33
   

The Democratic Convention

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2012 08:09 pm
I like Biden. He had a few good lines tonight, and once again provided a nice preview of the attack lines we will see from Obama during the campaign.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2012 08:17 pm
If Biden had condensed his speech to about 50% it would have been dynamite. But he made his points well, when he got to them.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2012 08:33 pm
Haha, "take two tax cuts and call me in the morning.". Love it. So ******* true.

Cycloptichorn
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 09:49 am
@Cycloptichorn,
I'm really appreciative of the hard-hitting journalism that has been displayed during the conventions.

NO BALLOONS
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 04:27 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

I think very little of the real hatred, and the profound distrust and suspiciousness of Obama, has to do with a differing set of beliefs. Obama's political ideology doesn't differ much from that of other Democrats.

I disliked George W. Bush intensely, because I vehemently disagreed with him on certain policies, but I did not hate the man, and I still retained my respect for the office of the President, and I still felt he deserved to be regarded with respect as our President, like him or not. I'm not sure that Obama gets that kind of respect all of the time, or enough of the time.

I really think that the hostile/suspicious undercurrent directed at Obama is related to race.


Oh please. You and your friends on the left begin with an assumption that Republicans are racists and then interpret every action taken and comment made by one as an expression of your assumption.

But you must be correct because while the Right hates Obama, they feel warm and fuzzy about Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Joe Biden, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Martin O'Malley et al.

Since they think these other Democrats are pretty darn swell, their hatred for Obama must have to do with race.

After all, only Democrats can hate based on high minded principle.

You may not have hated Bush, but many of your like-minded friends did, and guess what? There are plenty of people who disagree with Obama's policies as vehemently as you disagreed with those of Bush who do not hate Obama, and their disagreement, dislike, and lack of respect have nothing to do with the color of his skin.

Republicans have little use for Barney Frank, but that must be because he is gay, and we know how they hate fags.

How is the office of the presidency with Obama in the Oval Office any less generally respected than it was when any other white president held it? Because one clown yelled "Liar" during a State of the Union Address?

Notice that he didn't yell a racial epithet, but the way the Left wants to spin reality, "Professor," "Chicago," "Angry," "Golf," and even "Constitution" are racist code words, and so I would imagine that "Liar" must be, and particularly so when directed at a black president.

Keep in mind that it was during a State of the Union Address that your beloved leader took the unprecedented action of berating Supreme Court Justices for one of their decisions. The Executive Branch is not the only branch of government deserving of respect.

Let's see, Alito and Scalia are Italian, Roberts is a WASP, Kennedy is Irish and Thomas is black...somewhere there must be a thread of intolerance within Obama's disrespectful tirade.

Of course you "really" (as opposed to " I'm just making a specious point ") think that dislike for or criticism of Obama is based on race.

Race is the Liberal's version of the Warner Bros' Acme Super Duper Destructo Atomizer: Fire it in the direction of a foe and instantly their opinions are transformed into a small pile of smoking vile hatred.

The idiot mayor of Los Angeles did his bit as a Hispanic Democrat, during the RNC, by trotting out before the cameras and declaring that the GOP speakers who had brown skin and Hispanic surnames were tokens.

Fits right into your vacuous argument, except that those brown skinned people with Hispanic surnames were elected to state wide offices: Gov. Martinez of New Mexico, Gov. Sandoval of Colorado, Sen. Rubio of Florida, and then there were Ted Cruz (who without question will be a US Senator from Texas after Nov. 6th) and Gov Luis Fortuna of Puerto Rico.

How does that compare with the speakers at the DNC?

Antonio Villaraigosa is the Mayor of Los Angeles. A respectable position of course but hardly as influential as a Governor or Senator.

Mayor Julian Castro, the mayor of San Antonio. He gave a good speech (although it sounded like he ripped a lot of it of Rubio's speech) and is probably a good mayor, but his position is provincial to say the least. (I bet you didn't know that he has had to be tutored in the Spanish language - No window dressing him)

Several other Hispanic state and federal representatives who are nothing to dismiss out of hand, but when one compares the success of Hispanic politicians in the GOP and the Dem parties, it's impossible to come to any other conclusion than Republican Hispanics have been far more successful than their Democrat counterparts.

