OK, since the conservative members on this thread couldn't articulate a path to victory for candidate Romney, other than the "the voting guide from a Nickelodeon magazine," I went digging around for a means.
Rush and his ilk are saying double down on the 47% remarks.
Not sure this is a viable strategy. While it will fire up the base it doesn't really help with the independent voters and leaves you vulnerable to the Dems slicing off small but critical bits of your supporters with targeted ads and stories. I am starting to see this in the press already, there is a story about military veterans (especially wounded veterans) that fall in the 47% demographic. I full expect to see ads in military heavy swing states (e.g. Virginia) that will connect the dots on VA Medical, G.I. loans, and disability to what Romney said. I have already pointed out that Florida's retirees are going to get slammed with ads about their social security benefits and how Romney thinks that they are moochers because they don't pay federal income taxes on said benefits.
His model is of all people, Sen. John Kerry. Yeah I know, he lost, but he almost didn't. He was a hairs breath away from winning the White House in Ohio. Kerry's campaign was melting down after the double whammy of the strong RNC event and the swiftboat attacks. There was a lot of hand wringing and "bed wetting" by the democrats who questioned whether the candidate and his advisers were competent to run their campaign. The narrative in the press was also, "Kerry is losing, bad."
So, what changed? Bush had a dismal performance in the debates and Kerry did well. While this didn't shift the polls directly in Kerry's favor it bought him room to maneuver by silencing the internal bed wetters and changed the press narrative back to Kerry being a credible candidate.
Kerry lost but he had a larger margin in the polls than Romney to make up.
So, this comes down to the Romney campaign showing some message discipline all the way up to the debates and then Romney performing strong and Obama coming off weak. I am not sure he can count on Obama looking weak like Bush did vs. Kerry but stranger things have happened.
So, there is some daylight left for Mr. Romney. Not a lot, but some.
Note: I am talking about what Romney can do to win with conditions as they are now. If something like Israel attacking Iran's nuclear program or the Euro-zone melting down happens then all this goes out the window as the ground the presidential campaign rests on changes fundamentally.
Anybody who seems so sure Obama is going to win must not have family that lives outside the city. When I have visited my extended family everybody there is vocally anti-Obama. Not just my family but everybody in the country(side). The urban/rural dichotomy in America is fairly obvious IMO.
Although most people can see it is close, I think Rock is right that there is a very charged anti-Obama campaign and the liberal base is relying on too many apathetic hipster fucks who are not going to make it out to vote etc.
Anybody who seems so sure Obama is going to win must not have family that lives outside the city. When I have visited my extended family everybody there is vocally anti-Obama. Not just my family but everybody in the country(side). The urban/rural dichotomy in America is fairly obvious IMO.
Although most people can see it is close, I think Rock is right that there is a very charged anti-Obama campaign and the liberal base is relying on too many apathetic hipster fucks who are not going to make it out to vote etc.
Putting on my 'Lazy Analyst" hat (tip of said hat to sakedelic), the only problem with that train of thought are the polls that are hitting "likely voters," which apathetic hipster fucks are not numbered amongst, still show Obama up by 2 to 3 % depending on which poll aggregater you follow (Nate Silver, Poll Tracker, etc.).
That does not preclude the Bradly Effect, which a lot of media folks were bantering about during the '08 election. But, that is not as likely since the election of Obama changed that bit of conventional wisdom. See link to solidify my lazy analyst cred... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect
I am not saying that Romney can't pull this one out, he could. Its looking less likely as various swing states are starting to move out of his reach. If he cannot win Florida his road to 270 electoral votes gets narrower.
It isn't just the rural areas, I have urban dwelling friends that say, "anyone but Obama." Some will hold their nose and pull the lever for Romney (but they didn't want him in the first place) and others will stay home or cast write in votes. Anger at Obama is not a guarantee of winning their vote.
Then again, if we Democrats get complacent, our base numerical advantage edge will go out the window and make it more likely that Romney can win. Just a side note on that topic, all the news I have been reading or watching has said that the Democratic National Convention has fired up the Democratic faithful and their enthusiasm has almost reached Republican levels (not a good sign for Mitt).
All that being said, Obama is not going to crush Romney like he did McCain. The numbers are going to be close not matter who wins.
Now I am off to be even more lazy by cleaning my house and studying for the CPA exam.
