U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Grizzly Willy]

Perhaps I should clarify. When I say "win" I mean "come away with the least shit flung on them by the press". Obama received the brunt of the negative press after the debates, and I expect the same for Biden.

[Spectral]

So, I realize this whole Paul Broun thing was discussed already before I got here tonight, but I need to rage about it just a bit. Here's his remarks:

“All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”

“You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don’t believe that the Earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.”

There's a lot wrong here, really so much wrong that doesn't bare going over in specific. The thing that particularly irked me on reading this is this disingenuous prick using the turn of phrase, "as a scientist". He is not a scientist. He's a politician. He got a BS in Chemistry 45 years ago, then proceeded to medical school. Never has he done any actual science. It's quite telling that he feels the need to lie about his own credentials to bolster his pathetic claims in front of his flock.

[belfpala]

He got a BS in Chemistry 45 years ago...

Hmmm... I have a BS. I even had a job where my title was "Scientist" once (even though all I did was make graphs and stuff with data other people gathered). I'm going to start calling myself a scientist, I think.

[Spectral]

One time, I took an economics class. I also read Paul Krugman and listen to Econ Talk on my phone. I think I shall call myself an economist.

[Chrysia]

One time, I took an economics class. I also read Paul Krugman and listen to Econ Talk on my phone. I think I shall call myself an economist.

I'm just glad he's not practicing medicine with his medical degree. I'd be scared of a "doctor" that denies half of what he was taught by medical professionals is real science.

[Erenax]

I haven't seen this hilarious video posted yet. Obama putting on his black Southern voice and speaking about Katrina back in 2007. When he rails on the Stafford Act being applied to Florida and New York, he must've forgotten that he voted AGAINST waiving the Stafford Act for New Orleans 10 days before this speech.

"Down in New Orleans, where they still have not rebuilt twenty months later,” he begins, “there’s a law, federal law — when you get reconstruction money from the federal government — called the Stafford Act. And basically it says, when you get federal money, you gotta give a ten percent match. The local government’s gotta come up with ten percent. Every ten dollars the federal government comes up with, local government’s gotta give a dollar.”

“Now here’s the thing,” Obama continues, “when 9-11 happened in New York City, they waived the Stafford Act — said, ‘This is too serious a problem. We can’t expect New York City to rebuild on its own. Forget that dollar you gotta put in. Well, here’s ten dollars.’ And that was the right thing to do. When Hurricane Andrew struck in Florida, people said, ‘Look at this devastation. We don’t expect you to come up with y’own money, here. Here’s the money to rebuild. We’re not gonna wait for you to scratch it together — because you’re part of the American family.’”

That’s not, Obama says, what is happening in majority-black New Orleans. “What’s happening down in New Orleans? Where’s your dollar? Where’s your Stafford Act money?” Obama shouts, angry now. “Makes no sense! Tells me that somehow, the people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much!”

[Chrysia]

I haven't seen this hilarious video posted yet. Obama putting on his black Southern voice and speaking about Katrina back in 2007. When he rails on the Stafford Act being applied to Florida and New York, he must've forgotten that he voted AGAINST waiving the Stafford Act for New Orleans 10 days before this speech.

[video=youtube;hokV4oE7uSM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hokV4oE7uSM[/vieo]

You act like the only thing in the bill was waving Stafford. The whole thing was a huge list of additional expenditures for a wide variety of departments. I don't know, but I'm betting one or many of those other appropriations are why Obama voted against it, not the Stafford Release for New Orleans.

There is also the fact that the vote was slow in coming, and FEMA bungled every stage of getting the money to where it needed to be, but hey, let's paint things with a broad brush to support our views.

[Erenax]

You act like the only thing in the bill was waving Stafford. The whole thing was a huge list of additional expenditures for a wide variety of departments. I don't know, but I'm betting one or many of those other appropriations are why Obama voted against it, not the Stafford Release for New Orleans.

