Political Roundtable Pulsar of Annihilation part IV

[dobrojim]

I'm not sure why Indu cringes so much about someone saying the wealthy
need to pay more. It's not like any other demographic group is doing
sufficiently well enough to expect them to do much more at this time. The
stats on wealth/income disparity are staggering (not good for democracy).
America is near the bottom in economic mobility largely as a result
of POLITICAL decisions and the power and influence of those who
already have money. Of all the problems that America faces,
the challenges faced by the highest earners have to rank pretty
low in priority. The gaping chasm in wealth and income between
the highest earners and everyone else has clearly NOT been the
engine of growth that those who advocate for policies which have
led to that have promised. Not by a long shot.

Re college - I would agree that not everyone is a good candidate to go.
Vocational training for other SKILLED jobs is the appropriate alternative.

Re the 'great manager at Staples', does s/he even make an income above
the national median? I suspect not although I could be wrong. But that's
only one person in the store. Most of the workers there are making
wages barely above poverty. Nothing to brag about or aspire to there.

[Nivek]

A couple statements that make me cringe:

Romney: I know how... (never followed by an explanation of how)

Obama: "Ordinary Americans"

[dobrojim]

^ fair enough

[closg00]

We could end-up with one candidate winning the popular, the other the electoral.

[Nivek]

We could end-up with one candidate winning the popular, the other the electoral.

Nate at the 538blog says there's a 1.8% chance of Obama winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college, and a 5.9% chance of Romney winning the popular vote, but losing the electoral college. (More precisely, that's how often those situations occur during "repeated" simulated elections.)

[Zonkerbl]

Every time I hear Obama say he will "ask the wealthy to do a bit more" I **** cringe.

Drives my dad nuts every time someone says "pay your fair share".


And as for the polls, overall I'm surprised that Romney is as close as he is. I don't know how much of this is Romney overachieving or Obama underachieving.

Given the economic situation, I'm amazed Obama is doing as well as he is. Speaks to how weak a candidate Romney is.

[fishercob]

Best poll analysis I've seen comes from Nate Silver who writes the 538 blog at NY Times. He combines state and national polls in a thorough and comprehensive way and his projections were bang on in each of the past two election cycles (2008 and 2010). I started reading him in 2008 -- no idea whether he did his thing before then. According to his analysis, Obama has a 70% chance of winning. That's down from a high of 87% before the 1st debate, but up from a low of 61% on Oct. 12.

I'm a big Nate Silver guy too and have been meaning to pick up his new book. I got interested in him because he was the first guy I had ever seen do projrections of all 50 states. I don't remember the specifics, but I think his prediction for '08 turned out to be super-accurate on election night. So, I find it annoying when such and such a poll says "Obama is up by four points!" or "Romney is up by a hair!" The national popular vote is obviously all but meaningless, so the only polls worth paying attention to are those that project the electoral college and/or those in battleground states.

I've said this before, but I hate that the electoral college still exists. There's no reason in this day and age for someone in Ohio's vote to matter more than mine (DC resident).

[fishercob]

Romney got his ass handed to him tonight, I wonder if there will be any movement in the polls.

I doubt it. Romney's strategy was clearly to be non-combative and to stay above the fray. He didn't even get into the Libyan ambassador assassination.

The debate points don't matter at this juncture. The people who pay attention to the minutia have already made up their minds. The undecided are just tuning in now to get a general feel for who they like. What matters now is who looks more "presidential". Romney was trying to win that battle. I don't know if he succeeded or not. FWIW, after the debate, several pundits made the point that Romney looked like the President and Obama looked like the challenger.

Mostly agree. Romney was playing an "away game" last night, as he obviously doesn't have access to any kind of the real foreign policy info that Obama has as a sitting President. Obama got in a couple zingers (bayonets and horses) and again pointed out how much Mitt seems to change his poisitions. Obama's team is trying to make Mitt's constant position changing a character issue. I wonder Nate Silver's projections bear that out at all. But last night I think Romney avoided huge gaffes that would hurt his appearance of electability. He didn't come off as either stupid, or crazy, or bellicose or incompetent. I think he mostly passed the 3AM phone call test with most Americans. I don't support the guy, but I don't think he'd be dangerous from a foreign policy standpoint.

