Decision 2012
Quote: bigpete88Election is over.
Does anyone want to give an over view of what the U.S. economy might look like in 3 years?
My prediction is not great and I hope that I am wrong.
I'm with you: not great and I also hope I'm wrong. While The Market did well over the last 4 years, I'm feeling we're in for a bloodbath and it's just a question of when, and today was just the start:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/futures-fall-further-election-results-031550185.html
Once again, hopefully I'm wrong. I've not "gone to cash" or anything, but at the same time, I'm becoming increasingly cautious. Now that the election is over, there's no need for people to tout particular employment numbers and to say how great everything is when we know it isn't and we know the truth behind them.
Well played, sir.
Quote: AcesAndEightsI'm starting to think EvenBob was a troll in the most literal sense of the word. Just showed up here to rile people up, didn't actually believe Romney was going to win, and now he's laughing at home. Hasn't even visited the forum today.
Well played, sir.
I believe that he's for real and really believed everything he wrote. He just got his information from the wrong sources. He's actually a very genuine person, just misinformed. And I don't dislike him; I just don't agree with him.
The pollsters who preferred to present their alternate reality as the truth really did a great disservice.
Quote: FarFromVegasThe pollsters who preferred to present their alternate reality as the truth really did a great disservice.
I don't think any pollster went out of their way to get it wrong. Why would they risk their livelihood to present an "alternative reality"?
They may have been wrong, their sampling may need to be changed, etc. but your statement basically implies they did it on purpose.
Really???
The race was close, it got closer, but President Obama ran a successful campaign.
Quote: FarFromVegasI believe that he's for real and really believed everything he wrote. He just got his information from the wrong sources. He's actually a very genuine person, just misinformed. And I don't dislike him; I just don't agree with him.
The pollsters who preferred to present their alternate reality as the truth really did a great disservice.
I am torn between whether these pollsters and I target 3 in particular, Karl Rove, Dick Morris, and Rasmussen, got caught up trying to make their model fit what they wanted the results to be or whether they just don't understand the changing demographics of the vote. I heard Dick Morris explain his methodology 3 different times on Fox news, the final time just the day before the election. The part he missed on so badly was the non white vote. Here was the data for the non-white vote for the previous 3 presidential elections:
2000 - 20%, 2004 - 23%, 2008 -27%. Do you see a trend here. The non-white vote increased each cycle, mainly because the latino population is the fastest growing demographic in the US.
So in predicting the non-white vote for this election, you would have to think 27% or greater. It turned out to be 28%. Now Mr Morris, as well as many other republican pollsters were predicting a non-white vote in the low 20's %. Below 2008, and even 2004, even though the Latino population has grown substantially. the lack of understanding of what the electorate would look like last night is mind-blowing for people such as these 3 gentlemen that have been polling and using the data for decades. It is just hard to imagine that they all got it soooo wrong. That is why I lean toward the notion that they had to know their models were wrong and outdated and just chose to mislead their republican followers by giving them what they wanted to hear. This taints their image and in my mind renders all 3 no longer credible during future cycles.
Quote: RonCI don't think any pollster went out of their way to get it wrong. Why would they risk their livelihood to present an "alternative reality"?
They may have been wrong, their sampling may need to be changed, etc. but your statement basically implies they did it on purpose.
Really???
The race was close, it got closer, but President Obama ran a successful campaign.
I'm not saying they were lying on purpose, but had to be basing some assumptions on wishful thinking instead of solid facts. Bob had stated definitively that undecideds were going to go to Romney 75-25. Factor in enough things you want to happen rather than what's really going to happen and your numbers are way off.
But Bob would cherry-pick those polls and present them as Gospel. He was ill-served by them.
Quote: FarFromVegasI'm not saying they were lying on purpose, but had to be basing some assumptions on wishful thinking instead of solid facts. Bob had stated definitively that undecideds were going to go to Romney 75-25. Factor in enough things you want to happen rather than what's really going to happen and your numbers are way off.
But Bob would cherry-pick those polls and present them as Gospel. He was ill-served by them.
He wasn't the only one here taking liberties with the polling data. He just ended up being one of those on the losing end.
A lot of people cherry-picked things to make their side look better.
Rove and Morris are not what I would consider "pollsters"...they seem to take the data and interpret it as they see fit. The parts they used to support their position did not turn out as they predicted.
