[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2012-November-04, 09:32, said:

Obama will continue to chip away at the deficit;

like he's done the last 4 years? he's increased it more (almost) than all previous presidents combined

Quote

Romney would push it higher and higher.

you keep ignoring cbo... cbo estimates nearly $1T deficits, if obama's plans are continued/implemented, for as far as the eye can see, and the debt to $20+T... this from a man who saw the debt go from $10T to $16T on his watch...

Quote

when you increase spending and reduce revenue (Romney), you increase the deficit; therefore you are irresponsible fiscally. When you reduce spending and increase revenue (Obama), you reduce the deficit and thus are more responsible fiscally.

ok... obama is going to reduce the deficit by increasing revenue and reducing spending... got it

[BunnyGo]

squealydan, on 2012-November-05, 03:38, said:

Surely the greatest gift the writers of the Constitution (I assume that's where it sits) gave to the American people and rest of the world was the two-term limit....

We did have Roosevelt for 4 terms in 1930s and 1940s, and then they passed an amendment to make sure it didn't happen again.

[kenberg]

squealydan, on 2012-November-05, 03:38, said:

Surely the greatest gift the writers of the Constitution (I assume that's where it sits) gave to the American people and rest of the world was the two-term limit....

It was tradition until the 22nd amendment in 1951. The tradition was not solid. Franklin Roosevelt was elected president four consecutive times beginning in 1932. He died in office in 1945, Truman became president. Truman was re-elected (in a squeaker) in 1948. The 22nd amendment was written so as not to apply to the incumbent, but the Korean war had finished off Truman's chances even if he was inclined to try for a third term. I was 13 at the time of that election and therefore a little vague on details. There was always a bit of ambiguity in how the tradition applied if a person took office through the death of the president. I remember this being much discussed as Truman's term ended even though he did not have a snowball's chance of winning another term. In a similar situation, Teddy Roosevelt became president in 1901 when President McKinley was assassinated. He won re-election in 1904, did not (I believe) run in 1908, but then decided to make a run in 1912. He lost to Wilson. More details on Amendment 22 at
http://en.wikipedia....es_Constitution

For whatever amusement it provides, my understanding is that Teddy Roosevelt decided to run again in 1912 because Taft, the 1908 winner, was such a disappointment to him. Someone said Taft meant well, and Roosevelt replied "Yes, but he means well feebly". A certain recent ex-president comes to mind.

Americans mostly know the above, of course, but New Zealanders and others might find it of interest.

[luke warm]

Quote

According to the University of California, Santa Barbara American Presidency Project study of the top 100 newspaper editorial endorsements, Mitt Romney has seen a vast wave of switches from 2008 Obama endorsers. Obama, meanwhile, has seen only one newspaper that endorsed John McCain come around to endorse him. At the same time, many newspapers have also switched from Obama to “no endorsement.”

As of today, 11 newspapers that endorsed Obama in 2008 have now endorsed Mitt Romney:

• The New York Daily News;
  
• Long Island Newsday;
  
• Houston Chronicle;
  
• Fort Worth Star-Telegram;
  
• Orlando Sentinel;
  
• Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel;
  
• Nashville Tennessean;
  
• Des Moines Register;
  
• Illinois Daily Herald;
  
• Los Angeles Daily News;
  
• Los Angeles Press-Telegram.

Quote

The only newspaper that endorsed McCain in 2008 and has switched to Obama now is the San Antonio Express-News. Meanwhile, another seven papers that endorsed Obama in 2008 have switched to no endorsement.

in addition, 500 admirals/generals will endorse romney in a full page add today in the wash times

[PassedOut]

squealydan, on 2012-November-05, 03:38, said:

Surely the greatest gift the writers of the Constitution (I assume that's where it sits) gave to the American people and rest of the world was the two-term limit....

That limit was established by the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution ratified in 1951. FDR was elected president four times.

Sorry. I see I was very late with this...

This post has been edited by PassedOut: 2012-November-05, 06:54

[luke warm]

more good news

Quote

According to a new Foster McCollum White Baydoun poll , Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has a one-point lead over incumbent President Barack Obama in Michigan.

The poll was of “high participation registered voters and voters that fit Michigan General Election voting patterns.” The same poll had Obama up four points in early October.

and in cnn's D+11 poll, romney is now tied w/ obama, 49 - 49

Quote

Romney has gained 3 points since the last time CNN ran its poll, in late September, when Obama led 50%-47%. That is good news for the Republican ticket, especially since the poll was conducted after Hurricane Sandy.

