2012 Elections

[Pyperkub]

That was truly a LOL quote.

In other news, if the Guardian's speculation on Romney's Tax Return refusals motivation turn out to be factual, I would also laugh out loud:

Mitt Romney's tax returns: the 'voter fraud' theory

But the Romneys, arbitrarily, refuse to disclose a copy of the returns they filed in 2010 or 2009 (for tax years 2009 and 2008) – which, perhaps not coincidentally, bracket the time period when Romney allegedly committed fraud by voting in Massachusetts when he actually resided in California. So here's the question: did Romney put his son's basement's address on the returns he filed in 2009 and 2010? Or did he truthfully use his real (non-Massachusetts) address, thus implicating himself in voter fraud?

This may seem like overmeticulous wonkishness, but the address given on tax returns is a big deal when it comes to proving voter fraud. As Hans von Spakovsky (senior legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, former Federal Election Commission member, and former DOJ voting-issue attorney, and himself an advocate of the GOP's restrictive voter ID requirements) explained to the Daily Caller:

"Election officials will also look at tax returns as crucial evidence in residency disputes. Where an individual declares himself to be a resident for tax purposes, thus subjecting himself to applicable state income taxes, is usually decisive on this issue."

[Grundbegriff]

That was truly a LOL quote.

In other news, if the Guardian's speculation on Romney's Tax Return refusals motivation turn out to be factual, I would also laugh out loud:

Mitt Romney's tax returns: the 'voter fraud' theory

But the Romneys, arbitrarily, refuse to disclose a copy of the returns they filed in 2010 or 2009 (for tax years 2009 and 2008) – which, perhaps not coincidentally, bracket the time period when Romney allegedly committed fraud by voting in Massachusetts when he actually resided in California. So here's the question: did Romney put his son's basement's address on the returns he filed in 2009 and 2010? Or did he truthfully use his real (non-Massachusetts) address, thus implicating himself in voter fraud?

In other news, did Barack Obama register at Occidental or Columbia or Harvard as an international student, or accept while affiliated with any of those institutions financial supported intended for an international student?

Also, does this look infected to you?

[Defiant]

Most of us, when we say "this isn't Communist Russia" or the like, use it as a metaphor.

Yes, I was using hyperbole to get a point across. Obviously the only thing the US has in common with Communist Russia is that both of our leaders are Communists.

I thought he was a socialist?

[silverjon]

Right, but this is the hyperbolic version.

[Tareeq]

In other news, did Barack Obama register at Occidental or Columbia or Harvard as an international student, or accept while affiliated with any of those institutions financial supported intended for an international student?

Racist.

[Defiant]

That was truly a LOL quote.

In other news, if the Guardian's speculation on Romney's Tax Return refusals motivation turn out to be factual, I would also laugh out loud:

Mitt Romney's tax returns: the 'voter fraud' theory

Well, at least he wasn't born in Kenya.

[YellowKing]

Read a great editorial today in the local paper (a typically liberal rag) that listed all of the false or misleading claims the Obama campaign has levied against Romney so far, along with a quote from Obama from an MSNBC interview in which he promised how dignified he would be in the forthcoming campaign. The tax return thing is really the least outrageous of the attacks he's leveled so far. At this point, Obama could teach Karl Rove a lesson or two in dirty politics.

[GreenGoo]

Read a great editorial today in the local paper (a typically liberal rag) that listed all of the false or misleading claims the Obama campaign has levied against Romney so far, along with a quote from Obama from an MSNBC interview in which he promised how dignified he would be in the forthcoming campaign. The tax return thing is really the least outrageous of the attacks he's leveled so far. At this point, Obama could teach Karl Rove a lesson or two in dirty politics.

I don't actually feel his campaign is anywhere near the dark souless one, I will say I'm mildly surprised and more than a little disappointed at the negative campaigning from Obama's camp. If they kept it to truthful, non-misleading statements and limited the hyperbole, I could let it pass, but it just seems low class to me.