Rassmussen? Well, they may have to look at their sampling.
The problem is too many are not willing to make the hard choices to better their lives. 2nd jobs, risk taking and such are more than many are willing to try. Most on here are gamblers, but it is sad to see they don't hold that opinion in life.
Rather they are willing accept a vision in that if they "win" in life they should pay a higher percentage in taxes to help unwilling to take risks.
2.3 kids, a ranch and job where you get a raise based on a union covering for least productive worker is your goal, you probably are on the wrong website.
But then, I voted for the guy that lost.
So obviously those who are concerned about everyone won.
The problem is too many are not willing to make the hard choices to better their lives. 2nd jobs, risk taking and such are more than many are willing to try. Most on here are gamblers, but it is sad to see they don't hold that opinion in life.
Rather they are willing accept a vision in that if they "win" in life they should pay a higher percentage in taxes to help unwilling to take risks.
2.3 kids, a ranch and job where you get a raise based on a union covering for least productive worker is your goal, you probably are on the wrong website.
But then, I voted for the guy that lost.
So obviously those who are concerned about everyone won.
It's not that they wanted Romney to win, it's that they thought we were crazy for thinking Obama would win.
I'm totally fine with someone supporting their candidate, but there's a difference between support, and disregard for polling evidence.
I follow that, except in the case of Akin and Mourdock, I've been dancing all over the graves of those two @$$clowns all day!!!
Quote: FinsRuleI don't know if I can speak for everyone, but I think most people's "anger" is directed at the vitrol in which some people were "sure" that Romney was going to win. And them saying that if you thought Obama was going to win, you were living in fantasy land.
It's not that they wanted Romney to win, it's that they thought we were crazy for thinking Obama would win.
I'm totally fine with someone supporting their candidate, but there's a difference between support, and disregard for polling evidence.
I don't get whole "sore winner" vibe I am feeling here today. Polls were all over the place and I'm not sure that Obama even won until Hurricane Sandy and his moment to look Presidential the week before the election. 64% or some really high number said that his actions influenced their vote. That is HUGE and it wasn't really a number polled all that much before the election from what I saw.
Why would anyone have "anger" because they got in a conversation with someone known for arguing with people a bit?
Quote: AcesAndEightsI'm starting to think EvenBob was a troll in the most literal sense of the word.
I think EvenBob is a bit too old to be a troll. They didn't even offer trolling degrees in most colleges before the mid-late 90's.
Mitt Romney was running as a moderate, then chose a tea party nut who could not carry his home state as VP.
Quote: BuzzardSometimes people are too far removed from everyday life to make decisions. John Mccain ran based on his experience, then chose a hottie as his VP ?
Mitt Romney was running as a moderate, then chose a tea party nut who could not carry his home state as VP.
Name the last person that did as VP?
Biden was from a state that went liberal since 84.
Gore lost Tenn in 2000 as a Prez candidate.
Kerry/ Edwards lost NC in 04
So your point is??
Not a bad goal for a young man wanting to raise a family. Worked both union and non-union jobs. 20-80 the same both workplaces.
And yes, you can get fired from a union job, no matter how tuff the union is. The difference is management has to work a little harder to do it. But tardiness, absence, drugs , etc. and out the door you go !
And just how did that work out for them?Quote:I think in places like North Carolina, Virginia and Florida, we’ve already painted those red," David Paleologos, the president of Suffolk University Political Research Center told Fox host Bill O'Reilly on Tuesday. "We’re not polling any of those states again. We're focusing on the remaining states.
Quote: BozEven Bob is just like me, we just believe in a country where people are rewarded based on their actions, nothing more, nothing less.
Who doesn't? The problem is you (or rather Republicans) also want to punish people for bad luck or things out of their control. The biggest fallacy I hear come from right wingers is that everyone is the country is living in a state they chose and their financial situation is 100% their fault when often it isn't. What about the widow who loses her husband fighting in Afghanistan, I suppose it's her fault for not choosing to be a multi-millionaire CEO of a stoke broking company...
Quote: Mission146I guess I should mention that I think it is unnecessary to be piling verbal abuse upon people who have not been logged in since the election was decided because that is not going to do anything to encourage them to come back.