So because, possibly, he was against one of the other titles in the bill, he voted against:


Title 2 - Hurricane Katrina Recovery
$3,400,000,000 - Disaster Relief


Title 4 - Additional Hurricane Relief and Recovery
$50,000,000 - State and Local LaEnforcement Assistance
$110,000,000 - NOAA for impacts to shrimp and fishing industries post Katrina
$20,000,000 - NASA for "exploration capabilities" related to Katrina
$25,300,000 - Army for construction projects in New Orleans
$1,407,700,000 - flood control
$181,069,000 - SBA loans
$710,000,000 - FEMA disaster relief
$10,000,000 - National Park Service (Interior) Historic Preservation Fund
$30,000,000 - Higher Education Act - compensation for closures, etc in wake of disaster
$30,000,000 - Elementary and Secondary Education Act to recruit/train new teachers, adminstrators, etc
$871,022,000 - DOT Emergency Relief Program
$35,000,000 - DOT transit services
$7,000,000 - HUD
$14,484,754 - Veterans Affairs Construction, Minor Projects


Title 5 - Other Emergency Appropriations
$40,000,000 - USDA for needs not meet by FEMA or private insurers in conjunction with presidential declaration of disaster


Title 7 - Elimination of Schip Shortfall And Other Matters
$650,000,000 - State Children's Health Insurance Fund (DHHS)


Title 8 - Fair Minimum Wage and Tax Relief
Minimum wage raised to $5.85 an hour, beginning on the 60tt day after the date of enactment of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007; $6.55 an hour, beginning 12 months after that 60th day; and $7.25 an hour, beginning 24 months after that 60th day.

[obdigore]

Erenax, are you one of the people angry that Obama didn't veto the NDAA?

[Chrysia]

So because, possibly, he was against one of the other titles in the bill, he voted against:

Not necessarily one, One or more of, and forgive me for not counting, but what appears to be dozens of individual appropriations for everything from military hardware, FBI equipment, and ATF personnel to FEMA relief, veteran affairs, and DOT services. It's a long list, with such a wide gamut of appropriations that, frankly, you can't claim that Obama voted against any specific part of it without asking him about it.

[Erenax]

Erenax, are you one of the people angry that Obama didn't veto the NDAA?

Am I angry he didn't veto it? No. Do I see problems with the "indefinite detention" part of the bill? Yes.

---------- Post added 2012-10-09 at 04:48 AM ----------

Not necessarily one, One or more of, and forgive me for not counting, but what appears to be dozens of individual appropriations for everything from military hardware, FBI equipment, and ATF personnel to FEMA relief, veteran affairs, and DOT services. It's a long list, with such a wide gamut of appropriations that, frankly, you can't claim that Obama voted against any specific part of it without asking him about it.

So raising the minimum wage, waiving the Stafford Act for aid to victims of Katrina, and covering a budget shortfall for millions of minority children's health care isn't good enough to say ok to the rest of the bill? How about if it included free food for starving puppies and kittens too?

[obdigore]

Am I angry he didn't veto it? No. Do I see problems with the "indefinite detention" part of the bill? Yes.

Nah I was trying to point out that a lot of bills have a ton of shit poured into them. For instance, that section of the bill should never have been rolled into a military payment bill. But it was because it is quite hard to veto one of those since paying our military is kind of a necessary thing.

Edit -> If you look at the summary of the entire bill, for instance, it was about a lot more than Katrina.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...:@@@D&summ2=m&

It seemed to be giving 3.5 billion to the Sec of Defense to use however he wanted to in Iraq and Afghanistan. That isn't about Katrina, is it?
Then it goes over Katrina.
Then it talks about increasing the size and funding of Homeland Security.

[The Riddler]

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....tion-away.html

OK - Andy Sullivan is no Romney fan. He's about as far left as you get, and the Daily Beast is no right-wing website. In this article Sullivan is saying that the result of the debate is either Romney getting a huge boost, or Obama taking a huge hit (whichever way you prefer).