Anybody who seems so sure Obama is going to win must not have family that lives outside the city. When I have visited my extended family everybody there is vocally anti-Obama. Not just my family but everybody in the country(side). The urban/rural dichotomy in America is fairly obvious IMO.
Although most people can see it is close, I think Rock is right that there is a very charged anti-Obama campaign and the liberal base is relying on too many apathetic hipster fucks who are not going to make it out to vote etc.
Uh huh. Since over 80% of Americans live in urban areas I'll take that base over a bunch of snakehandling hicks yelling about the Kenyan Mooslim befouling the White House.
Good point. I think the 80/20 urban/rural census data is a bit misleading though...perhaps I should have used the terms metropolitian vs. "low-brow urbanism". But yeah, a significant portion of the U.S. population lives in moderately populated areas well outside of major urban centers with a population density that still classifies them as urban.
Stereotyping republicans as snakehandiling hicks is just as wrong and intolerant as when they stereotype inner city blacks as being lazy and relying on government hand outs. Just sayin'
Anybody who seems so sure Obama is going to win must not have family that lives outside the city. When I have visited my extended family everybody there is vocally anti-Obama. Not just my family but everybody in the country(side). The urban/rural dichotomy in America is fairly obvious IMO.
Although most people can see it is close, I think Rock is right that there is a very charged anti-Obama campaign and the liberal base is relying on too many apathetic hipster fucks who are not going to make it out to vote etc.
Uh huh. Since over 80% of Americans live in urban areas I'll take that base over a bunch of snakehandling hicks yelling about the Kenyan Mooslim befouling the White House.
Good point. I think the 80/20 urban/rural census data is a bit misleading though...perhaps I should have used the terms metropolitian vs. "low-brow urbanism". But yeah, a significant portion of the U.S. population lives in moderately populated areas well outside of major urban centers with a population density that still classifies them as urban.
Stereotyping republicans as snakehandiling hicks is just as wrong and intolerant as when they stereotype inner city blacks as being lazy and relying on government hand outs. Just sayin'
Well said. It will be interesting to see how the polling holds up this time around.
A person who REALLY hates Obama still only gets 1 vote, and I have a tough time seeing how the type of people you're talking about are being undercounted. If anything, it's the metropolitan cell-only types that are being under counted, and I've read the polls that include cell phones are tilting even more heavily towards Obama. I'm definitely still skeptical, and straight up, I think popping the champagne in September is horrible look.
Anyway, stand by for another disdainful, pseudo-witty rejoinder from LMJ in 5, 4, 3...
Welcome to the power and peril of being President.
I mean it isn't like Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu wasn't trying to influence the election with his big push on Iran or his near endorsement of Romney during his visit to Israel. Or, Obama cracking the foreign aide whip on the President of Egypt to get his police in gear to protect the US Embassy in Ciro.
Or, step back a bit and remember when Osama Bin Laden released tapes saying that Al Qaeda would be happier with President Kerry. Or you can step to more internal influences and remember when Homeland Security was always jacking up the color coded threat level during election season.
External factors are something all campaigns want to quash. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
"When you have a fire in an aircraft, there???s no place to go, exactly, there???s no ??? and you can???t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don???t open. I don???t know why they don???t do that. It???s a real problem. So it???s very dangerous."
-- Mitt Romney
Fucking. Idiot.
"When you have a fire in an aircraft, there???s no place to go, exactly, there???s no ??? and you can???t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don???t open. I don???t know why they don???t do that. It???s a real problem. So it???s very dangerous."
-- Mitt Romney
Fucking. Idiot.
You know, the last time I saw a fire outta control, I thought MORE OXYGEN!
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Great, so the public isn't pleased with Obama's first term. So the establishment chooses the biggest assclown of them all to run against him. In other words, guess who they want to be their sock puppet for 4 more years.
"When you have a fire in an aircraft, there???s no place to go, exactly, there???s no ??? and you can???t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don???t open. I don???t know why they don???t do that. It???s a real problem. So it???s very dangerous."
-- Mitt Romney
Fucking. Idiot.
You know, the last time I saw a fire outta control, I thought MORE OXYGEN!
I think is talking about oxygen to breathe, not oxygen to stoke the fire.
Even thought, breathing is kinda like stoking the fire in people's soul. Even compose piles get hot. Have you heard of 350.org???
He's still a fucking idiot if he doesn't understand that at 40,000 feet, there???s no oxygen in the air. The temperature is about -70F. Opening a window would cause sudden depressurization and the plane's occupants would lose consciousness too quickly to don oxygen masks.
