BBO Discussion Forums: Romney vs. Obama - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 59 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Romney vs. Obama Can Nate Silver be correct?

#41 User is offline   PassedOut 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,673
  • Joined: 2006-February-21
  • Location:Upper Michigan
  • Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2012-September-13, 08:18

View Postphil_20686, on 2012-September-13, 06:03, said:

Imo, presidents have almost nothing to do with these things. The intelligence does their thing and when they have solid Intel then the president gets told.

-- Success has many parents. Failure is an orphan.
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
0

#42 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,519
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-September-17, 16:33

I finally understand why Romney always sounds like he is a little bit fake when he is talking in public. Because when he isn't fake, he talks like this.

Seriously, I first read the transcripts, and it wasn't pretty. Then I watched the videos, and thought "boy, he sounds genuine for a change".
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
0

#43 User is offline   PassedOut 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,673
  • Joined: 2006-February-21
  • Location:Upper Michigan
  • Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2012-September-17, 17:26

View Postcherdano, on 2012-September-17, 16:33, said:

I finally understand why Romney always sounds like he is a little bit fake when he is talking in public. Because when he isn't fake, he talks like this.

Seriously, I first read the transcripts, and it wasn't pretty. Then I watched the videos, and thought "boy, he sounds genuine for a change".

Yes he does. And it's hard to believe that I'm the only one who voted for Obama who has paid a lot of taxes over the years...
:)
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
0

#44 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,215
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2012-September-18, 06:55

View Postphil_20686, on 2012-September-13, 06:03, said:

Its not clear that this is an irrational poll at all. Suppose there are people who think that Obama was an impediment to the finding of Osama. That he was wishy washy on FP, and weak with Pakistan, and that OBL could have been found much quicker if only he had been a real man willing to invade pakistan much earlier. In that case, by merely having nothing to do with it, Romney could, in some sense, be "more responsible" to it.

I am not endorsing this view :P.

Imo, presidents have almost nothing to do with these things. The intelligence does their thing and when they have solid Intel then the president gets told.


Another possibility is that the question was designed to identify responders who are answering randomly. For example, 4% of the very liberal or somewhat liberal responders gave credit to Romney for the killing of OBL. Maybe they were drunk, maybe hard of hearing, but whatever the case I would take some care in trusting their responses to the other questions. Or perhaps they reason that killing is bad, Obama is good, therefore it must have been Romney who did it.

Maybe instead of all these voter id requirements we could instead require a brain scan that shows some indication of neural activity? No, Zombies have rights too.
Ken
0

#45 User is offline   wyman 

  • Redoubling with gusto
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,712
  • Joined: 2009-October-19
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, NV
  • Interests:Math, Bridge, Beer. Often at the same time.

Posted 2012-September-18, 07:18

I've heard varying (undocumented) accounts of the OBL situation, one being that Obama was against it and only approved it under serious pressure from military advisors. Given estimates of how likely such a mission was to work and the international fallout if it failed spectacularly, one might argue that this is extremely reasonable, but that's beside the point.

In this scenario, if one were to assign a number between -1 and 1 to the "how responsible is Obama for the death of OBL?" question, one might conceivably argue that we killed OBL in spite of Obama, rather than because of, in which case the number we'd assign to Obama's responsibility might well be negative.

Since the number we assign to Mitt is very likely 0 (or very near 0 -- butterfly effect and all), I can see a rational person honestly answering Mitt for this question.

Do I think that this is what those people were thinking? Of course not. But I try to give humanity the benefit of the doubt where possible.
"I think maybe so and so was caught cheating but maybe I don't have the names right". Sure, and I think maybe your mother .... Oh yeah, that was someone else maybe. -- kenberg

"...we live off being battle-scarred veterans who manage to hate our opponents slightly more than we hate each other.” -- Hamman, re: Wolff
0

#46 User is online   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,196
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:UK

Posted 2012-September-18, 07:34

Polls always contain some noise. I once saw this one: "20% of Dutch computer users believe that the computers deliberately crash in order to tease the users". Some people just misunderstand the question, or think that ridicolous questions deserve ridicolous answers, or w/e.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
1

#47 User is online   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,474
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2012-September-18, 07:51

View Postwyman, on 2012-September-18, 07:18, said:

I've heard varying (undocumented) accounts of the OBL situation, one being that Obama was against it and only approved it under serious pressure from military advisors. Given estimates of how likely such a mission was to work and the international fallout if it failed spectacularly, one might argue that this is extremely reasonable, but that's beside the point.