Oh no! Bob is reading. He may not have logged on or may log on under a different name but he is reading! lol Anyone who has posted 9000 times in 800 days is too obsessed not to. lol
Bobby and Keyser, you have had 24 hours now to digest this news and get good and drunk if need be. So, just relax. Stop being a baby and join the discussion. Bi*ch about how we are all doomed, about how the election was stolen, about how we are all going down the toilet. Complain about how lousy your candidate's campaign was run, or how a freak storm saved Obama, or how Christie stabbed Romney in the back. lol Or about how our electoral process sucks and needs to be changed. Climb out from under the bed. It's a new day and the sun is still shining. America is still a great country. The repubs still control the House and have a say in the government. Everything will be alright. And in the meantime, your favorite radio and TV personalities and shows have plenty of fuel for their fire. Nothing has changed. Life is good. :)
Quote: RonCI don't get whole "sore winner" vibe I am feeling here today. Polls were all over the place and I'm not sure that Obama even won until Hurricane Sandy and his moment to look Presidential the week before the election. 64% or some really high number said that his actions influenced their vote. That is HUGE and it wasn't really a number polled all that much before the election from what I saw.
Why would anyone have "anger" because they got in a conversation with someone known for arguing with people a bit?
Polls (state polls, at least) were never really "all over the place," if you paid attention to anyone other than Ras.
Romney never had a lead in Ohio, even after his first debate surge.
Romney was never going to win.
Seriously people, next time pay attention to Nate Silver.
Reality has a liberal bias :)Quote: ams288Seriously people, next time pay attention to Nate Silver.
Quote: ams288Romney was never going to win.
Seriously people, next time pay attention to Nate Silver.
I believe even Nate Silver stated whenever things were in the margin of error that they could go either way.
He's the "next big thing" now...maybe he will stay that way, maybe not. He has done well two times in a row.
Obama won, and the reason he won was because Mitt Romney never was the Republican candidate of choice. I liken the choice of Romney for 2012 to the choice of Kerry in 2004. Both candidates alienated enough people to blow the election. I spent a bunch of time watching CNN yesterday in the aftermath of the results, and they were stating that the blame was on the shrinking Republican base.
I don't buy that. The fact is though that only 50% of those eligible to vote actually go to the polls to do so. Many battleground states can be won or lost based on the candidate's party ability to get their people to vote. Virginia and Florida (probably) were won by the Dems because they got a higher proportion of their base to the polls despite the polls putting them in as red states. Part of that is the campaign on the ground (buses taking voters to vote), and some of that was simply because the Republicans were not passionate about their candidate.
If Romney pulled off Florida and Virginia, he still would have needed three or four of Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada, Colorado, and New Hampshire to win without Ohio.
Well, lesson learned - if in 2014 or 2016, the Intrade lines are well behind Silver's, I'm laying massively across the board. Unfortunately, I suspect everyone has learned this lesson, and they won't be.
Quote: 24BingoWell, lesson learned - if in 2014 or 2016, the Intrade lines are well behind Silver's, I'm laying massively across the board. Unfortunately, I suspect everyone has learned this lesson, and they won't be.
NEVER discount a FOX News viewer's ability to discount facts and ignore logic. If the polls say the dem is winning in 2016, but FOX pretends otherwise, we could easily have the same situation.
Quote: Buzzard" Mitt Romney never was the Republican candidate of choice. " There we go once again, blame the salesman and not the product !
During the primaries the Obama campaigns ran ads against Romney because they recognized he was the most electable candidate. Then the GOP tried to turn Romney into their "candidate of choice" because they didn't understand that the "not conservative enough" was a plus and not a minus. Those ultra-conservative candidates couldn't even win in red states despite all the big money spent by the SuperPacs. The Republican base has indeed changed but the higher-ups haven't recognized or adjusted for it.
I didn't think Virginia would go blue but I should have seen it coming when even my b-i-l was talking about voting for Obama. He's the new Republican base--fiscal conservative and social progressive. Heck--that's what I am.
Paul could not even carry him home state. And like Paul's followers were ever gonna vote Democratic. DUH
Let the Tea party be a third party. Then maybe the Republicans will have a chance in 2016. But I doubt they will ever do that !