[raydude]

I for one will welcome my 1% overlords. I just hope they don't touch my tax bracket too much. Go after MSDs and YK's tax bracket instead. You know, the ones that supported you.

(Just in the off chance that Mitt wins)

[Pyperkub]

That was truly a LOL quote.

In other news, if the Guardian's speculation on Romney's Tax Return refusals motivation turn out to be factual, I would also laugh out loud:

Mitt Romney's tax returns: the 'voter fraud' theory

But the Romneys, arbitrarily, refuse to disclose a copy of the returns they filed in 2010 or 2009 (for tax years 2009 and 2008) – which, perhaps not coincidentally, bracket the time period when Romney allegedly committed fraud by voting in Massachusetts when he actually resided in California. So here's the question: did Romney put his son's basement's address on the returns he filed in 2009 and 2010? Or did he truthfully use his real (non-Massachusetts) address, thus implicating himself in voter fraud?

In other news, did Barack Obama register at Occidental or Columbia or Harvard as an international student, or accept while affiliated with any of those institutions financial supported intended for an international student?

Also, does this look infected to you?

I don't know, maybe I give a little more credit to the guardian because it's British and not arguing from a partisan pov, but rather just a liberal one. That might be too much tho.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2

[Grundbegriff]

I don't know, maybe I give a little more credit to the guardian because it's British and not arguing from a partisan pov, but rather just a liberal one. That might be too much tho.

Thank you for letting me know about this "Guardian" newspaper! OBrigado!

[YellowKing]

The Communist leader thing was just a joke. I thought it was obvious enough not to need a smiley. Perhaps I was wrong.

[El Guapo]

Nate Silver ponders whether the "Legitimate rape" fiasco will impact the election.

[Exodor]

Romney tax plan "mathematically impossible:"

The numbers never worked out. No matter how hard the Tax Policy Center labored to make Romney’s promises add up, every simulation ended the same way: with a tax increase on the middle class. The tax cuts Romney is offering to the rich are simply larger than the size of the (non-investment) deductions and loopholes that exist for the rich. That’s why it’s “mathematically impossible” for Romney’s plan to produce anything but a tax increase on the middle class.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities produced its own analysis of Romney’s plan, based on an assumption that Romney pays for half of his tax cuts through spending cuts. The conclusion: By 2022, Romney would need to cut all non-defense, non-Social Security programs by 49 percent. That is not plausible, to say the least.

[Carpet_pissr]

"No matter how hard the Tax Policy Center labored to make Romney’s promises add up"

This bothers me for some reason. Not sure if that is the writer's bias coming through, and just chose those particular words to sizzle more, or add some poorly worded "color" if you will, or that said center actually did that vs. just running the damn numbers without trying for any specific outcome?

[LordMortis]

Romney tax plan "mathematically impossible:"

The numbers never worked out. No matter how hard the Tax Policy Center labored to make Romney’s promises add up, every simulation ended the same way: with a tax increase on the middle class. The tax cuts Romney is offering to the rich are simply larger than the size of the (non-investment) deductions and loopholes that exist for the rich. That’s why it’s “mathematically impossible” for Romney’s plan to produce anything but a tax increase on the middle class.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities produced its own analysis of Romney’s plan, based on an assumption that Romney pays for half of his tax cuts through spending cuts. The conclusion: By 2022, Romney would need to cut all non-defense, non-Social Security programs by 49 percent. That is not plausible, to say the least.

Isn't this what that non Mitt supporting republicans were saying about him during the primaries?

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/0 ... ?mobile=nc

But then, how's Obama been doing on "balancing the budget"?

[Exodor]

"No matter how hard the Tax Policy Center labored to make Romney’s promises add up"

This bothers me for some reason. Not sure if that is the writer's bias coming through, and just chose those particular words to sizzle more, or add some poorly worded "color" if you will, or that said center actually did that vs. just running the damn numbers without trying for any specific outcome?

I think that's because so much of Mitt's "plan" is vague or unstated that to run the numbers you have to make some assumptions. For example, he cites "closing loopholes" and "cutting spending" as savings but never specifies which loopholes or spending he wants to cut.

