Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Social > Politics and News

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-04-2012, 07:35 PM   #1276
buckshot24
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,823
Default

Taking a look at that Pew poll that has the Bamster up 3.

The white voters that they talked to in the newest poll were much more likely to be Democrats. It seems like too big of a change for one week.

White Party affiliation
Pew Oct 29

D 29.0%
R 41.6%
I 29.4%

Pew Nov 4

D 32.3%
R 37.2%
I 30.5%

Went from a 14 point split to 5 point split in one week.

In their Oct 8 poll

D 26.3%
R 41.8%
I 32.0%

This could be a loss of Republican support among whites and a gain for the Democrats or they were talking to different white people for their last poll.
buckshot24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2012, 07:42 PM   #1277
Farang
Lifer
 
Farang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Seattle
Posts: 10,922
Default

The cake is baked.. I think the question is could any other Republican have beaten Obama? I mean a Republican who also could have got through the primary (i.e. not Huntsman). I feel like Romney went further right than he needed to to win the nomination, and had he stayed a 'Massachusetts moderate' he could have made a compelling case. He swung further than he needed to in my view.
__________________
You can push them out of a plane, you can march them off a cliff, you can send 'em off to die on some godforsaken rock, but for some reason you can't slap 'em
Farang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2012, 07:46 PM   #1278
First
Diamond Member
 
First's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 8,968
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesKozierok View Post
Sullivan is strongly pro-Obama. I don't think he agrees with Barone, but he does respect his knowledge.
Barone's an AEI guy so he's less partisan by that alone....of course AEI is one step away from Heritage in a lot of ways so I'm not sure anyone should really take him seriously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farang View Post
The cake is baked.. I think the question is could any other Republican have beaten Obama? I mean a Republican who also could have got through the primary (i.e. not Huntsman). I feel like Romney went further right than he needed to to win the nomination, and had he stayed a 'Massachusetts moderate' he could have made a compelling case. He swung further than he needed to in my view.
This may be one of the reasons given postmortem on Tuesday for Romney. Frankly it's not a bad excuse, I think Romney is in reality a true moderate, but I think people (rightfully) see him as such a core-less flip flopper at times that he just quite isn't trustworthy enough.
First is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2012, 07:56 PM   #1279
OBLAMA2009
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,236
Default

imma say rom-knee gonna be 'lected
OBLAMA2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2012, 08:02 PM   #1280
Farang
Lifer
 
Farang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Seattle
Posts: 10,922
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by First View Post
Barone's an AEI guy so he's less partisan by that alone....of course AEI is one step away from Heritage in a lot of ways so I'm not sure anyone should really take him seriously.



This may be one of the reasons given postmortem on Tuesday for Romney. Frankly it's not a bad excuse, I think Romney is in reality a true moderate, but I think people (rightfully) see him as such a core-less flip flopper at times that he just quite isn't trustworthy enough.
I don't know if that's true, that he is a moderate. Being in a blue state, I know that conservative pols often moderate themselves to be more palatable. If Romney decided on a career in politics, as a citizen in Massachusetts, he knew he'd have to go left on some issues and so he did that. I think it's just as valid an argument that he truly is far-right, and in this election his true colors came out.

In fact I think that is a stronger argument if you agree that he went farther right than necessary to win the Republican nomination. The explanation for that would be, it wasn't political calculus but him feeling he could express his true beliefs.
__________________
You can push them out of a plane, you can march them off a cliff, you can send 'em off to die on some godforsaken rock, but for some reason you can't slap 'em
Farang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2012, 08:06 PM   #1281
Jhhnn
Lifer
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Denver Co
Posts: 22,065
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by First View Post
Barone's an AEI guy so he's less partisan by that alone....of course AEI is one step away from Heritage in a lot of ways so I'm not sure anyone should really take him seriously.

This may be one of the reasons given postmortem on Tuesday for Romney. Frankly it's not a bad excuse, I think Romney is in reality a true moderate, but I think people (rightfully) see him as such a core-less flip flopper at times that he just quite isn't trustworthy enough.
Romney represents the Lootocracy, the uber-wealthy few who have been allowed to amass entirely too much wealth & power for democracy to truly thrive in this country. He may well be a social moderate, but he'll bargain that away to the fundie whacks in exchange for more tax cuts at the top, less regulation, more opportunities for people who don't need more money to run up the score, acquire even more economic power.
Jhhnn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2012, 08:14 PM   #1282
First
Diamond Member
 
First's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 8,968
Default

^ Honestly, I just see Romney as an unknown as much as I see him as a moderate. I think he'd flip hard on his tax cut plan and his deficit plans when truly faced with the realities of the budget, especially since he has flipped on so many issues before. I view him as that coreless and gutless. I don't think he'd lose that much traction politically if he did those things, though, because he'd have the Dems on his side if he did that, and enough Republicans to peal off to get something done. He'd be worse for the country than Obama though, of that I have little doubt.
First is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2012, 08:37 PM   #1283
Jhhnn
Lifer
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Denver Co
Posts: 22,065
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by First View Post
^ Honestly, I just see Romney as an unknown as much as I see him as a moderate. I think he'd flip hard on his tax cut plan and his deficit plans when truly faced with the realities of the budget, especially since he has flipped on so many issues before. I view him as that coreless and gutless. I don't think he'd lose that much traction politically if he did those things, though, because he'd have the Dems on his side if he did that, and enough Republicans to peal off to get something done. He'd be worse for the country than Obama though, of that I have little doubt.
You make the mistake of thinking that Repubs actually give a damn about deficits. They don't, and their record over the last 30 years proves it. Deficits are cover for trickledown economics, for the ever increasing concentration of wealth & power into the hands of a very few, and to compensate for the american dollars they're pushing offshore as fast as possible. More money must constantly be created to leave liquidity in the domestic economy. Deficits do that.