"When you have a fire in an aircraft, there???s no place to go, exactly, there???s no ??? and you can???t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don???t open. I don???t know why they don???t do that. It???s a real problem. So it???s very dangerous."
-- Mitt Romney
Fucking. Idiot.
The problem is government regulations wont allow aircraft manufactures to put operable windows in jets.
Then they force them to put oxygen masks above every seat, raising the cost of jets and air travel.
If we could just get government out of the way...
A quick question for those living in battleground states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, etc.) what have the political ads been like in the past couple of weeks. Out here in the wilderness of electoral politics (Oregon is deep blue) I haven't seen a single Romney ad and only a few Obama ads.
Has anyone been polled? Has the ground game started (are people from either campaign calling you to see if you are going to vote, etc.)? If your state has started early voting (right now 14 of them have) have you voted already or are you waiting? Is anyone in Pennsylvania and how is the voter ID law affecting you or people you know?
Here in Oregon, during the Olympics, I saw both Obama and Romney ads.
Must have been a nation wide buy.
If I recall Obama had one positive ad that ran that was ok.
Romney had a negative ad, that I thought was well done. Working class people looking sad as the announcer told us how bad the economy was.
Would anyone here be against a Voter ID Law if it was done with something technology based like Retina Scan or Fingerprints?
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Rockadelic said:
Would anyone here be against a Voter ID Law if it was done with something technology based like Retina Scan or Fingerprints?
Yes. I would be against spending all the money to get that set up when they are just going to manufacture the result they desire behind the scenes anyway.
Why y'all continue to think that this shit is done on the up-and-up EVER is beyond me.
Would anyone here be against a Voter ID Law if it was done with something technology based like Retina Scan or Fingerprints?
Why not blood as well and go for the trifecta.
Because I would think most people would feel taking blood is more intrusive than say...looking into a scanner.
That would work great...
What if I use Retina scan for my fortune 500 companies security? I've now given the government access. Better yet. Anyone that potentially hacks the system and steals the data base.
How about everyone is sent a voter card and when they show up to vote, they hand in their card (Which then gets stamped voted) and show one piece of a document that proves they live there?
That's what I did when I moved back from the states and went to vote in an election. Showed up with my card and my cable bill.
Before you even get into the intrusiveness of what you are asking and the creepy big-brother factor, the cost to benefits of such a system would be astronomical.
First: You would have to have a national ID registry (because having 50 different states do it individually would not happen, the cost would be prohibitive) that had everyone's finger prints and retinas scanned. This is a huge undertaking and probably would need legislation to happen. Every attempt at national ID card has gone down in flames. Expect huge civil liberties law-suits were it to actually happen (from both the left and the libertarians). OK, let's say for shits and giggles we clear this first hurdle that leads to...
Second: You would need to have the machinery at all polling places (big capital outlay). Its all electronic so better have power backup systems just in case. Then you have to train everyone working the polls on how to properly use them. This brings us to a couple of problems [del]that this runs into[/del]. This would slow down voting and make it harder to process large number of people to vote. That means more polling stations which in turn means more equipment. Or it means longer voting periods (early voting). This also doesn't address states like Oregon that vote only by mail, where do we go to check our IDs?
So, to answer your question personally I would find eye scans and finger prints intrusive and unnecessary (I also think the same of requiring photo ID with expiration dates as well), not to mention completely unworkable in the state of Oregon. As an baby-accountant I find the cost benefit of such a course laughable at best. Further, the current laws on the books are stringent enough that getting caught voting fraudulently is not worth the cost of doing it.
You have been beating the voter ID drum now for a bit and I am curious why you think that in person voter fraud is such a huge threat (when it has been proven to be less than 0.000002% of votes cast nationally in the past 10 years) that it demands very expensive, intrusive means of detecting it.
Edits in red: Because grammar and my fat fingers are not my friends.
Comments
You really can't handle these threads.
Rush and his ilk are saying double down on the 47% remarks.
Not sure this is a viable strategy. While it will fire up the base it doesn't really help with the independent voters and leaves you vulnerable to the Dems slicing off small but critical bits of your supporters with targeted ads and stories. I am starting to see this in the press already, there is a story about military veterans (especially wounded veterans) that fall in the 47% demographic. I full expect to see ads in military heavy swing states (e.g. Virginia) that will connect the dots on VA Medical, G.I. loans, and disability to what Romney said. I have already pointed out that Florida's retirees are going to get slammed with ads about their social security benefits and how Romney thinks that they are moochers because they don't pay federal income taxes on said benefits.
