What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2012 Presidential Election Part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

Reminds me of the heated football rivalry between the University of Utah and BYU. You do wonder if the SL Tribune is the non-LDS paper and the other is the LDS paper? Don't know myself, but sounds like a viable scenario.
You know what I remember most about those papers? The obits. About every tenth one would be pretty standard -- Joe Blow, born *****, died *****, survived by *****, preceded in death by *****. The other 90% went for about a column and half each, on a full half page. Every single office held in the church. And these aren't offices like "secretary" or "president" or "deacon". It was page after page of, "Joe got his start as First Associated Assistant Ward Officer of District 2179", then "Second Associated Assistant" and so on and so on. I thought, for crying out loud, use some frigging abreviations.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

Given we just recently had a drone protest in the area this past weekend, I'd say some are interested. Who brought up the drones anyway, was that the moderator? It wouldn't surprise me if it was Obama, though. I know I have interest in drones not because of today's use, but because of tomorrow's use. That's how "1984"-esque societies are created.
It was the moderator who brought it up. I'm sure there are a few people interested in it, but I can't recall ever hearing anyone I know, or even anything I've read online, indicating people are interested in it as a campaign issue. And given the candidates have the exact same position on drones, it's doubly a nonissue.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

You know what I remember most about those papers? The obits. About every tenth one would be pretty standard -- Joe Blow, born *****, died *****, survived by *****, preceded in death by *****. The other 90% went for about a column and half each, on a full half page. Every single office held in the church. And these aren't offices like "secretary" or "president" or "deacon". It was page after page of, "Joe got his start as First Associated Assistant Ward Officer of District 2179", then "Second Associated Assistant" and so on and so on. I thought, for crying out loud, use some frigging abreviations.
Yah, we get some of those obituaries here in AZ also, given our substantial Mormon population. To each their own, but I'm not sure for my obituary I'd want every office and position I've held as being the most important things to note from my life.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

Once again national pundits are ripping off my material dammit! This is something similar to what I posted a couple of days ago, but of course spot on...

Romney Says He’s Winning — It’s a BluffBy Jonathan Chait
In recent days, the vibe emanating from Mitt Romney’s campaign has grown downright giddy. Despite a lack of any evident positive momentum over the last week — indeed, in the face of a slight decline from its post-Denver high — the Romney camp is suddenly bursting with talk that it will not only win but win handily. (“We’re going to win,” said one of the former Massachusetts governor’s closest advisers. “Seriously, 305 electoral votes.”)

This is a bluff. Romney is carefully attempting to project an atmosphere of momentum, in the hopes of winning positive media coverage and, thus, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Over the last week, Romney’s campaign has orchestrated a series of high-profile gambits in order to feed its momentum narrative. Last week, for instance, Romney’s campaign blared out the news that it was pulling resources out of North Carolina. The battleground was shifting! Romney on the offensive! On closer inspection, it turned out that Romney was shifting exactly one staffer. It is true that Romney leads in North Carolina, and it is probably his most favorable battleground state. But the decision to have a staffer move out of state, with a marching band and sound trucks in tow to spread the news far and wide, signals a deliberate strategy to create a narrative.

Also last week, Paul Ryan held a rally in Pittsburgh. Romney moving in to Pennsylvania! On the offensive! Skeptical reporters noted that Ryan’s rally would bleed into the media coverage in southeast Ohio and that Romney was not devoting any real money to Pennsylvania. Romney’s campaign keeps leaking that it is planning to spend money there. (Today’s leak: “Republicans are genuinely intrigued by the prospect of a strike in Pennsylvania and, POLITICO has learned, are considering going up on TV there outside the expensive Philadelphia market.” Note the noncommittal terms: intrigued and considering.) The story also floats Romney’s belief that, since Pennsylvania has no early voting, it can postpone its planned, any-day-now move into Pennsylvania until the end. This allows Romney to keep the Pennsylvania bluff going until, what, a couple of days before the election?