This must be quite difficult for you to process, considering your assumption that Republicans are racist, but then maybe you think, like many or your fellow liberals, that Martinez, Sandoval, Rubio, Cruz et all are race traitors.

Just as Condoleezza Rice, Mia Love, Artur Davis , Tim Scott and others must be.

While your bemoaning expressions of hatred, think on this:

After Mia Love gave her speech, some miscreant vandalized her Wikipedia entry with the following:

“She is a total sell-out to the Right Wing Hate Machine and the greedy bigots who control the GOP and love to see people like Mia Love be exploited like the House Nigger she truly is.”

Now, unlike izzy, I'm not suggesting that the misdeeds of one or two individuals should be seen as tarring an entire larger group of which they are members, but when you find yourself "really" thinking that Republicans who oppose Obama do so on the basis of race, consider that hate comes in all shades, shapes, and sizes.





0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  5  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 05:28 pm
Finn, you're a dick.

That is all.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 05:29 pm
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/mitt-romneys-path-to-victory-incredibly-narrow-and-perhaps-impossible-to-navigate/

What's amazing is that Obama is so far ahead in EV's at this point (by which I mean, he has enough EV's in states where he leads consistently by more than 6 points or so) that he could afford to lose OH, VA and FL and STILL win the election. Romney has, as the above link shows, an incredibly narrow path to victory.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 05:34 pm
In terms of the Dem convention, Nielsen ratings show that about 15% more people tuned in for the Dems than the GOP - and that's including Wed. night, with the NFL kickoff game.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 06:31 pm
@Cycloptichorn,

This is very interesting. Like in 2008, whoever wins two of three of Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania will win the election. It looks like Romney has conceded Pennsylvania (and Michigan and Wisconsin). You're right: there aren't many realistic combinations that add up to 270 electoral votes for Romney once those states are deleted from the equation.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 06:36 pm
@joefromchicago,
While you guys are patting Obama on the back and trying to guarantee a win for him, you might want to look at this...

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/23/university-of-colorado-prediction-model-points-to-big-romney-win

joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 06:39 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

While you guys are patting Obama on the back and trying to guarantee a win for him, you might want to look at this...

Who are you calling "you guys"?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 06:45 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

While you guys are patting Obama on the back and trying to guarantee a win for him, you might want to look at this...

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/23/university-of-colorado-prediction-model-points-to-big-romney-win




Such hyperbole. I don't see anyone saying anything like guaranteeing a win. Hopeful; sometimes encouraged by the latest news cycle; feeling confident about Obama's chances in the debates...

In your lexicon, do these things equate to "guaranteeing a win"?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 06:48 pm
@mysteryman,
That model doesn't take into account things like

1. Women's issues (abortion rights etc.)
2. Demographic changes (Hispanics)
3. Voter's opinions on the two very different plans for Medicare.
4. Specific views taken by the actual candidates.

The article makes a single dimensional model that ignores everything else that impact voters sound like a good thing. To me it sounds like stupidity.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 06:56 pm
@mysteryman,
That's odd, the University of Illinois model predicts... the exact opposite.

http://electionanalytics.cs.illinois.edu/

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 06:58 pm
@snood,
Actually, Cyclo DID guarantee an Obama win this November. I copied it as my Sig line, all you have to do is read it.
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 07:40 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Actually, Cyclo DID guarantee an Obama win this November. I copied it as my Sig line, all you have to do is read it.


I stand corrected. Although one person doesn't translate into "you guys".
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 08:00 pm
Quote:
The New York Times
Sept. 7: Polls Find Hints of Obama Convention Bounce
By NATE SILVER

The three national tracking polls that were published on Friday all moved toward President Obama, probably reflecting momentum from the Democratic convention.

In the Gallup national tracking poll, Mr. Obama moved into a three-point lead over Mitt Romney, up from one point on Thursday.

What’s a bit more worrisome for Mr. Romney is that Gallup’s reporting of the head-to-head results in its poll occurs over a lengthy seven-day window, meaning that only a minority of the interviews in the poll were conducted before the major speeches at the Democratic convention.

In fact, most of the interviews in the poll were conducted just after the Republican convention in Tampa, Fla., a period in which Mr. Romney should have been enjoying a convention bounce of his own.