Another tack I have read came from Steve Kornacki (Salon, MSNBC's The Cycle). He did a piece today cautioning the left on getting too cocky: http://www.salon.com/2012/09/19/the_danger_of_writing_off_mitt/
His model is of all people, Sen. John Kerry. Yeah I know, he lost, but he almost didn't. He was a hairs breath away from winning the White House in Ohio. Kerry's campaign was melting down after the double whammy of the strong RNC event and the swiftboat attacks. There was a lot of hand wringing and "bed wetting" by the democrats who questioned whether the candidate and his advisers were competent to run their campaign. The narrative in the press was also, "Kerry is losing, bad."
So, what changed? Bush had a dismal performance in the debates and Kerry did well. While this didn't shift the polls directly in Kerry's favor it bought him room to maneuver by silencing the internal bed wetters and changed the press narrative back to Kerry being a credible candidate.
Kerry lost but he had a larger margin in the polls than Romney to make up.
So, this comes down to the Romney campaign showing some message discipline all the way up to the debates and then Romney performing strong and Obama coming off weak. I am not sure he can count on Obama looking weak like Bush did vs. Kerry but stranger things have happened.
So, there is some daylight left for Mr. Romney. Not a lot, but some.
Note: I am talking about what Romney can do to win with conditions as they are now. If something like Israel attacking Iran's nuclear program or the Euro-zone melting down happens then all this goes out the window as the ground the presidential campaign rests on changes fundamentally.
One of my co-workers: I just want a white one.
Me: That's what half the people voting for president this year are thinking.
Nice! There I am, the "Lazy Activist." Well done sir!
Haha!
Although most people can see it is close, I think Rock is right that there is a very charged anti-Obama campaign and the liberal base is relying on too many apathetic hipster fucks who are not going to make it out to vote etc.
Putting on my 'Lazy Analyst" hat (tip of said hat to sakedelic), the only problem with that train of thought are the polls that are hitting "likely voters," which apathetic hipster fucks are not numbered amongst, still show Obama up by 2 to 3 % depending on which poll aggregater you follow (Nate Silver, Poll Tracker, etc.).
That does not preclude the Bradly Effect, which a lot of media folks were bantering about during the '08 election. But, that is not as likely since the election of Obama changed that bit of conventional wisdom. See link to solidify my lazy analyst cred...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect
I am not saying that Romney can't pull this one out, he could. Its looking less likely as various swing states are starting to move out of his reach. If he cannot win Florida his road to 270 electoral votes gets narrower.
It isn't just the rural areas, I have urban dwelling friends that say, "anyone but Obama." Some will hold their nose and pull the lever for Romney (but they didn't want him in the first place) and others will stay home or cast write in votes. Anger at Obama is not a guarantee of winning their vote.
Then again, if we Democrats get complacent, our base numerical advantage edge will go out the window and make it more likely that Romney can win. Just a side note on that topic, all the news I have been reading or watching has said that the Democratic National Convention has fired up the Democratic faithful and their enthusiasm has almost reached Republican levels (not a good sign for Mitt).
All that being said, Obama is not going to crush Romney like he did McCain. The numbers are going to be close not matter who wins.
Now I am off to be even more lazy by cleaning my house and studying for the CPA exam.
Good point. I think the 80/20 urban/rural census data is a bit misleading though...perhaps I should have used the terms metropolitian vs. "low-brow urbanism". But yeah, a significant portion of the U.S. population lives in moderately populated areas well outside of major urban centers with a population density that still classifies them as urban.
Stereotyping republicans as snakehandiling hicks is just as wrong and intolerant as when they stereotype inner city blacks as being lazy and relying on government hand outs. Just sayin'
Well said. It will be interesting to see how the polling holds up this time around.
A person who REALLY hates Obama still only gets 1 vote, and I have a tough time seeing how the type of people you're talking about are being undercounted. If anything, it's the metropolitan cell-only types that are being under counted, and I've read the polls that include cell phones are tilting even more heavily towards Obama. I'm definitely still skeptical, and straight up, I think popping the champagne in September is horrible look.
Anyway, stand by for another disdainful, pseudo-witty rejoinder from LMJ in 5, 4, 3...