I seem to recall statements from Obama during the Democratic primary debates where he unequivocally stated that the US should track down bin Laden in Pakistan and then kill him. (There was significant debate around this because Obama stated that he would not inform the government of Pakistan in advance and many people disagreed with this)
Alderaan delenda est
0

#48 User is online   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,474
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2012-September-18, 08:20

The following is worth reading

http://ordinary-gent...ry+Gentlemen%29
Alderaan delenda est
0

#49 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2012-September-18, 08:33

re: the Romney video, conservative columnist David Brooks wrote this today:

Quote

In 1980, about 30 percent of Americans received some form of government benefits. Today, as Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute has pointed out, about 49 percent do.

In 1960, government transfers to individuals totaled $24 billion. By 2010, that total was 100 times as large. Even after adjusting for inflation, entitlement transfers to individuals have grown by more than 700 percent over the last 50 years. This spending surge, Eberstadt notes, has increased faster under Republican administrations than Democratic ones.

There are sensible conclusions to be drawn from these facts. You could say that the entitlement state is growing at an unsustainable rate and will bankrupt the country. You could also say that America is spending way too much on health care for the elderly and way too little on young families and investments in the future.

But these are not the sensible arguments that Mitt Romney made at a fund-raiser earlier this year. Romney, who criticizes President Obama for dividing the nation, divided the nation into two groups: the makers and the moochers. Forty-seven percent of the country, he said, are people “who are dependent upon government, who believe they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to take care of them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”

This comment suggests a few things. First, it suggests that he really doesn’t know much about the country he inhabits. Who are these freeloaders? Is it the Iraq war veteran who goes to the V.A.? Is it the student getting a loan to go to college? Is it the retiree on Social Security or Medicare?

It suggests that Romney doesn’t know much about the culture of America. Yes, the entitlement state has expanded, but America remains one of the hardest-working nations on earth. Americans work longer hours than just about anyone else. Americans believe in work more than almost any other people. Ninety-two percent say that hard work is the key to success, according to a 2009 Pew Research Survey.

It says that Romney doesn’t know much about the political culture. Americans haven’t become childlike worshipers of big government. On the contrary, trust in government has declined. The number of people who think government spending promotes social mobility has fallen.

The people who receive the disproportionate share of government spending are not big-government lovers. They are Republicans. They are senior citizens. They are white men with high school degrees. As Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution has noted, the people who have benefited from the entitlements explosion are middle-class workers, more so than the dependent poor.

Romney’s comments also reveal that he has lost any sense of the social compact. In 1987, during Ronald Reagan’s second term, 62 percent of Republicans believed that the government has a responsibility to help those who can’t help themselves. Now, according to the Pew Research Center, only 40 percent of Republicans believe that.

The Republican Party, and apparently Mitt Romney, too, has shifted over toward a much more hyperindividualistic and atomistic social view — from the Reaganesque language of common citizenship to the libertarian language of makers and takers. There’s no way the country will trust the Republican Party to reform the welfare state if that party doesn’t have a basic commitment to provide a safety net for those who suffer for no fault of their own.

The final thing the comment suggests is that Romney knows nothing about ambition and motivation. The formula he sketches is this: People who are forced to make it on their own have drive. People who receive benefits have dependency.


But, of course, no middle-class parent acts as if this is true. Middle-class parents don’t deprive their children of benefits so they can learn to struggle on their own. They shower benefits on their children to give them more opportunities — so they can play sports, go on foreign trips and develop more skills.