Gallup’s approval ratings, however, are published over a three-day window, meaning that they will be quicker to respond to shifts in opinion. Mr. Obama’s approval ratings shot up to 52 percent in the version of poll published on Friday, while his disapproval ratings declined to 43 percent. The FiveThirtyEight forecast model does not use approval ratings directly, but this is a sign that there could be more good news for Mr. Obama in the head-to-head portion of the poll in the days ahead.

Mr. Obama still trails Mr. Romney in the Rasmussen Reports national tracking poll, but he narrowed his deficit to one point from three on Thursday. Rasmussen publishes its results using a three-day window, quicker than the Gallup, though almost none of their interviews yet reflect reactions to Mr. Obama’s speech on Thursday night.

Finally, Mr. Obama moved into a two-point lead in the online tracking poll conducted by Ipsos, which had given Mr. Romney a one-point lead on Thursday. About half of the interviews in the Ipsos poll were conducted after Michelle Obama’s speech on Tuesday — although only about one-quarter will reflect reaction to former President Bill Clinton’s Wednesday night speech, and almost none to the speech given to Mr. Obama.

It’s certainly important to be cautious when interpreting one-day changes in the polls. But so far, this data is tracking toward a decent-size convention bounce for Mr. Obama. It’s quite unlikely, in fact, that the movement in the polls reflects statistical noise alone.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/sept-7-polls-find-hints-of-obama-convention-bounce/
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 08:40 pm
@firefly,
I think it is absurd that they gave speeches talking about how many jobs obama saved with the stimulus and everyone gives them a stamp of approval on it when we lost 386,000 jobs in August!

You don't get to claim success when we are still losing on average 300,000 jobs a month. Who cares if the stimulus saved 1 million jobs, when in 3.5 months you lose 1 million jobs anyways?

It is ridiculous that people still give obama the stamp of approval that he is doing what is best for the economy when there is still a gaping wounded that has not been addressed. Everyone is eating obama's placebo pill while the economy bleeds to death.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 09:03 pm
@Krumple,
My problem with "jobs saved" is in exactly how you measure them. We kind of accept that the various measures of unemployment are obtained by a small and hopefully random sample, but at least there is something there to measure.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 10:05 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
It is ridiculous that people still give obama the stamp of approval that he is doing what is best for the economy when there is still a gaping wounded that has not been addressed. Everyone is eating obama's placebo pill while the economy bleeds to death.

The economy is not bleeding to death. It's just recovering at a very slow rate--which was to be expected given the magnitude of the financial crisis that caused the recession.

Krumple, Bill Clinton was right when he said that no President could have turned this economy around in 4 years.
Quote:
Further, the recession faced by President Obama was caused by a financial crisis, not a monetary adjustment. As several economists have noted, recessions associated with financial crises are more severe and hamper recovery far more than other kinds of economic downturns.

Further, the recession faced by President Obama was caused by a financial crisis, not a monetary adjustment. As several economists have noted, recessions associated with financial crises are more severe and hamper recovery far more than other kinds of economic downturns. Writing for Bloomberg View, economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff explained:

After a normal recession (which for the average post-World War II experience in the U.S. lasted less than a year), the economy quickly snaps back; within a year or two, it not only recovers lost ground but also returns to trend.

After systemic financial crises, however, economies of the postwar era have needed an average of four and half years just to reach the same per capita gross domestic product they had when the crisis started. We find that, on average, unemployment rates take a similar time frame to hit bottom and housing prices take even longer. With the Great Depression of the 1930s, economies on average needed more than a full decade to regain the initial per capita GDP.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/09/06/fox-attacks-clintons-dnc-speech-with-scrambled/189778

Quote:
Our research makes the point that the aftermaths of severe financial crises are characterized by long, deep recessions in which crucial indicators such as unemployment and housing prices take far longer to hit bottom than they would after a normal recession. And the bottom is much deeper. Studies by the International Monetary Fund concluded much the same.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-02/five-years-after-crisis-no-normal-recovery.html

You can't get angry at Obama for not being a miracle worker who could have turned this economy around by now. I don't think you understand how severe and deep this recession is--and the recession was something Obama inherited.

Following systematic financial crises, unemployment rates can take four and a half years to hit bottom--and we aren't even at the four and a half year mark yet.

You aren't being realistic in your timeframe, about what you can expect a President, any President, to accomplish in only 4 years, with a recession of this type.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/07/2024 at 12:10:31