Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

Do you really believe that a sizable chunk of voters will move one direction or the other due to their views on the federal budget deficit? I'll believe it when I see it.

So, you said it was a tiny fraction, then Kepler shows that it's near the top of the list of concerns that will influence votes and now you say it's too large...
Make up your mind!

 

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

I guess the race comes down to who has the least bad perceptions toward them in the next few months, which is a rather depressing way for a President to be selected. But I guess that's not that different than a number of other recent elections.

Isn't that the way most elections have been decided for the past 40 years?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

So, you said it was a tiny fraction, then Kepler shows that it's near the top of the list of concerns that will influence votes and now you say it's too large...
Make up your mind!

You misread my post. Read again.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

Do you really believe that a sizable chunk of voters will move one direction or the other due to their views on the federal budget deficit? I'll believe it when I see it.

Well, there's a sub-question of whether there is ever a sizeable chunk of voters who are movable at all. Polling about important issues probably just indicates what the most recent news story has been. So, say the deficit is in the news. Voters all say it's important to their vote... and then vote the way they were going to anyway. It's just now that they rationalize their vote in different language. I'm sure there's a political participation theory that says this much more cleverly, but it basically is that news reinforces a voters' opinion (which is autobiographical and emotional, not empirical and rational) but gives the voter a new suit of clothes for those beliefs.

 

[pirate]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

Well, there's a sub-question of whether there is ever a sizeable chunk of voters who are movable at all. Polling about important issues probably just indicates what the most recent news story has been. So, say the deficit is in the news. Voters all say it's important to their vote... and then vote the way they were going to anyway. It's just now that they rationalize their vote in different language. I'm sure there's a political participation theory that says this much more cleverly, but it basically is that news reinforces a voters' opinion (which is autobiographical and emotional, not empirical and rational) but gives the voter a new suit of clothes for those beliefs.

So, there are two groups that could have some impact...undecideds that will measure the issues, watch the debates, review the VP nominees etc and then pick the best candidate according to their judgment of who will best run the country AND those weak commits who will be influenced by which one does better on Leno, says something dumb, wears a goofy hat, insults bacon eaters or trips on the stairs (some of these people are already polling in support of one candidate but would switch if one of the above should happen).

Now, I'm not saying those groups will swing anything one way or the other...but there are two parts to them...potential for increased voters if one of the candidates engages/enrages a sizable chunk of people and/or shifting market share if one gets a sizable chunk of weak commits to swing their votes over to the other side.

I don't disagree that it is hard to tell if the laugh-o-meter could move enough...if it was broken into quadrants the trailing candidate might need to do well with the late deciders and also have his opponent make a big mistake to swing the weak commits. A dull boy and no mistakes from the other guy and the leader wins. The other two boxes likely offset and the leader still wins.

If anybody suggests Obama get in a tank or go to an aircraft carrier, I'd hold him back. He also needs to bone up on the price of milk, which state Ohio State plays in and who the prime minister of Ackackagstan is, this week. He could also hope Romney picks Admiral Stockdale as his running mate.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

review the VP nominees

ROTFLMAO. That's a good one.

 

[Rover]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

I disagree on the "boo hoo hoo, we have no choices" mantra. You have a clear choice as to what direction you'd like the country to go in with this election. Putting aside my personal preference, simply put there will be a stark difference in governance if one party or the other is elected. 12 years ago mental midget Little Ralphie Nader made the same argument, and for the umpteenth time was proven to be fool. Problem was the joke was on the United States after 8 years of GWB. There IS a clear difference this time around.

 

[geezer]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

I disagree on the "boo hoo hoo, we have no choices" mantra. You have a clear choice as to what direction you'd like the country to go in with this election. Putting aside my personal preference, simply put there will be a stark difference in governance if one party or the other is elected. 12 years ago mental midget Little Ralphie Nader made the same argument, and for the umpteenth time was proven to be fool. Problem was the joke was on the United States after 8 years of GWB. There IS a clear difference this time around.