Karl Rove employed exactly this strategy in 2000. As we now know, the race was excruciatingly close, and Al Gore won the national vote by half a percentage point. But at the time, Bush projected a jaunty air of confidence. Rove publicly predicted Bush would win 320 electoral votes. Bush even spent the final days stumping in California, supposedly because he was so sure of victory he wanted an icing-on-the-cake win in a deep blue state. Campaign reporters generally fell for Bush’s spin, portraying him as riding the winds of momentum and likewise presenting Al Gore as desperate.

The current landscape is slightly different. The race is also very close, but Obama enjoys a clear electoral college lead. He is ahead by at least a couple points in enough states to make him president. Adding to his base of uncontested states, Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin would give Obama 271 electoral votes. According to the current polling averages compiled at fivethirtyeight.com, Obama leads by 3.5 percent, Ohio by 2.9 percent, and Wisconsin by 4 percent. Should any of those fail, Virginia and Colorado are nearly dead even. (Obama leads by 0.7 percent and 1.0 percent, respectively.) If you don’t want to rely on Nate Silver — and you should rely on him! — the polling averages at realclearpolitics, the conservative-leaning site, don’t differ much, either.

If you look closely at the boasts emanating from Romney’s allies, you can detect a lot of hedging and weasel-words. Rob Portman calls Ohio a “dead heat,” which is a way of calling a race close without saying it’s tied. A Romney source tells Mike Allen that Wisconsin leans their way owing to Governor Scott Walker’s “turnout operation.” That is campaign speak for “we’re not winning, but we hope to make it up through turnout.”

Obama’s lead is narrow — narrow enough that the polling might well be wrong and Romney could win. But he is leading, his lead is not declining, and the widespread perception that Romney is pulling ahead is Romney’s campaign suckering the press corps with a confidence game.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

Yah, we get some of those obituaries here in AZ also, given our substantial Mormon population. To each their own, but I'm not sure for my obituary I'd want every office and position I've held as being the most important things to note from my life.

Me too, but mormons have incredible neighborhood organization, and this is one very deliberate way to acknowledge and maintain that network structure.

Regarding the subject of last night's debate, isn't it a little interesting that what most observers seem to think was the least compelling of the debates involves an area in which, we are always told, a sitting president has the greatest opportunity to affect policy--foreign affairs. Appointing federal judges is a big deal, of course, but the related policy changes are more gradual, less predictable, and harder to evaluate in the heat of the campaign.
 
Last edited:
Me too, but mormons have incredible neighborhood organization, and this is one very deliberate way to acknowledge and maintain that network structure.

Regarding the subject of last night's debate, isn't it a little interesting that what most observers seem to think was the least compelling of the debates involves an area in which, we are always told, a sitting president has the greatest opportunity to affect policy--foreign affairs. Appointing federal judges is a big deal, of course, but the related policy changes are more gradual, less predictable, and harder to evaluate in the heat of the campaign.

I actually like a good foreign policy debate. Think of the terrible foreign policy Presidents (Carter, Bush II) and the havoc they wrought with bad decisions. While I don't think Romney did anything to disqualify himself last night my concern with him is his ever-changing views on this subject. Why that matters to me is my worry lunatics like John Bolton will be influencing him in an area that he's not very familiar with. Some on the right will take comfort in the similarly untested Reagan having a successful run at foreign policy, but the world he lived in was a lot less complicated (although no less dangerous). It boiled down to opposing the Soviets. Conservatives of Romney's era seem to continue to look for the next monolithic boogeyman (China, Islam, Iraq, Iran) and I worry they're manufacture one if they don't find it.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

I actually like a good foreign policy debate. Think of the terrible foreign policy Presidents (Carter, Bush II) and the havoc they wrought with bad decisions. While I don't think Romney did anything to disqualify himself last night my concern with him is his ever-changing views on this subject. Why that matters to me is my worry lunatics like John Bolton will be influencing him in an area that he's not very familiar with. Some on the right will take comfort in the similarly untested Reagan having a successful run at foreign policy, but the world he lived in was a lot less complicated (although no less dangerous). It boiled down to opposing the Soviets. Conservatives of Romney's era seem to continue to look for the next monolithic boogeyman (China, Islam, Iraq, Iran) and I worry they're manufacture one if they don't find it.