My opinion is quite different. Sullivan is fretting that Obama lost tons of points as the result of just ONE debate. I don't think that's what happened at all. Every one of the polls taken before the debate had D+13 sample, or D+11 sample, or D+9 sample. My opinion is that Obama has been behind Romney for weeks, possibly months, and that the polling was ginned up to make it look like he was doing better than he really was.

There is simply no way that the polls could swing that much that quickly. The only reason I can see for such radical swings is that the polling sucks and they need to change their idiotic sampling methodology to be more like what Rassmussen does. Republicans have a 13 point "enthusiasm gap" over Democrats, and they they keep polling as if Democrats had a +9 enthusiasm gap as if this was 2008. They really should be using the 2010 figures as the correction method if they want to be anywhere in the ballpark.

In short - the polling sucks and I don't think any of them are anywhere close to being on target yet. These "6+ week out" polls are garbage.

Oh - and a new Romney Infographic about Obama's Post-Debate habits... Priceless.

http://www.gop.com/wp-content/upload...Communications

[Lenonis]

With boring versus unpredictable, I place my money on boring since it is less likely to stir controversy.

Then you would have lost your money in the first presidential debate. Obama was boring, and Romney was unpredictable. Romney won.

[Daelak]

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....tion-away.html

OK - Andy Sullivan is no Romney fan. He's about as far left as you get, and the Daily Beast is no right-wing website. In this article Sullivan is saying that the result of the debate is either Romney getting a huge boost, or Obama taking a huge hit (whichever way you prefer).

My opinion is quite different. Sullivan is fretting that Obama lost tons of points as the result of just ONE debate. I don't think that's what happened at all. Every one of the polls taken before the debate had D+13 sample, or D+11 sample, or D+9 sample. My opinion is that Obama has been behind Romney for weeks, possibly months, and that the polling was ginned up to make it look like he was doing better than he really was.

There is simply no way that the polls could swing that much that quickly. The only reason I can see for such radical swings is that the polling sucks and they need to change their idiotic sampling methodology to be more like what Rassmussen does. Republicans have a 13 point "enthusiasm gap" over Democrats, and they they keep polling as if Democrats had a +9 enthusiasm gap as if this was 2008. They really should be using the 2010 figures as the correction method if they want to be anywhere in the ballpark.

In short - the polling sucks and I don't think any of them are anywhere close to being on target yet. These "6+ week out" polls are garbage.

To say that all aggregate polling data has been falsified for weeks shows that you have a hostile view on how polling and trendlines even work.

But considering your past posts, it actually does not surprise me that you are willing to go through mental hoops to prove your own cognitive dissonance.

It is a close race in terms of the popular vote, however the electoral college count is clearly in Obama's favor.

[Puremallace]

OK - Andy Sullivan is no Romney fan. He's about as far left as you get, and the Daily Beast is no right-wing website. In this article Sullivan is saying that the result of the debate is either Romney getting a huge boost, or Obama taking a huge hit (whichever way you prefer).

Here is what pissed Democrats off to a millionth degree. Obama calls Romney on his tax plan "Governor for the last 18 months you have been campaigning on 5 trillion in tax cuts"

Simple line that has video proof and is right on his website. LOWEST FUCKING RESULTS FROM INDEPENDENT VOTERS.

I wish I could put into words how bad I hate independent voters. Obama literally cannot go after Romney because negativity is like super mean and that is just so rude, but Romney can get up there and make every bullshit lie under the sun and get praised for it.

He are some facts if Romney gets elected:
1. If Romney is elected you better suit up because we are going to war with Iran. If I were Iran I would strike Israel immediately if Romney wins. It is clear as fuck to anyone with half a brain that he has no plans on talking.

2. ObamaCare is gone or atleast the key parts that Republicans can try and gut. So bam right away the donut hole comes back to Medicare-D. Anyone with a parent or grand parent on Medicare D should be fucking ashamed to be voting for Romney.