[Canuck]

Most of us, when we say "this isn't Communist Russia" or the like, use it as a metaphor.

Yes, I was using hyperbole to get a point across. Obviously the only thing the US has in common with Communist Russia is that both of our leaders are Communists.

Sorry I didn't realize that it was being used in jest. That's the problem with Republicans these days-you can't tell if they're actually being serious or not.

[YellowKing]

This really is a bizarre election. Polls consistently show people think they are no better off now than they were four years ago, gas prices are at an all time high, unemployment and true jobless claims are high, nobody is satisfied with Obama's leadership, yet he remains comfortably ahead in electoral predictions.

One of two things is going to happen. Either he will be one of the first Presidents in history to buck the trend and be re-elected with a bad economy, or the polls are misleading and Romney's about to pull a Ronald Reagan-style upset.

[Grundbegriff]

Remember 1984, when everything was crystal clear?

[raydude]

I wonder if the stock market as a whole has anything to do with Obama's current standing? I mean, on the face of it

in Jan 2009:

The Dow was at 8000
The S&P was at 800
Apple was $90/share
Exxon-Mobil was at $78/share and at 3.99 in normalized diluted earnings per share, indicative of its profitability

Now here we are in August 2012:

The Dow is at 13,000
S&P is at 1400
Apple is now $665/share
Exon-Mobil is at $87/share and at 8.42 normalized diluted earnings per share, showing it made itself much more profitable

[LordMortis]

I wonder if the stock market as a whole has anything to do with Obama's current standing? I mean, on the face of it

in Jan 2009:

The Dow was at 8000
The S&P was at 800
Apple was $90/share
Exxon-Mobil was at $78/share and at 3.99 in normalized diluted earnings per share, indicative of its profitability

Now here we are in August 2012:

The Dow is at 13,000
S&P is at 1400
Apple is now $665/share
Exon-Mobil is at $87/share and at 8.42 normalized diluted earnings per share, showing it made itself much more profitable

Joe in the street doesn't care about company profitability and it's ability to generate revenue for investors (maybe they should but they don't) They care about unemployment, the cost of gas, the cost of utilities, the cost of health care, the cost of food.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explor ... yment+rate

Good for Obama. Bad for Romney.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explor ... &ind=false

Bad for Obama. What does Romney have to say?

http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/pricebasket.html

Very bad for Obama. But really, what can Romney do? And how has this been addressed this at all?



What's very good for Obama is that "pent up demand" peaked in 2011 and purchasing continues to be "higher than normal" and new home construction has bottomed out, so new homes are getting built, creating even more purchasing beyond the extra purchasing from pent up demand. He's riding a reactionary peak to the 2007 crash right now. One hopes that there is work toward keeping another crash happening once the lag of the purchasing peak has been fully realized. Good for Obama is that helping investors over helping employment is what I think the voters are looking for.

[El Guapo]

This really is a bizarre election. Polls consistently show people think they are no better off now than they were four years ago, gas prices are at an all time high, unemployment and true jobless claims are high, nobody is satisfied with Obama's leadership, yet he remains comfortably ahead in electoral predictions.

One of two things is going to happen. Either he will be one of the first Presidents in history to buck the trend and be re-elected with a bad economy, or the polls are misleading and Romney's about to pull a Ronald Reagan-style upset.

I suppose I'd say two things:

(1) The economy is better than it was when Obama took over, albeit certainly far from satisfactory;

(2) The alternative matters. Had the GOP not run people with crazy agendas as Senate candidates in Nevada, Delaware, and Colorado in 2010, almost certainly all three would be represented by the GOP today (so incidentally, you can thank that for your pal Harry Reid still being in office today). While Romney's not crazy, I do think the Tea Party and some of the extremism that has come with it has put a stink of crazy on the GOP brand. I also don't think that Ryan helps in this regard.