People are motivated when they feel competent. They are motivated when they have more opportunities. Ambition is fired by possibility, not by deprivation, as a tour through the world’s poorest regions makes clear.

Sure, there are some government programs that cultivate patterns of dependency in some people. I’d put federal disability payments and unemployment insurance in this category. But, as a description of America today, Romney’s comment is a country-club fantasy. It’s what self-satisfied millionaires say to each other. It reinforces every negative view people have about Romney.

Personally, I think he’s a kind, decent man who says stupid things because he is pretending to be something he is not — some sort of cartoonish government-hater. But it scarcely matters. He’s running a depressingly inept presidential campaign. Mr. Romney, your entitlement reform ideas are essential, but when will the incompetence stop?

When will the incompetence stop? Not in this bro's lifetime, yo.
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#50 User is offline   PassedOut 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,673
  • Joined: 2006-February-21
  • Location:Upper Michigan
  • Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2012-September-18, 10:05

View Posty66, on 2012-September-18, 08:33, said:

When will the incompetence stop? Not in this bro's lifetime, yo.

According to BusinessInsider, real soon: Mitt Romney's October Surprise Is Going To Be Legendary

Quote

Both Romney and Obama have been fundraising consistently for months. But Romney has kept his head down and his account flush, and didn't try to compete with the Olympics, the Conventions, or the recent mediocre press. He was competent enough to realize that the Obama campaign had to hemorrhage cash in order to maintain their numbers.

And now, he's got a massive upper hand, which very few people are talking about. Once he and his surrogates carpet bomb the swing states with adverts, by shear mathematics Obama will take a small but predictable dive in the polls. In the middle of October, Mitt starts looking like a contender again.

The past few weeks of Mediocre Mitt are about to end. He's got more resources than the Obama campaign, and his ability to find cheap media markets and flex his muscle are just coming to the fore. This, plus a few more bad economic months, and he's in the White House. Mitt is undervalued.

How much will Romney's money advantage help? It will be interesting to see what Nate's simulations show in the coming weeks.

In Upper Michigan, we haven't seen a Romney ad for quite awhile now, but nearly everyone has seen the latest Romney videos. On the other hand, we are swamped with ads and mailings for the republican tea-party candidate for the House.
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
0

#51 User is offline   dwar0123 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 770
  • Joined: 2011-September-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bellevue, WA

Posted 2012-September-18, 10:13

View PostPassedOut, on 2012-September-18, 10:05, said:

According to BusinessInsider, real soon: Mitt Romney's October Surprise Is Going To Be Legendary


How much will Romney's money advantage help? It will be interesting to see what Nate's simulations show in the coming weeks.


In 3 months, I look forward to reading that guy's article about how Romney blew the election by waiting until it was to late to spend his cash reserves. Calling it lessons learned for the future or some such thing, as if money is the source and solution to all problems and Romney was really a good candidate who deserved to win if not for the flawed election strategy.
0

#52 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,215
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2012-September-18, 11:02

I think that the David Brooks commentary is right on,at least it resonates strongly with me. "There’s no way the country will trust the Republican Party to reform the welfare state if that party doesn’t have a basic commitment to provide a safety net for those who suffer for no fault of their own."

Most of us know people who are in adverse circumstances, at least to some degree. Some of us have memories of things not being so great for ourselves. We hear some of the right wing rants and we wonder what planet these guys grew up on.


Phil, earlier, remarked " I am sure that a serious republican candidate could be beating Obama easily.
Of course, "serious republican candidates" seem to be rarer than big foot, but that is a different story."

I agree entirely. If the republicans really cannot take the White House after four years of 8% unemployment, they need to take a very hard look at their approach. I suggested the Romney campaign slogan "The best we could come up with", Winston prefers "At least it isn't Bachman" . Some retooling is needed.
Ken
0

#53 User is online   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,474
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2012-September-18, 11:25

View Postkenberg, on 2012-September-18, 11:02, said:


Phil, earlier, remarked " I am sure that a serious republican candidate could be beating Obama easily.
Of course, "serious republican candidates" seem to be rarer than big foot, but that is a different story."