...naw, there's really not. Romney may say he'll repeal Obamacare, but it won't get done. Obama may say he'll tax the rich more (let the cuts expire), I sincerely doubt it'll get done. Still, I'll vote O and hope for the best. Just doubt there's any difference at all.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

Well, there's a sub-question of whether there is ever a sizeable chunk of voters who are movable at all. Polling about important issues probably just indicates what the most recent news story has been. So, say the deficit is in the news. Voters all say it's important to their vote... and then vote the way they were going to anyway. It's just now that they rationalize their vote in different language. I'm sure there's a political participation theory that says this much more cleverly, but it basically is that news reinforces a voters' opinion (which is autobiographical and emotional, not empirical and rational) but gives the voter a new suit of clothes for those beliefs.

I think there's clearly been elections, even in recent times, where a significant portion of the vote has been in flux, though of course one never knows with 100 percent certainty what people are thinking. I recall back in '92 that Bush Sr. had super high approval ratings after the Gulf War, and was such a presumptive winner that the Dem heavy hitters staying out of the race, deferring to a little known Arkansas governor. Then the economy goes into recession and voters throw Bush Sr. out and elect Clinton. There certainly was a big shift in voter sentiment in that case, though usually such things are driven by specific economic or other events/trends.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

Dem heavy hitters staying out of the race, deferring to a little known Arkansas governor. Then the economy goes into recession and voters throw Bush Sr. out and elect Clinton. There certainly was a big shift in voter sentiment in that case, though usually such things are driven by specific economic or other events/trends.

Bush's approval definitely came back down from the wartime high, but it wasn't all a partisan swing. That election also had the wildest wildcard in recent (ok, not so recent) memory.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

One of the things that could help Romney gain some traction is that (in my totally unscientific opinion) at least 50% of the 18-25 year-old voters who registered for the first time in '08 to vote for "hope and change", are pretty likely to remain in the dorms or in mom's basement playing Xbox now that they're all pouty and disillusioned over having learned their lesson in candidate rhetoric vs. actual Beltway politics. Of course, some of this is likely to be offset by the young voters who become eligible and will register this time around, so how much of that ground Obama loses remains to be seen.

Regardless, geezer's right, I really don't see the country any worse off with Mittens unless the voters hand him a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, which is unlikely. The spending and debt will continue unabated, with no federal income increases to match, and the Selfish Generation will demand that my, much smaller generation pays every dime of their Social Security and Medicare while continuing to call us spoiled and lazy.

 

[joecct]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

Bush's approval definitely came back down from the wartime high, but it wasn't all a partisan swing. That election also had the wildest wildcard in recent (ok, not so recent) memory.

And 1980 had John Anderson and 2004 had Ralph Nader. Did these 3rd party candidates take enough votes away from a candidate to flip the election?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

Bush's approval definitely came back down from the wartime high, but it wasn't all a partisan swing. That election also had the wildest wildcard in recent (ok, not so recent) memory.

The economy was what killed Bush Sr. You have the election 6-9 months earlier and he would have been reelected easily.

 

[mookie1995]

You people. You're people. Ur people. Your people

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

Considering how much California pays in federal taxes that get shipped to certain other states, it's about time.

BTW, the new high speed train between Shanghai and Beijing is impressive. Top speed is 350 Km/h (220 mph) and the fastest trip over the 1318 km (820 mi) is just under 5 hours. Too bad we can't do that...

As usual, grossly oversimplified. California has fiscal problems that extend far beyond it's federal tax status. This gigantic boondoggle is going to cost hundred of billions of dollars, greatly enriching various Democratic special interests along the way, and may not ever be finished. Or at least not in our life times.


http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/304974/train-nowhere-full-speed-ahead-john-fund

In the abstract, I think high speed rail linking SF and LA is a great idea. There's been talk for years of high speed rail linking the Texas Triangle (Houston, Dallas, San Antonio). And lines connecting Chicago with NY and other big eastern population centers is appealing, for a variety of reasons. I have ridden on the Shinkansen in Japan (years ago, it has been much improved and expanded since and they have even greater plans for the future) and it's very impressive. But the idea that the only or principal reason delaying development of high speed rail in California (or in any other state) is because of net federal tax payments is only slightly out of touch with reality.