American capitalists are no longer American, but rather international. When the dollar falls or rises, their offshore assets simply move in the other direction. Our vast military exists not to protect the common citizen, but rather their international interests. There is no existential threat to the Republic. It's used to maintain their profits, and to expand markets if possible. Such was the intention in Iraq.

American workers are the equivalent of a dowdy spouse of 25 years, so they're trading us in on a new Chinese girlfriend- young, pretty & willing to do whatever they want for a whole lot less...

Mitt's keeping his wife, apparently, but the rest applies entirely too well. He's the hero of the lootocracy, a man who makes money strictly with money, with financial manipulation. The actual business of doing anything productive is so far removed from his realm that it might as well not exist for his purposes, nor the people involved, either. That's us, whether we realize it or not.
Jhhnn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2012, 09:01 PM   #1284
Doppel
Lifer
 
Doppel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 13,313
Default

It is true republicans do not care about debt. Haven't cared in decades. It is not opinion but fact, the numbs speak for themselves. Romney would do little for th deficit just as Obama will do little. Neither actuall care.
Doppel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2012, 09:02 PM   #1285
rockyct
Diamond Member
 
rockyct's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,422
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balt View Post
Ah, I forgot about that. That may be (oddly enough) the most important aspect of the coming election, since the justices typically sit for so long.

I'm a bit surprised Ginsburg didn't retire in 2010 or 2011 since circumstances seemed unfavorable for Obama to be re-elected.

I think in the next 4 years we may see her and possibly Kennedy and/or Breyer retire. Scalia is getting up there in years too, but I think he'd rather die in his chair than let Obama pick his successor.
It would have been pretty crazy for Obama to pick three justices in his first term. It would have been a pretty strong legacy even if he losses on Tuesday.

I wouldn't be surprised though if you're right and Ginsburg/Breyer retire if Obama wins. Kennedy is still pretty conservative though so I don't think he'll be retiring while Obama is in office.

The bottom line is this, Obama's first term could be a speed bump on road of the conservatives or it can be sort of an inflection point. There's a lot of stuff that can be "undone" if Romney wins, but another four years will solidify a lot of what Obama has accomplished.
rockyct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2012, 09:16 PM   #1286
Doppel
Lifer
 
Doppel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 13,313
Default

Watching fox now like self flagellation. Anyway Greta has a guy (pat buch) who actually mentions electoral votes but states several ways romney can win. He is hedging his predictions but says a lot of the people on his side are saying Romney can win. I know politicians feign confiden so it is hard to know if these people have actually convinced themselves this fiction is true.
Doppel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2012, 09:18 PM   #1287
First
Diamond Member
 
First's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 8,968
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jhhnn View Post
You make the mistake of thinking that Repubs actually give a damn about deficits. They don't, and their record over the last 30 years proves it. Deficits are cover for trickledown economics, for the ever increasing concentration of wealth & power into the hands of a very few, and to compensate for the american dollars they're pushing offshore as fast as possible. More money must constantly be created to leave liquidity in the domestic economy. Deficits do that.

American capitalists are no longer American, but rather international. When the dollar falls or rises, their offshore assets simply move in the other direction. Our vast military exists not to protect the common citizen, but rather their international interests. There is no existential threat to the Republic. It's used to maintain their profits, and to expand markets if possible. Such was the intention in Iraq.

American workers are the equivalent of a dowdy spouse of 25 years, so they're trading us in on a new Chinese girlfriend- young, pretty & willing to do whatever they want for a whole lot less...

Mitt's keeping his wife, apparently, but the rest applies entirely too well. He's the hero of the lootocracy, a man who makes money strictly with money, with financial manipulation. The actual business of doing anything productive is so far removed from his realm that it might as well not exist for his purposes, nor the people involved, either. That's us, whether we realize it or not.
I don't take your position to nearly the same extreme. I think Romney is much more reasonable than that, and that elections tend to ferret out the ideologues quite adequately. For all the carping about how bad Bush was, one thing you could not confuse him with was a conservative, not on social issues but on immigration and spending, as two examples. You say conservatives only give lip service to the deficit, which is true, but they are simply more apt to spend less than their progressive brethren at the House, state and local levels. Bush, not so much. Though I don't think out of control spending was Bush's issue on the budget as much as a far too low tax rate on too many Americans was, in addition to horribly executed strategies on war of course.
First is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2012, 09:21 PM   #1288
First
Diamond Member
 