Could have sworn that Romney was the "serious republican candidate"

Sure wasn't Bachmann, Gingrich, Cain, Santorum, Perry [fill in the whack-job of your choice]
Huntsman sure didn't catch fire...

Maybe there are some serious Republican's waiting off in the wings (Presumably they anticipated that the party would self immolate in 2012 and tack back to the center in 2016... However, as I read things the lesson that the party based will take from a 2012 is that they need to pick a "real" conservative)
Alderaan delenda est
0

#54 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,215
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2012-September-18, 13:22

Back, way back, there was an event called the Demolition Derby. Think 1955 or so. For six bits or maybe a buck you could watch people with old cars drive into each other. Idiocy is not a new invention. I guess the last car standing was the serious one!

I have never before heard of a presidential nominee from a major party writing off 47% of the population as not worthy of his thoughts. He needs to be really confident of the other 53%.
Ken
0

#55 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,571
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-September-18, 14:41

Demolition Derby still exists, it's owned by NAPA Auto Parts.

I wonder if Romney assumes that a large number of the 47% don't vote, so there's no need to court their vote.

#56 User is offline   dwar0123 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 770
  • Joined: 2011-September-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bellevue, WA

Posted 2012-September-18, 14:59

View Postbarmar, on 2012-September-18, 14:41, said:

Demolition Derby still exists, it's owned by NAPA Auto Parts.

I wonder if Romney assumes that a large number of the 47% don't vote, so there's no need to court their vote.

No, in the speech, he is specifically saying they will vote for Obama, that trying to woo their vote is pointless.

The issue really isn't so much about his election strategy, which is probably sound, it is about the level of contempt he holds for 47% of the country.
0

#57 User is offline   luke warm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,951
  • Joined: 2003-September-07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Bridge, poker, politics

Posted 2012-September-18, 15:21

View Postdwar0123, on 2012-September-18, 14:59, said:

No, in the speech, he is specifically saying they will vote for Obama, that trying to woo their vote is pointless.

do you think that's true? about who they will vote for, i mean
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
0

#58 User is offline   dwar0123 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 770
  • Joined: 2011-September-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bellevue, WA

Posted 2012-September-18, 15:29

View Postluke warm, on 2012-September-18, 15:21, said:

do you think that's true? about who they will vote for, i mean

My understanding is that a big percentage of that 47% are the retired living on social security who lean Republican.

Another portion are veterans with disabilities, whom also tend to lean Republican.

A rather large portion is lower middle income families who pay a good chunk of social security and Medicaid(payroll taxes) but don't actually pay any income taxes due to credits. This group leans democratic but not overwhelmingly, certainty not enough to discount their vote.

And of course the actual poor, who do heavily lean democratic as well as students making use of government loans who also lean democratic.
0

#59 User is offline   lalldonn 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,066
  • Joined: 2012-March-06

Posted 2012-September-18, 15:40

View Postluke warm, on 2012-September-18, 15:21, said:

do you think that's true? about who they will vote for, i mean


Isn't that a goofy question? "They", by definition, are people who will vote for Obama. ("There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what...") You know, prior to the part where "they" were offensively stereotyped as helpless victims.

Although, I didn't find the whole thing offensive, for example the part about believing people are entitled to health care.
"What's the big rebid problem? After 1♦ - 1♠, I can rebid 1NT, 2♠, or 2♦."
- billw55
0

#60 User is offline   dwar0123 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 770
  • Joined: 2011-September-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bellevue, WA

Posted 2012-September-18, 15:42

View Postlalldonn, on 2012-September-18, 15:40, said:

Isn't that a goofy question? "They", by definition, are people who will vote for Obama. ("There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what...") You know, prior to the part where "they" were offensively stereotyped as helpless victims.

Although, I didn't find the whole thing offensive, for example the part about believing people are entitled to health care.


Actually they was referring to the 47% that don't pay income tax. Not quite that much of a tautology.
0

  • 59 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

24 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 24 guests, 0 anonymous users