And on this, it counterposes with Obama's relentless effort to appear reasonable for the past four years. As a result lots of people think that Obama is a wuss and/or feckless, but outside of the conservative base people don't think he's crazy.

There's still plenty of time for this to swing wildly in Romney's favor, though, so we'll see how it goes.

[msteelers]

gas prices are at an all time high, unemployment and true jobless claims are high

I'm on my phone so I will keep this quick, but I don't think this is correct. I admit that I'm working with pure anecdotal evidence, but gas was over $4 at this time in 2008. Gas has certainly shot up over the past few months, but not over $4 yet. I'm paying $3.65-$3.70.

Nitpicking aside, I agree with your overall point. Obama should be getting crushed. It's a testament to how weak a candidate Romney is, and how weak the overall GOP is since he was their best guy. Win or lose, the GOP needs to take a long look in the mirror after this election. I know thats not going to happen unless they get creamed, but one can hope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Carpet_pissr]

I dunno, I'm not so sure that it's as much a Republican problem, as it is a Romney problem (but again, they DID pick him, out of a sea of Republicans, so that can be argued)

I'll say it again, he's like Kerry in that he has no demonstrable...traits that make people say anything other than "meh".

The people that you see cheering at his rallies, IMO, are not cheering for HIM, but for The Republican (TM). They would likely cheer for a chimp dressed in a tweed suit and a top hat, if its name had an (R) beside it, and was running against the Democrat.

[El Guapo]

I dunno, I'm not so sure that it's as much a Republican problem, as it is a Romney problem (but again, they DID pick him, out of a sea of Republicans, so that can be argued)

I'll say it again, he's like Kerry in that he has no demonstrable...traits that make people say anything other than "meh".

The people that you see cheering at his rallies, IMO, are not cheering for HIM, but for The Republican (TM). They would likely cheer for a chimp dressed in a tweed suit and a top hat, if its name had an (R) beside it, and was running against the Democrat.

Do you think Santorum would be polling better?

[Captain Caveman]

[
Joe in the street doesn't care about company profitability and it's ability to generate revenue for investors (maybe they should but they don't) They care about unemployment, the cost of gas, the cost of utilities, the cost of health care, the cost of food.

It'll start trickling down any day now!

[El Guapo]

I feel like it would be fun to create negative campaign ads. Makes me wish I went into politics.

[Carpet_pissr]

I dunno, I'm not so sure that it's as much a Republican problem, as it is a Romney problem (but again, they DID pick him, out of a sea of Republicans, so that can be argued)

I'll say it again, he's like Kerry in that he has no demonstrable...traits that make people say anything other than "meh".

The people that you see cheering at his rallies, IMO, are not cheering for HIM, but for The Republican (TM). They would likely cheer for a chimp dressed in a tweed suit and a top hat, if its name had an (R) beside it, and was running against the Democrat.

Do you think Santorum would be polling better?

Absolutely. No Romneycare argument, no 1%'er billionaire rhetoric (hell, he might not even be a millionaire?), not a Mormon (though honestly, I don't get any feedback that is any kind of a problem)\, and maybe most importantly, he's actually got a personality, and seems real compared to wax-figure Romnobot.

[El Guapo]

I dunno, I'm not so sure that it's as much a Republican problem, as it is a Romney problem (but again, they DID pick him, out of a sea of Republicans, so that can be argued)

I'll say it again, he's like Kerry in that he has no demonstrable...traits that make people say anything other than "meh".

The people that you see cheering at his rallies, IMO, are not cheering for HIM, but for The Republican (TM). They would likely cheer for a chimp dressed in a tweed suit and a top hat, if its name had an (R) beside it, and was running against the Democrat.

Do you think Santorum would be polling better?

Absolutely. No Romneycare argument, no 1%'er billionaire rhetoric (hell, he might not even be a millionaire?), not a Mormon (though honestly, I don't get any feedback that is any kind of a problem)\, and maybe most importantly, he's actually got a personality, and seems real compared to wax-figure Romnobot.

On the downside, he's certifiable. Plus since the media already views him as crazy, so all stories about him would be filtered through that. He'd have been Sharron Angle redux.