Considering many knucks say we're in Jimmy Carter's second term, and many libs say Romney would be Bush II's third term, that's the more reason to go third party.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

It's so awesome that guys running for President can completely change their positions on issues any time they want to.

Heard the polls this morning and Romney's even more of a lock then he was yesterday.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

Interesting role reversal in the chattering classes today....the Repugnicans are slamming Romney for letting Oblamer off the hook, while the Dummycrats are bemoaning how "presidential" Romney was and how petty and petulant Obama was!


the rumor is that Romney's team sand-bagged Obama pretty good...they were hinting at a rough and tumble battle and then came out all pleasant and genteel. Since Obama apparently can't think well on his feet, he simply followed the script that had been prepared for him, even though it didn't really fit the situation. I was waiting for a moment when Romney agreed with Obama and then Obama started to argue with Romney for agreeing with him!

It came pretty close when Romney said "criticizing me is not a policy".
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

You know what I remember most about those papers? The obits. About every tenth one would be pretty standard -- Joe Blow, born *****, died *****, survived by *****, preceded in death by *****. The other 90% went for about a column and half each, on a full half page. Every single office held in the church. And these aren't offices like "secretary" or "president" or "deacon". It was page after page of, "Joe got his start as First Associated Assistant Ward Officer of District 2179", then "Second Associated Assistant" and so on and so on. I thought, for crying out loud, use some frigging abreviations.

When I was assigned to Hill AFB in Utah, I placed my car insurance with a State Farm agent. At some point, he told me "I'm the only non-LSD State Farm agent in Utah." I asked if he meant to say non-LDS. He said: "What's the difference? They're both hallucinogenic." This guy got to tell that joke, and get a laugh, day after day after day.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

Once again national pundits are ripping off my material dammit! This is something similar to what I posted a couple of days ago, but of course spot on...

Romney Says He’s Winning — It’s a BluffBy Jonathan Chait
In recent days, the vibe emanating from Mitt Romney’s campaign has grown downright giddy. Despite a lack of any evident positive momentum over the last week — indeed, in the face of a slight decline from its post-Denver high — the Romney camp is suddenly bursting with talk that it will not only win but win handily. (“We’re going to win,” said one of the former Massachusetts governor’s closest advisers. “Seriously, 305 electoral votes.”)

This is a bluff. Romney is carefully attempting to project an atmosphere of momentum, in the hopes of winning positive media coverage and, thus, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Over the last week, Romney’s campaign has orchestrated a series of high-profile gambits in order to feed its momentum narrative. Last week, for instance, Romney’s campaign blared out the news that it was pulling resources out of North Carolina. The battleground was shifting! Romney on the offensive! On closer inspection, it turned out that Romney was shifting exactly one staffer. It is true that Romney leads in North Carolina, and it is probably his most favorable battleground state. But the decision to have a staffer move out of state, with a marching band and sound trucks in tow to spread the news far and wide, signals a deliberate strategy to create a narrative.

Also last week, Paul Ryan held a rally in Pittsburgh. Romney moving in to Pennsylvania! On the offensive! Skeptical reporters noted that Ryan’s rally would bleed into the media coverage in southeast Ohio and that Romney was not devoting any real money to Pennsylvania. Romney’s campaign keeps leaking that it is planning to spend money there. (Today’s leak: “Republicans are genuinely intrigued by the prospect of a strike in Pennsylvania and, POLITICO has learned, are considering going up on TV there outside the expensive Philadelphia market.” Note the noncommittal terms: intrigued and considering.) The story also floats Romney’s belief that, since Pennsylvania has no early voting, it can postpone its planned, any-day-now move into Pennsylvania until the end. This allows Romney to keep the Pennsylvania bluff going until, what, a couple of days before the election?