3. Stem cell research...bam gone.

4. Trade restrictions with China on solar panels gone. So expect a flood of crappy made Chinese solar panels with no warranties. Automatically every US solar manufacturer will go under

5. Expect every regulation made to prevent another crash to be lifted. Speculative trading will shoot up

6. War with Iran and arming Syrian rebels price per barrel easily shoots up past 150$ without a doubt

7. If I were China and Russia and Romney went in solo into Iran and armed Syrian rebels I would pull back my money out of the US dollar causing our interest rates to borrow money to shoot up.

8. His medicare plan is to shift the burden onto the states where most of them are already broke to begin with. Automatically job cuts and state program for the disabled and mentally ill get cut.

[Lenonis]

polling was ginned up to make it look like he was doing better than he really was.

I really need to invest in some tin foil stock. You folks are going to make sales skyrocket before the election.

There is simply no way that the polls could swing that much that quickly.

Three words for you -- "Low Information Voter." They exist in ever increasing numbers and their opinions sway with the latest breeze. They are easily manipulated by the press and by media so when the media rallied around Romney talking about how presidential he looked and how terrible Obama did you had a bunch of people go "oh, I should vote for him then!"

In short - the polling sucks and I don't think any of them are anywhere close to being on target yet. These "6+ week out" polls are garbage.

National polling is pointless as the president isn't chosen by popular vote. The state polls have value if you take the time to understand the polling methods, margin of errors, and potential biases. Oversampling dems doesn't matter if the results are weighted to remove that.

And you don't believe polls can swing quickly yet you state that polls 6 weeks out are garbage.

[Grizzly Willy]

Then you would have lost your money in the first presidential debate. Obama was boring, and Romney was unpredictable. Romney won.

Not what I mean by unpredictable. Unpredictable as in saying stuff that people don't expect or understand. Romney wasn't Biden-unpredictable, and he didn't stir controversy.

I see what you mean, though.

[The Riddler]

I'm a professional statistician. Your assessment is based on ignorance. I have seen the way the sausage is made on the inside, and D+13 sampling corrections when the enthusiasm gap is R+13 is bologna. It isn't my fault that the recent polling is leaving you a sad panda. Cowboy up, pardner.

But come on. Do you really think that one debate is enough to give Romney...
+12 points among likely voters?
+18 points among women voters?
+8 points among middle class voters?
+6 points among poor voters?
+9 points in perceived "most honest candidate"?

From one debate? Do you really think that? Or maybe - just MAYBE - could the problem really be that the previous polls sampled D+13 in an era of R+13 voter enthusiasm? Derp... :P

And you don't believe polls can swing quickly yet you state that polls 6 weeks out are garbage.

Yeah - I don't think the post-debate polls are any good yet either. This isn't without precedent. No one ever talks about the polls that places like Pew and Gallup did in the months leading UP to an election. Because historically speaking they have all been dismal failures and predicting the results. The only polls that end up getting real traction are the ones 1 week out, and even those are not particularly stellar in their performance history. Pre-election polls are bunkum.

Oversampling dems doesn't matter if the results are weighted to remove that.

And this is why non-professionals should never be allowed to talk about statistics. :P Your sample methodology ALWAYS matters.

[ptwonline]

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....tion-away.html

OK - Andy Sullivan is no Romney fan. He's about as far left as you get, and the Daily Beast is no right-wing website.

FYI, Sullivan considers himself a political conservative (his views on individual issues are both on the left and the right. He does hold a lot of views that conservatives also claim to have. Limited gov't, opposing welfare state, supporter of israel, was for the Iraq invasion, supports flat tax, etc). He actually supported Bush in 2000 but since then has been voting and been more supportive of Democrats because of how bad and how extreme the Republican Party has become.

As for the polling, I was initially skeptical of polls leaning heavily Democrat in self-identified affiliation so i did some research on it. it turns out that the affiliation is correlational, not causational. Pollsters weren't getting strong pro-Obama numbers because they sampled Democrats heavily. Instead, more people were supportive of Obama because they were supportive of Obama, and thus more of them self-identified as Democrats. Polled party affiliation is not a fixed demographic. Poll the same group of people over a period of time and that number will shift on a correlational basis of the overall polling numbers.