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/09/21/uk-eurozone-greece-report-idUKBRE88K0OQ20120921
"I am Jack's... complete lack of surprise."
Welcome to the power and peril of being President.
I mean it isn't like Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu wasn't trying to influence the election with his big push on Iran or his near endorsement of Romney during his visit to Israel. Or, Obama cracking the foreign aide whip on the President of Egypt to get his police in gear to protect the US Embassy in Ciro.
Or, step back a bit and remember when Osama Bin Laden released tapes saying that Al Qaeda would be happier with President Kerry. Or you can step to more internal influences and remember when Homeland Security was always jacking up the color coded threat level during election season.
External factors are something all campaigns want to quash. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
-- Mitt Romney
Fucking. Idiot.
blue lasers. red lasers.
and the winner is me.
You know, the last time I saw a fire outta control, I thought MORE OXYGEN!
I think is talking about oxygen to breathe, not oxygen to stoke the fire.
Even thought, breathing is kinda like stoking the fire in people's soul.
He's still a fucking idiot if he doesn't understand that at 40,000 feet, there???s no oxygen in the air. The temperature is about -70F. Opening a window would cause sudden depressurization and the plane's occupants would lose consciousness too quickly to don oxygen masks.
My 10 and 7 year old nephews know this.
Edit: the point is talk is cheap, and actions are what matters.
The problem is government regulations wont allow aircraft manufactures to put operable windows in jets.
Then they force them to put oxygen masks above every seat, raising the cost of jets and air travel.
If we could just get government out of the way...
Has anyone been polled? Has the ground game started (are people from either campaign calling you to see if you are going to vote, etc.)? If your state has started early voting (right now 14 of them have) have you voted already or are you waiting? Is anyone in Pennsylvania and how is the voter ID law affecting you or people you know?
Must have been a nation wide buy.
If I recall Obama had one positive ad that ran that was ok.
Romney had a negative ad, that I thought was well done. Working class people looking sad as the announcer told us how bad the economy was.
Yes. I would be against spending all the money to get that set up when they are just going to manufacture the result they desire behind the scenes anyway.
Why y'all continue to think that this shit is done on the up-and-up EVER is beyond me.
Why not blood as well and go for the trifecta.
Oh yeah, that's already in place.
I call that the beginning of another day and feel better once I hav relieved myself. Lol.
Because I would think most people would feel taking blood is more intrusive than say...looking into a scanner.
That would work great...
What if I use Retina scan for my fortune 500 companies security? I've now given the government access. Better yet. Anyone that potentially hacks the system and steals the data base.
How about everyone is sent a voter card and when they show up to vote, they hand in their card (Which then gets stamped voted) and show one piece of a document that proves they live there?
That's what I did when I moved back from the states and went to vote in an election. Showed up with my card and my cable bill.
Done.
Before you even get into the intrusiveness of what you are asking and the creepy big-brother factor, the cost to benefits of such a system would be astronomical.
First: You would have to have a national ID registry (because having 50 different states do it individually would not happen, the cost would be prohibitive) that had everyone's finger prints and retinas scanned. This is a huge undertaking and probably would need legislation to happen. Every attempt at national ID card has gone down in flames. Expect huge civil liberties law-suits were it to actually happen (from both the left and the libertarians). OK, let's say for shits and giggles we clear this first hurdle that leads to...
Second: You would need to have the machinery at all polling places (big capital outlay). Its all electronic so better have power backup systems just in case. Then you have to train everyone working the polls on how to properly use them. This brings us to a couple of problems [del]that this runs into[/del]. This would slow down voting and make it harder to process large number of people to vote. That means more polling stations which in turn means more equipment. Or it means longer voting periods (early voting). This also doesn't address states like Oregon that vote only by mail, where do we go to check our IDs?
So, to answer your question personally I would find eye scans and finger prints intrusive and unnecessary (I also think the same of requiring photo ID with expiration dates as well), not to mention completely unworkable in the state of Oregon. As an baby-accountant I find the cost benefit of such a course laughable at best. Further, the current laws on the books are stringent enough that getting caught voting fraudulently is not worth the cost of doing it.
You have been beating the voter ID drum now for a bit and I am curious why you think that in person voter fraud is such a huge threat (when it has been proven to be less than 0.000002% of votes cast nationally in the past 10 years) that it demands very expensive, intrusive means of detecting it.
Edits in red: Because grammar and my fat fingers are not my friends.