Karl Rove employed exactly this strategy in 2000. As we now know, the race was excruciatingly close, and Al Gore won the national vote by half a percentage point. But at the time, Bush projected a jaunty air of confidence. Rove publicly predicted Bush would win 320 electoral votes. Bush even spent the final days stumping in California, supposedly because he was so sure of victory he wanted an icing-on-the-cake win in a deep blue state. Campaign reporters generally fell for Bush’s spin, portraying him as riding the winds of momentum and likewise presenting Al Gore as desperate.

The current landscape is slightly different. The race is also very close, but Obama enjoys a clear electoral college lead. He is ahead by at least a couple points in enough states to make him president. Adding to his base of uncontested states, Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin would give Obama 271 electoral votes. According to the current polling averages compiled at fivethirtyeight.com, Obama leads by 3.5 percent, Ohio by 2.9 percent, and Wisconsin by 4 percent. Should any of those fail, Virginia and Colorado are nearly dead even. (Obama leads by 0.7 percent and 1.0 percent, respectively.) If you don’t want to rely on Nate Silver — and you should rely on him! — the polling averages at realclearpolitics, the conservative-leaning site, don’t differ much, either.

If you look closely at the boasts emanating from Romney’s allies, you can detect a lot of hedging and weasel-words. Rob Portman calls Ohio a “dead heat,” which is a way of calling a race close without saying it’s tied. A Romney source tells Mike Allen that Wisconsin leans their way owing to Governor Scott Walker’s “turnout operation.” That is campaign speak for “we’re not winning, but we hope to make it up through turnout.”

Obama’s lead is narrow — narrow enough that the polling might well be wrong and Romney could win. But he is leading, his lead is not declining, and the widespread perception that Romney is pulling ahead is Romney’s campaign suckering the press corps with a confidence game.

Who are you trying to convince?
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

I actually like a good foreign policy debate. Think of the terrible foreign policy Presidents (Carter, Bush II) and the havoc they wrought with bad decisions. While I don't think Romney did anything to disqualify himself last night my concern with him is his ever-changing views on this subject. Why that matters to me is my worry lunatics like John Bolton will be influencing him in an area that he's not very familiar with. Some on the right will take comfort in the similarly untested Reagan having a successful run at foreign policy, but the world he lived in was a lot less complicated (although no less dangerous). It boiled down to opposing the Soviets. Conservatives of Romney's era seem to continue to look for the next monolithic boogeyman (China, Islam, Iraq, Iran) and I worry they're manufacture one if they don't find it.

So we're going to have to "look" for a problem with Islamism or Iran? Those aren't problems now?
 
Who are you trying to convince?

Knuckledraggers, although truth be told I don't know what would be more amusing - 1) knowing you're going to lose before the election, or 2) Getting your hopes up only to have the crushed on election night. I'll have to ponder that question over a few beers...

"Voter suppression" dirty tricks are going to become a thing of the past the more early voting takes hold. Say you send out a message to Republicans in Florida that election day has been moved to Wednesday. That would be great if there was only one day to vote. However, if you can vote for the whole week, that sort of tactic loses its effectiveness, same as phone bank jamming or any other scare tactic.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

Is the stock market finally taking the possibility of a Romney victory seriously? Markets down big again today. Romney said he won't reappoint Bernanke. Only Bernanke's reckless experiment with monetizing the debt has kept the market afloat.

I'm sure Rover, being so much smarter than the rest of us, will soon chime in to tell us that the market is actually anticipating an Obama victory and the increase in taxes on capital gains that will result, and so the professional investors are all taking their profits while they can before tax rates go up.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top