Back in the 70's Boeing had plans to build an American SST. It would have been faster and bigger than the Concorde (quicker turn around, more paying customers, more revenue) and the usual suspects killed the project on this side of the pond, insuring the Brits and French would build their inferior aircraft and have that market all to themselves for decades.

I beleive in American technology and supported development of that American SST as I support the development of at least a limited high speed rail capability. But we should remember the environmentalists and others will want to create a 21st century version of the Red Flag Act and do to high speed rail what they've done to nuclear power.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

The IRS is the Gestapo?

<object id="flashObj" width="480" height="270" classid="clsid:<param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="flashVars" value="videoId=1727619797001&playerID=1684512073001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAACC1lJjE~,eO0k1bjplevyL8YPi3NQccQnZmHFkpb9&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" /><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com" /><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=1727619797001&playerID=1684512073001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAACC1lJjE~,eO0k1bjplevyL8YPi3NQccQnZmHFkpb9&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="480" height="270" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" swLiveConnect="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>

 

[Rover]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

...naw, there's really not. Romney may say he'll repeal Obamacare, but it won't get done. Obama may say he'll tax the rich more (let the cuts expire), I sincerely doubt it'll get done. Still, I'll vote O and hope for the best. Just doubt there's any difference at all.

Your big difference will be between a Grand Bargain or The Ryan Plan. Give Mittens the WH and anybody under 55 takes it in the shorts to give tax cuts to the wealthy. That's the plan and its pretty straightforward. A simple 50 vote "majority" in the Senate does the trick thru reconciliation.

Elect Obama (and a Dem Senate) and the combination of an automatic expiration of Bush tax gimmicks, huge defense cuts, and a President no longer running for re-election and a Grand Bargain has a decent chance of being implemented. The alternative is Republican priorities (tax cuts, military spending) get flushed down the bowl as doing nothing is about the worst scenario for them.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

And 1980 had John Anderson and 2004 had Ralph Nader. Did these 3rd party candidates take enough votes away from a candidate to flip the election?

You can make a case for Nader, with the razor-thin Florida result . . . but you have to admit that Perot is sort of in a class by himself. He got 20 million votes in 92. The last candidate to win the presidency with a lower percentage of the vote than Clinton's was . . . Woodrow Wilson in 1912 (versus the dynamic duo of TR and Taft). Heck, Eugene Debs had as many votes that year as Anderson in 80, and twice as many as Nader (proportionally).

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

Back in the 70's Boeing had plans to build an American SST. It would have been faster and bigger than the Concorde (quicker turn around, more paying customers, more revenue) and the usual suspects killed the project on this side of the pond, insuring the Brits and French would <s>build their inferior aircraft and have that market all to themselves</s> lose millions for decades.

I beleive in American technology and supported development of that American SST as I support the development of at least a limited high speed rail capability. But we should remember the environmentalists and others will want to create a 21st century version of the Red Flag Act and do to high speed rail what they've done to nuclear power.

I don't see any particular reason to support or oppose an American SST or American high speed rail - projects like that should either earn their way into the infrastructure based on their merits or not. Sometimes those sorts of projects may need a kick start to develop the initial technology, which is a fine and appropriate role for government to play, but I wouldn't see any particular reason to be proud of an American SST or high speed rail that required massive subsidies to sustain its operating costs on an ongoing basis.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

I don't see any particular reason to support or oppose an American SST or American high speed rail - projects like that should either earn their way into the infrastructure based on their merits or not. Sometimes those sorts of projects may need a kick start to develop the initial technology, which is a fine and appropriate role for government to play, but I wouldn't see any particular reason to be proud of an American SST or high speed rail that required massive subsidies to sustain its operating costs on an ongoing basis.

Please resist the temptation to edit posts with which you disagree, especially mine. It's actually pretty childish plus it dilutes the brilliance. And, it seems to me your central point is significantly moronic. I assume you must also oppose continuing federal funding for every big city mass transit authority, not a single one of which has ever or will ever break even, let alone turn a profit. You know ". . .massive subsidies to sustain its operating costs on an ongoing basis."