[Carpet_pissr]

I dunno, I'm not so sure that it's as much a Republican problem, as it is a Romney problem (but again, they DID pick him, out of a sea of Republicans, so that can be argued)

I'll say it again, he's like Kerry in that he has no demonstrable...traits that make people say anything other than "meh".

The people that you see cheering at his rallies, IMO, are not cheering for HIM, but for The Republican (TM). They would likely cheer for a chimp dressed in a tweed suit and a top hat, if its name had an (R) beside it, and was running against the Democrat.

Do you think Santorum would be polling better?

Absolutely. No Romneycare argument, no 1%'er billionaire rhetoric (hell, he might not even be a millionaire?), not a Mormon (though honestly, I don't get any feedback that is any kind of a problem)\, and maybe most importantly, he's actually got a personality, and seems real compared to wax-figure Romnobot.

On the downside, he's certifiable. Plus since the media already views him as crazy, so all stories about him would be filtered through that. He'd have been Sharron Angle redux.

Agreed, but that can also be a positive, in terms of drumming up an enthusiastic support base. You're going to lose some of the more moderate, independent middle of course, which is why they went with Romney I guess, but you will fire up your base.

I just tend to think that ANY kind of firing up would be better than "hardly shows up" Romney. I get that he is probably trying to remain as milquetoast noncommittal as he can (and possibly has been directed to do so by Rovian-esque shadowmasters), since he has no personality of his own, just to run as The Republican, but at least in looking at recent presidential elections, I don't think those types win.

You play for President, you have to swing for the fence, and put yourself out there IMO. Be strong, or at least APPEAR to be strong, and have some character. If you try to turtle and play it safe, you might not lose many points, but you won't win any either. Not sure "default" is a good strategy.

I think this should have been a great election for a third party to finally, really show up and show some numbers, but sadly, no.

[LordMortis]

gas prices are at an all time high, unemployment and true jobless claims are high

I'm on my phone so I will keep this quick, but I don't think this is correct. I admit that I'm working with pure anecdotal evidence, but gas was over $4 at this time in 2008. Gas has certainly shot up over the past few months, but not over $4 yet. I'm paying $3.65-$3.70.

Nitpicking aside, I agree with your overall point. Obama should be getting crushed. It's a testament to how weak a candidate Romney is, and how weak the overall GOP is since he was their best guy. Win or lose, the GOP needs to take a long look in the mirror after this election. I know thats not going to happen unless they get creamed, but one can hope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gas is at matching all time highs, matching costs of Katrina and BP fuck ups, but it has stabilized, even with all of the refinery problems. The stable price at just under $4 is predicted to be a good thing and price isn't predicted to go back down either, which means inflation will catch up gas price equilibrium nearly doubling from what it was in 2007. Is Obama to blame? Only insofar as the taxes that were added to subsidize adding ethanol and subsidize corn farmers. However, all the legislation was rolled back earlier this year.

Romney wasn't the GOP's best guy, he was they guy they figured had the best chance while still pushing the more ridiculous of the GOP agendas. Hunstman in '12.

And do I think Huntsman would doing better? Hell yeah I do. I think he would be generating more excitement against independent voters and conservative leaning democrats than he would be alienating tea baggers and extremists who likely would vote for him anyway because he's still not Obama.

[El Guapo]

Well sure Huntsman would be doing better, but so would a magical GOP-primary-winning unicorn.

[El Guapo]

I dunno, I'm not so sure that it's as much a Republican problem, as it is a Romney problem (but again, they DID pick him, out of a sea of Republicans, so that can be argued)

I'll say it again, he's like Kerry in that he has no demonstrable...traits that make people say anything other than "meh".

The people that you see cheering at his rallies, IMO, are not cheering for HIM, but for The Republican (TM). They would likely cheer for a chimp dressed in a tweed suit and a top hat, if its name had an (R) beside it, and was running against the Democrat.

Do you think Santorum would be polling better?

