their eventual corners, hinting at the ultimate outcome. My general presumption toward the so-called fundamentals reinforces this interpretation. The fundamentals don’t predict the results with precision, but they powerfully shape the contours of the race, making it difficult to sway voter preferences about an incumbent once they're established.

              As a result, Romney is in a much worse situation than Reagan. Unlike Carter, Obama has inched close to 49 percent of the vote in the RealClearPolitics average, which puts him in striking distance of reelection. Even if Romney could pull-off a Reagan-esque surge among undecided voters, it would just result in a dead heat. And unlike Reagan, Romney didn't demonstrate that a majority of voters were prepared to dismiss the president by reaching or surpassing his own magic number after the RNC. Instead, 2012 looks more like 2004.

              If Romney can't take a lead over the next week or so, he will be forced to do something never successfully attempted: mount an unprecedented comeback against an incumbent president. As mentioned before, the absence of precedent doesn't mean something is impossible, especially since the race is close. But it might speak to probability, and I hope a hypothetical Romney comeback will be properly appreciated as a first in the history of presidential politics. Maybe then we'd finally be able to move on from the myth of 1980.
              Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

              Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

              "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

              Comment


              • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

                Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                Of all people, Kos defends Romney (from a purely political angle.) The gist of the argument is Romney can't do anything that merely continues the current narrative arc. Trying to turn this into 1979 may be ridiculous, but he has no other choice. Everything is a Hail Mary from here on out.
                Yet this is exactly what's disgusting to some of us, is that everything said by any politician is done from a purely political motivation. It precludes good work and good will, and I don't see a way out.
                Huskies are very intelligent and trainable. Huskies make an excellent jogging companion, as long as it is not too hot. Grooming is minimal; bathing is normally unnecessary.
                USCHO Fantasy Baseball Champion 2011 2013 2015

                Comment


                • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

                  Some of you insist on ruining this wonderful feature:

                  This message is hidden because FlagDUDE08 is on your ignore list.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

                    Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                    There's easy solutions to the problems. Stop public education. There you go, problem solved. And it basically fits the Republican platform anyway. Same with poverty. If you stop the programs for the poor then the problems go away.
                    i've never heard a rational argument say "stop all the programs"...I have heard people question the effectiveness, I've heard people question the cost of providing them but aside from grousing or complaining I don't hear "stop".

                    Would it be fair to say the democrats want to stop all military spending? No.

                    So why would it be fair to say the republicans are suggesting stopping all programs?

                    Sure it makes it so much easier to talk in absolutes and attribute irrational perspectives to each side as a way of putting stars on their bellies...but nobody would say stop all public education.

                    pause for me to pull out soap box

                    Now, we have had 40 years of progressive theories about how to teach kids. How has that worked out for us? A series of social theories that spend more time looking for excuses and new creative ways to teach kids subjects they have learned for hundreds of years and are learning the old fashioned way in many countries that spend a fraction per capita that we do.

                    As long as we are afraid to say that some kids shouldn't be in school (due to discipline) or some kids just ain't that smart, we'll never be able to provide the level of education we can. Similarly, as long as we're afraid to say some teachers are ineffective and need to find a new job, it will not be as good as it can be.

                    It's real complicated, I'd grant that...but the solution isn't more social engineering and layers of PhD BS.
                    I believe in life, and I believe in love, but the world in which I live in keeps trying to prove me wrong.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

                      Originally posted by Slap Shot View Post
                      Some of you insist on ruining this wonderful feature:

                      This message is hidden because FlagDUDE08 is on your ignore list.
                      I'm flattered.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

                        Meanwhile, a new snowbilly has joined us.
                        Cornell University
                        National Champion 1967, 1970
                        ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                        Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

                          Originally posted by pirate View Post
                          i've never heard a rational argument say "stop all the programs"...I have heard people question the effectiveness, I've heard people question the cost of providing them but aside from grousing or complaining I don't hear "stop".

                          Would it be fair to say the democrats want to stop all military spending? No.

                          So why would it be fair to say the republicans are suggesting stopping all programs?

                          Sure it makes it so much easier to talk in absolutes and attribute irrational perspectives to each side as a way of putting stars on their bellies...but nobody would say stop all public education.

                          pause for me to pull out soap box

                          Now, we have had 40 years of progressive theories about how to teach kids. How has that worked out for us? A series of social theories that spend more time looking for excuses and new creative ways to teach kids subjects they have learned for hundreds of years and are learning the old fashioned way in many countries that spend a fraction per capita that we do.

                          As long as we are afraid to say that some kids shouldn't be in school (due to discipline) or some kids just ain't that smart, we'll never be able to provide the level of education we can. Similarly, as long as we're afraid to say some teachers are ineffective and need to find a new job, it will not be as good as it can be.

                          It's real complicated, I'd grant that...but the solution isn't more social engineering and layers of PhD BS.
                          We've had 30 years+ of trickle down and that's not stopping them.

                          Like I said, I'm sick and tired of the starve the government BS that's going on. If the Feds can't do it right then they should stop. That doesn't mean it would end it means it would happen at levels of government that might actually be more effective. And then when Mississippi whines that they're getting their *** kicked by Massachusetts and Minnesota we can tell them to pound sand this time.
                          **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                          Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                          Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

                            Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                            Hope this baby is all right. Otherwise you or someone who thinks like you will be on here calling her a "******."

                            This petty obsession with Sarah Palin now extends to the infant children of somebody who almost, but not quite, married into her family. Pathetic.
                            Last edited by Old Pio; 09-13-2012, 12:57 AM.
                            2011 Poser of the Year & Pulitzer Prize winning machine gunner.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

                              I was watching Rachel Maddow and she showed a video of Bill Kristol absolutely ripping into Romney for his response.
                              Code:
                              As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
                              College Hockey 6       College Football 0
                              BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
                              Originally posted by SanTropez
                              May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
                              Originally posted by bigblue_dl
                              I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
                              Originally posted by Kepler
                              When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
                              He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

                                Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
                                I was watching Rachel Maddow and she showed a video of Bill Kristol absolutely ripping into Romney for his response.
                                Irving's son probably already has his resume in to Jeb. Kristol hating him is the first thing I've heard to increase my respect for Mittens.

                                The GOP Scoreboard on this seems to be:

                                Pro-Mitt Republicans: Newt, Rush, Sancta Wasilla, Pete King, Terry Jones
                                Anti-Mitt Republicans: Everybody else
                                Last edited by Kepler; 09-12-2012, 08:54 PM.
                                Cornell University
                                National Champion 1967, 1970
                                ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                                Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X