That said, ROmney talks about China and how his first FP priority is to label them a currency manipulator. I had no real idea what he was referring to (beyond the obvious) until Marc Cuban tweeted these:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecauCQhrQBs&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qwNPTvtB1c&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

Very interesting stuff. I think Huntsman is a smart guy.

[fishercob]

Back to the Staples example.....my father used to tell me many times that "Most people aren't meant to go to college." He used to point at the guys changing tires, manning gas stations, fixing houses and just general manual labor around Santo Domingo as examples and said something to the effect of "who would do these jobs if everyone was destined to be a genius?"

I firmly believe the US has become a service economy by teachers/parents/government insisting on the need for nearly ALL high school kids to attend college. It's as if many parents have blinders on to the true potential of their kids. Vocational/Technical schools are a great option for kids who are still in Algebra 1 in 12th grade! The craziest part about it, is many of these same kids end up paying 12k a year via loans to take the exact same class, with the same results a year later in a private university.

It's a huge disservice to the kids, the community and the country as a whole to send mentally below average kids to college. Most either drop out, or stick around for 4 years being generally useless and racking up massive debt.

No need to tell a kid destined to be a great manager at a Staples that he is capable of being a scientist when everyone around him knows it's equivalent to winning the lottery. There is nothing wrong with being a solid manager at a respectable chain store, but for some reason Americans now feel even service level jobs are "beneath" them.

This is the old W.E.B Dubous / Booker T. Washington discussion. Du Bois talked about the need to foster the "talented tenth" and BTW was a big champion of trade schools.

This is a big problem with education policy in this country and both parties are guilty (as is Congress, who hasn't reauthorized NCLB for no good reason, so the O administration are doing all these waivers on their own). Our education system pushes everyone to the middle. It doesn't adequately cater to that "talented tenth" who are our future captains of industry, and it give the false promise of "No Child Left Behind" when these kids dont have a chance no matter what degree you hand to them. They should be learning trades.

[Zonkerbl]

Romney winning the first debate counts more. All he had to do was not blow the second and third debate and that's what he did.

[Wizardspride]

http://www.politicususa.com/bad-news-ro ... a-gop.html

Bad News for Romney: Ohio Early Voting Turnout is Up for Obama, Down for GOP


In a conference call with reporters Obama campaign manager Jim Messina dropped some devastating numbers on Romney. Messina pointed out that more people are early voting for Obama in 2012 than did in 2008.

Messina laid out what early voting is looking like for the president right now. He said Obama is winning early voting in Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Ohio early vote turnout is higher for Obama in 2008 than in Republican counties. He said that this election is more diverse. Most new registrants are under 30. 2/3 of those who have early voted are women, African-Americans, and Latinos. Democrats are winning everywhere where there are in person early votes.

Obama’s campaign manager explained why they think some of these polls are way off in the battleground states, “I do think there is some differences in states, we delve very deep into these states, and we think some people aren’t getting it right about who this electorate is going to be.” We continue to think the math has changed in Florida.” He said there are 250,000 more registered African-American and Latino voters in Florida, and that overall early voting among African-Americans is up 50% over 2008.

New voter registration numbers in Ohio heavily favor Obama. Four in five Ohioans (81 percent) who have registered to vote in 2012 are either female, younger than 30, or African-American or Latino. 64 percent of Ohioans who have registered to vote in 2012, and the same percentage among those who have already voted, live in counties that President Obama won in 2008.

The polling numbers for early voting in Ohio also back up what the Obama campaign is saying. A Survey USA poll found that Obama leads by 19 points (57/38) among those who have already. PPP found that Obama leads by 52 points (76%-24%) in Ohio early voting. The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found Obama leading Romney, 63%-37% with early voters. Even Republican pollster Rasmussen has Obama leading big in Ohio early voting, 63%-34%.

[Ruzious]

The question (to me) is - assuming Obama wins - will Congress take that as a referendum for Obama and finally end gridlock.