Yet there is something odd in the poll's sample - the poll is a D+11 outlier. It presents a picture of an electorate that is far more pro-Obama than it was in the historic 2008 election. That is extremely unlikely: of the 693 likely voters in the total sample of 1,010 adults polled, "41% described themselves as Democrats, 29% described themselves as Independents, and 30% described themselves as Republicans."

[MickyB]

Are you looking forward to all the free time you'll have once Obama has been reelected, Luke?

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2012-November-05, 04:59, said:

like he's done the last 4 years? he's increased it more (almost) than all previous presidents combined

you keep ignoring cbo... cbo estimates nearly $1T deficits, if obama's plans are continued/implemented, for as far as the eye can see, and the debt to $20+T... this from a man who saw the debt go from $10T to $16T on his watch...

ok... obama is going to reduce the deficit by increasing revenue and reducing spending... got it

Seems like you are confusing the yearly federal deficit with the total debt.

Bush handed off a final-year deficit of $1.2 trillion, which Obama has cut slightly during his term. The spending reductions under Obama have been partially offset by Obama's tax cuts, which were instituted to aid the economic recovery. Nevertheless, the total yearly deficit has decreased under Obama, although the total debt has increased.

Remember that Clinton needed two terms to fix the fiscal mess that he inherited from the Reagan-Bush years. And the situation that Obama inherited was much worse than the one Clinton had to fix.

I'm not ignoring the debt and it does need to be addressed. Of the two candidates, only Obama has a credible plan to accomplish that and he has already made some deficit-reduction progress despite the tough economic times. In contrast, Romney = Bush.

[ArtK78]

luke warm, on 2012-November-05, 07:13, said:

more good news

(quotes did not copy, but the point was that there are some polls that indicate that Michigan is in play)

and in cnn's D+11 poll, romney is now tied w/ obama, 49 - 49

You can pick and choose your polls any way you like, Luke. Nate Silver has Obama's chances of winning Michigan at 99%, so I have a few thoughts about where you can put your polls.

Overall, the latest analysis by Nate Silver's computer model has his overall chances of winning the election at 86.3% as of about 1 a.m. this morning.

I think that David Axelrod's mustache is safe.

[y66]

PassedOut, on 2012-November-04, 22:25, said:

Funny that you don't see George Bush out there stumping for Romney the way Clinton is doing for Obama. Are Bush and Romney on the outs?

Wick Allison, former publisher of National Review under William F. Buckley and current publisher of The American Conservative, said it best when he re-affirmed his decision to back Obama: "My questions about Obamacare and my disappointment that we are not already out of Afghanistan are not enough to make me embrace a candidacy that even George W. Bush would have been repelled by—and, having had time to reflect on his own record, perhaps is.”

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-November-05, 07:13, said:

more good news


and in cnn's D+11 poll, romney is now tied w/ obama, 49 - 49

Back in the early days of the Watercooler, there were some extensive arguments about Fox News.

Statistics show that individuals who watch Fox News are significantly worse informed about basic facts than individuals who don't watch Fox News. There was a fair amount of discussion trying to decide whether

1. Fox News makes people stupider
2. Stupid people are drawn to Fox News

I don't think that we ever reached a firm conclusion. However, it appears that Luke Warm is providing us with an excellent controlled experiment...

[PassedOut]

ArtK78, on 2012-November-05, 07:49, said:

You can pick and choose your polls any way you like, Luke. Nate Silver has Obama's chances of winning Michigan at 99%, so I have a few thoughts about where you can put your polls.

Romney might have given up on Michigan, but the tea-partiers certainly haven't given up on the 1st Congressional District where I live. The tea-party candidate, Dan Benishek, who won here in 2010 after Bart Stupak retired, had been trailing by 9% a couple of months ago. But I've never in my life seen such a barrage of negative mailers, robo-calls, and TV ads against a candidate as have been unleashed against Gary McDowell, Benishek's opponent -- truly awesome! Last I saw McDowell was only ahead by 3%, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him wind up losing. We'll see tomorrow.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2012-November-05, 08:04, said:

Back in the early days of the Watercooler, there were some extensive arguments about Fox News.

does your idiotic rant mean that cnn does not have the race tied, or that they did not have a D+11 poll? iow, are you attacking the numbers or are you making the same sophmoric logical fallacies you normally make?