Absolutely. No Romneycare argument, no 1%'er billionaire rhetoric (hell, he might not even be a millionaire?), not a Mormon (though honestly, I don't get any feedback that is any kind of a problem)\, and maybe most importantly, he's actually got a personality, and seems real compared to wax-figure Romnobot.

On the downside, he's certifiable. Plus since the media already views him as crazy, so all stories about him would be filtered through that. He'd have been Sharron Angle redux.

Agreed, but that can also be a positive, in terms of drumming up an enthusiastic support base. You're going to lose some of the more moderate, independent middle of course, which is why they went with Romney I guess, but you will fire up your base.

I just tend to think that ANY kind of firing up would be better than "hardly shows up" Romney. I get that he is probably trying to remain as milquetoast noncommittal as he can (and possibly has been directed to do so by Rovian-esque shadowmasters), since he has no personality of his own, just to run as The Republican, but at least in looking at recent presidential elections, I don't think those types win.

You play for President, you have to swing for the fence, and put yourself out there IMO. Be strong, or at least APPEAR to be strong, and have some character. If you try to turtle and play it safe, you might not lose many points, but you won't win any either. Not sure "default" is a good strategy.

I think this should have been a great election for a third party to finally, really show up and show some numbers, but sadly, no.

Romney-Ryan is way more electorally (is that a word?) palatable than Santorum-Anybody. Ryan motivates the base in a big way, while Romney plays to the middle. Plus the GOP base is already fairly motivated by Obama being on the other ticket.

[LordMortis]

Well sure Huntsman would be doing better, but so would a magical GOP-primary-winning unicorn.

[El Guapo]

Huntsman-Unicorn 2016!

[silverjon]

Well, jeez, that doesn't help.
http://www.MittRomneyisaUnicorn.com

[Exodor]

Read a great editorial today in the local paper (a typically liberal rag) that listed all of the false or misleading claims the Obama campaign has levied against Romney so far, along with a quote from Obama from an MSNBC interview in which he promised how dignified he would be in the forthcoming campaign. The tax return thing is really the least outrageous of the attacks he's leveled so far. At this point, Obama could teach Karl Rove a lesson or two in dirty politics.

How can the tax return "thing" be false when we can't see Mitt's returns to judge? And what specifically has Obama claimed about them?

It seems pretty clear at this point that both campaigns are going to be built on lies.

The most blatant lie about Obama concerns the welfare rule change, which the Romney campaign is still pushing in a new ad. The Romney ad campaign says exactly the opposite of what the new rule stipulates. PolitiFact called the first Romney ad “Pants on Fire,” and Glenn Kessler gave it four Pinocchios. But now here they come with a second ad saying that Obama “ended the work requirement.” Plainly and provably not true.

...as for Romney, it is just astonishing to hear him stand up as he did last week and whack Obama for cutting $716 billion from Medicare while lavishing praise on Ryan, whose Medicare plan from last year cuts exactly the same $716 billion (and then some), and say that he and Ryan are going to save Medicare, unlike that nasty Obama.

[raydude]

Joe in the street doesn't care about company profitability and it's ability to generate revenue for investors (maybe they should but they don't) They care about unemployment, the cost of gas, the cost of utilities, the cost of health care, the cost of food.

...

Good for Obama is that helping investors over helping employment is what I think the voters are looking for.

I don't understand. Are you saying Joe in the street isn't a voter? Or are the voters who like that Obama is helping investors over helping employment not Joe in the street?

[LordMortis]

Good for Obama is that helping investors over helping employment is what I think the voters are looking for.

I don't understand. Are you saying Joe in the street isn't a voter? Or are the voters who like that Obama is helping investors over helping employment not Joe in the street?

To hopefully clarify: I think that the average voter sees Romney as trying to help investors. I think the average voter sees Obama as trying (ineffectively) to help employment. I also think the average voter sees helping employment and helping investors as goals that are at odds with each other. This is why I think off shore accounts and hidden tax returns, more than any other factor will cost Romney the election (barring major changes).