[Zonkerbl]

pshyeahright

[Induveca]

The question (to me) is - assuming Obama wins - will Congress take that as a referendum for Obama and finally end gridlock.

Won't happen his ideas are too radical to end the gridlock. Literally would be 8 years of doing nothing. The last thing the US needs right now.

It's great to have big ideas as a leader, but worthless if you can't get people to believe in them/peers to implement them.

Blame can be passed around foolishly as "partisan politics". But great leaders get things done, period. Compromise is crucial, and Obama's rhetoric is so strongly in opposition to those he MUST work with they refuse to work with him.

One could obviously say it goes both ways, but as the CEO of a company you must make due with the hand your dealt. There is an avenue to what he wants accomplished, but he must compromise and stop alienating the wealthy and every major corporate lobby group.

[Ruzious]

The question (to me) is - assuming Obama wins - will Congress take that as a referendum for Obama and finally end gridlock.

Won't happen his ideas are too radical to end the gridlock. Literally would be 8 years of doing nothing. The last thing the US needs right now.

It's great to have big ideas as a leader, but worthless if you can't get people to believe in them/peers to implement them.

Blame can be passed around foolishly as "partisan politics". But great leaders get things done, period. Compromise is crucial, and Obama's rhetoric is so strongly in opposition to those he MUST work with they refuse to work with him.

One could obviously say it goes both ways, but as the CEO of a company you must make due with the hand your dealt. There is an avenue to what he wants accomplished, but he must compromise and stop alienating the wealthy and every major corporate lobby group.

To me, everything you've said is absurd rationalizations to justify the situation we're in.

[fishercob]

Yeah, "Obama the Radical" rings pretty hollow to me.

[Nivek]

Which of Obama's ideas are "too radical"?

[Wizardspride]

Which of Obama's ideas are "too radical"?

Obama's about as radical as Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Eisenhower etc.


In other words, that line of attack is a bunch of BS.

[closg00]

Romney got his ass handed to him tonight, I wonder if there will be any movement in the polls.

I doubt it. Romney's strategy was clearly to be non-combative and to stay above the fray. He didn't even get into the Libyan ambassador assassination.

The debate points don't matter at this juncture. The people who pay attention to the minutia have already made up their minds. The undecided are just tuning in now to get a general feel for who they like. What matters now is who looks more "presidential". Romney was trying to win that battle. I don't know if he succeeded or not. FWIW, after the debate, several pundits made the point that Romney looked like the President and Obama looked like the challenger.

The debate matters in the all important battle to sway uncommitted voters.

By a 53%-23% margin, a CBS News poll conducted after the third debate of uncommitted voters also indicated that Obama won the showdown, with nearly one in four saying the debate was a tie.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ?hpt=hp_t2

[Induveca]

We're not in the same situations, hence the different perspectives. From my perspective the suggestions he's making are absurd. Pining for manufacturing jobs, new factories while increasing taxation 100% on the owners of the as of yet non-existent factories to me rings absurd.

The guy is completely out of touch with reality. The US needs someone with a business and "real-world" economics background to correct the financial situation. Not sure in what dreamland you can accomplish the above scenario.

"Tax the rich!"
"Make the rich build factories!"
"Make the rich provide jobs, with less money!"
"The rich need to do more so you can do less!"

It's the same BS 3rd world politicians have used to get elected my entire life. It saddens me the party I once considered the most intellectual in the US turns out to be the most gullible. Laziness breeds contempt. That contempt has turned into "tax the rich".

The next chapter of this saga, if it follows 3rd world strategy is no new taxes are passed once the government is threatened by powerful lobbies and corporations, you know....the actual people that run the country. Then the politicians throw up their hands, and make tens of millions in kickbacks to keep secrets secret.

Also, last point on the radical portion...I do consider his proposals radical, they're very much socialist principles which damage the stability of business/creativity/technology. His political competitors will fight to the death to see they aren't passed. To just stand up and point at your competitor and say "he won't play nice", strikes me as either completely idiotic or extremely passive aggressive. It's also a strategy lazy employees use to talk a lot, and do nothing.