[PassedOut]

Of the 13 national polls published Sunday, 4 show the race tied and 9 show Obama ahead. None show Romney ahead. It would have been useful to have Gallup polling again to add to that mix.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-November-05, 08:25, said:

does your idiotic rant mean that cnn does not have the race tied, or that they did not have a D+11 poll? iow, are you attacking the numbers or are you making the same sophmoric logical fallacies you normally make?

I am asserting that you have lost all capability to objectively analyze and assess data;
That you are grasping at straws trying justify ridiculous predictions.

I am stating outright that you have reduced yourself to a caricature and a joke and that that rest of the forum will be having a pretty good laugh at your expense late Tuesday or early Wednesday.

[blackshoe]

squealydan, on 2012-November-05, 03:38, said:

Surely the greatest gift the writers of the Constitution (I assume that's where it sits) gave to the American people and rest of the world was the two-term limit....

Twenty-second Amendment, actually. It was passed by Congress 21 March 1947, nine days before I was born, and ratified 27 February 1951. The historical argument was that bothWashington and Jefferson declined to run for a third term, as did Madison and Monroe, but several later Presidents at least tried to do so, but failed (not nominated, not elected). Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the only President to serve more than two terms. When he died in office in the first year of his fourth term, the amendment was introduced. Interestingly, two states (Oklahoma and Massachusetts) voted to reject the amendment, and five (Arizona, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Washington, West Virginia) didn't consider it at all. Legislation has been introduced by Democrats in Congress several times over the years to repeal the amendment, but so far it's not got out of committee.

Personally, I think all politicians should be limited to one term in office. Some of them should be limited to zero.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2012-November-05, 08:44, said:

I am asserting that you have lost all capability to objectively analyze and assess data.
That you are grasping at straws trying justify ridiculous predictions.

all i've done is simply post factual information... why don't you tell the rest of us your objective analysis of the cnn poll... iirc, you're one of the ones who proclaimed the rep party dead after the 2008 elections, supposedly based on your objective ability to assess data...

[mike777]

Yes, with only one term there is less influence by big money/labor/bus...etc but on the downside there is less influence by voters. Politicians dont care about being reelected to same position. In other words they are not afraid of being fired by the voters...which gives the voters less power.


Big money will always find a workaround to term limits..

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-November-05, 09:00, said:

all i've done is simply post factual information... why don't you tell the rest of us your objective analysis of the cnn poll... iirc, you're one of the ones who proclaimed the rep party dead after the 2008 elections, supposedly based on your objective ability to assess data...

How's this for a try...

The CNN poll is a national poll. Therefore, it is not particularly interesting.
At the end of the day what will matter is how well Obama and Romney do in swing states.
We'll know how that turns out withing 24 hours or so.

As for my comments regarding the Republican Party, I stated that I thought they were dead as a national party and they they were being reduced to a regional party, centered in the Confederacy.

I readily admit, I was very surprised and disappointed at the Democrats weak performance in the 2010 cycle. Far too many of the folks who voted in 2008 stayed away from the polls in 2010. However, I (broadly) stand by my original assertion.

The Republican brand is crap any place outside of the old South. (You know why "Independents" are going for Romney in drives this year? Its because most of them are ex-Republicans who can stand to admit to belonging to that party)
Your primaries consisted of the most pathetic set of whack-a-doodles I've every seen.
Your nominee is about to lose an winnable election.
More and more of your demographic base is getting called home to Jesus

There's still enough of you yahoo's to cause trouble. (I expect the House to start up some kind of trumped up impeachment proceedings next year). But, long term, your day is done...

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2012-November-05, 09:20, said:

How's this for a try...

The CNN poll is a national poll. Therefore, it is not particularly interesting.
At the end of the day what will matter is how well Obama and Romney do in swing states.
We'll know how that turns out withing 24 hours or so.

As for my comments regarding the Republican Party, I stated that I thought they were dead as a national party and they they were being reduced to a regional party, centered in the Confederacy.

I readily admit, I was very surprised and disappointed at the Democrats weak performance in the 2010 cycle. Far too many of the folks who voted in 2008 stayed away from the polls in 2010. However, I (broadly) stand by my original assertion.

The Republican brand is crap any place outside of the old South.
Your primaries consisted of the most pathetic set of whack-a-doodles I've every seen.
Your nominee is about to lose an winnable election.
More and more of your demographic base is getting called home to Jesus

There's still enough of you yahoo's to cause trouble. (I expect the House to start up some kind of trumped up impeachment proceedings ext year). But, long term, your day is done...

well all that goes a long way toward explaining all the (liberal) newspapers and retired admirals/generals endorsing romney, i guess... damn crackers are just too dumb to comprehend your immaculate reasoning