First's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 8,968
Default

Btw, early voting out of Iowa and Nevada today already suggests Romney will need >50% on election day, which simply isn't likely to get based on the current polling numbers in both those states. Knowing that those states are in the bag already makes the 300 electoral vote total predictions for Romney a near impossibility. Oh but still funny.
First is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2012, 09:25 PM   #1289
Charles Kozierok
Elite Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,762
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by First View Post
Btw, early voting out of Iowa and Nevada today already suggests Romney will need >50% on election day, which simply isn't likely to get based on the current polling numbers in both those states.
Polling takes into account early and on-day voting.
__________________
"Of those who say nothing, few are silent." -- Thomas Neill
Charles Kozierok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2012, 09:25 PM   #1290
Doppel
Lifer
 
Doppel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 13,313
Default

Dick Morris is on Greta right now saying Romney will get 325 including PA which 538 has a 97% change of romney NOT getting. I don't believe Morris believes this so what does he gain by lying? Oh and popular vote by more than 5 percent.
Doppel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2012, 09:35 PM   #1291
First
Diamond Member
 
First's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 8,968
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesKozierok View Post
Polling takes into account early and on-day voting.
Yeah I know, I'm looking at the internals. Polls show Romney needs 58% in Nevada and 59% in Iowa on election day, but he's only running 10 points ahead at 55% among those who haven't voted. So we know with a high degree of certainly he's not taking those states already.
First is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2012, 09:36 PM   #1292
First
Diamond Member
 
First's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 8,968
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppel View Post
Dick Morris is on Greta right now saying Romney will get 325 including PA which 538 has a 97% change of romney NOT getting. I don't believe Morris believes this so what does he gain by lying? Oh and popular vote by more than 5 percent.
lol. I swear, every time I hear this dude talk I feel like he's a baseball steak away from cardiac arrest.
First is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2012, 09:44 PM   #1293
buckshot24
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,823
Default

CNN poll was just released.

Race tied but what I found interesting is the following.

"Among those likely voters, 41% described
themselves as Democrats, 29% described themselves as Independents, and 30% described themselves as Republicans."

11 point gap in favor the the Democrats and the poll only shows it as a tie? Independents in this poll favor Romney by 59%-37%
buckshot24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2012, 09:47 PM   #1294
buckshot24
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by First View Post
Yeah I know, I'm looking at the internals. Polls show Romney needs 58% in Nevada and 59% in Iowa on election day, but he's only running 10 points ahead at 55% among those who haven't voted. So we know with a high degree of certainly he's not taking those states already.
You aren't any more certain than if you just looked at the top lines of the polls.
buckshot24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2012, 09:47 PM   #1295
uclaLabrat
Diamond Member
 
uclaLabrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,428
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by buckshot24 View Post
CNN poll was just released.

Race tied but what I found interesting is the following.

"Among those likely voters, 41% described
themselves as Democrats, 29% described themselves as Independents, and 30% described themselves as Republicans."

11 point gap in favor the the Democrats and the poll only shows it as a tie? Independents in this poll favor Romney by 59%-37%
Not really surprising at all, since most independents are actually tea partiers who feel the republicans don't closely match their beliefs, but vote with them anyway. You really believe almost a third of the electorate is independent? Independent candidates would be viable if 30% of the electorate felt that way.
uclaLabrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2012, 09:50 PM   #1296
Doppel
Lifer
 
Doppel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 13,313
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by buckshot24 View Post
CNN poll was just released.

Race tied but what I found interesting is the following.

"Among those likely voters, 41% described
themselves as Democrats, 29% described themselves as Independents, and 30% described themselves as Republicans."

11 point gap in favor the the Democrats and the poll only shows it as a tie? Independents in this poll favor Romney by 59%-37%
The race is not tied.

Read the second from last paragraph in this entry.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...ically-biased/
Doppel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2012, 09:51 PM   #1297
Jhhnn
Lifer
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Denver Co
Posts: 22,065
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppel View Post
Dick Morris is on Greta right now saying Romney will get 325 including PA which 538 has a 97% change of romney NOT getting. I don't believe Morris believes this so what does he gain by lying? Oh and popular vote by more than 5 percent.
He's a whore, a sellout. He gets paid.

Anything else we need to clear up?
Jhhnn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2012, 09:51 PM   #1298
buckshot24
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by uclaLabrat View Post
Not really surprising at all, since most independents are actually tea partiers who feel the republicans don't closely match their beliefs, but vote with them anyway. You really believe almost a third of the electorate is independent? Independent candidates would be viable if 30% of the electorate felt that way.
Independents are just those who don't describe themselves as having a party.

Independents have been around 30% for years.
buckshot24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2012, 09:52 PM   #1299
buckshot24
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppel View Post
The race is not tied.

Read the second from last paragraph in this entry.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...ically-biased/
I probably read that blog more than you. I'm talking about that poll.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/im...1/04/top16.pdf
buckshot24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2012, 09:52 PM   #1300
Jhhnn
Lifer
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Denver Co
Posts: 22,065
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by buckshot24 View Post
Independents are just those who don't describe themselves as having a party.

Independents have been around 30% for years.
That's something we can agree on.
Jhhnn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.