Quote: Boz
2.3 kids, a ranch
That threw me for a moment but then I forgot that what we up here in the Northwest call 'ramblers' most of the rest of the nation calls 'ranches'
Quote: slytherThat threw me for a moment but then I forgot that what we up here in the Northwest call 'ramblers' most of the rest of the nation calls 'ranches'
And this is what I call a Rambler!:
Quote: FarFromVegasDuring the primaries the Obama campaigns ran ads against Romney because they recognized he was the most electable candidate. Then the GOP tried to turn Romney into their "candidate of choice" because they didn't understand that the "not conservative enough" was a plus and not a minus. Those ultra-conservative candidates couldn't even win in red states despite all the big money spent by the SuperPacs. The Republican base has indeed changed but the higher-ups haven't recognized or adjusted for it.
I didn't think Virginia would go blue but I should have seen it coming when even my b-i-l was talking about voting for Obama. He's the new Republican base--fiscal conservative and social progressive. Heck--that's what I am.
I agree with everything in your post. Well said. The electorate has changed. The Latino vote grows each cycle and woman make up 52% of the electorate. The republicans have alienated both groups. Being the party of white men isn't going to cut it any more. sadly, the republicans recognized this, but instead of taking action to be more inclusive of both groups, they tried to suppress the vote, by enacting stricter voter laws in every state that held republican governorships and control of state government. They have alienated gays as well, but gays are a small enough minority that republicans won't care for a long time. But if they don't do something to be more welcoming towards women and Latinos they will become a minority party with a shrinking market share each cycle.
I could see the current split in congress holding for quite some time. The republicans have an advantage in more congressional districts, because they hold an advantage over a greater portion, area-wise of the country. But the Democrats can win enough states to hold the senate. Hell out of the one-third of the senate that is up for election each two years, the democrats were defending 23 of the 33 seats this cycle. That alone is a huge recipe for republican gain and yet they actually lost ground.
As for Virginia, in my mind Virginia status as a red state is all but gone. In 2006 they voted for a democratic Senator, Jim Webb. In 2008, they voted for a democratic President, Barack Obama. In 2008, they also voted for a Democratic Senator Mark Warner and for anyone who thinks Warner won on Obama coattails, quite the contrary. Warner won with 65% of the vote, Obama only 53%. In 2012 they voted for a democratic President and senator yet again. The only state-wide election the republicans have won out of the last 6 was the governorship in 2009. 2009 being an off election year with no senate or presidential election on the ballot. The total turnout was 1.9 million votes, which is just about half of presidential and senate election years. So they are still able to win off years when the democrat turnout is lower. But the growing population center in Northern Virginia has swung Virginia in the big elections when the people actually come out to vote. It's still a close state, but I would now put it lean democrat, until proven otherwise.
But I got over it.
Quote: rxwineI was kinda of sad to see Donald Trump blaming Karl Rove for blowing 400 million and getting so little in return.
But I got over it.
I think it was a devastating loss for Rove. He has been king-maker and just got everything wrong. Only one candidate that American Crossroads targeted with ads of a million dollars or more against, lost. That was Shelley Berkley, here in Nevada and I think his ads had little effect on that race. She would have lost on her own.
I don't think the super rich that supplied Karl Rove with a 300 million stake, will be so eager to throw their money away with him next time. I think they will still use their funds to try to influence the elections, but I think, Karl Rove will get less of those funds and have a lesser impact. His status was greatly diminished. yea!
is becoming Southern D.C.
Most amazing is that Bob has chosen to just go and hide, rather than at least apologize to the many who kept stating the facts about what was happenning.
Obviously the excitement and energy of this re-branded group, helped lead republicans to a big victory in 2010. But what have the effects been since? One can argue that the Tea Party has cost the republicans the senate at this point as there were 6 senate races in since 2010 that should have been slam dunk republican wins, that ultra conservative tea party republican candidates lost. In several of those cases, the ultra conservative Tea Party candidate first displaced a current, more moderate Republican Senator that would have continued to win his seat, and then the Tea Party candidate went out and LOST that seat. At this point I think the Tea Party brand is hurting the Republican Party more than helping. Interested to see what some of you that are republican supporters think. SOO POO? Ron C?
And now it is 10am, Vegas time and my associate says I have wasted enough time and have some casino rounds to make. Good day ladies and gents.
Quote: BuzzardI would suggest we all enjoy Bob's vacation.
TRUER WORDS WERE NEVER SPOKEN
Quote: kewljAt this point I think the Tea Party brand is hurting the Republican Party more than helping.
I think that was true as soon as the 2010 elections were over. Tea Party = extremists on the right. Occupy = extremists on the left. Extremist do not have a voice in America, long-term.
Quote: boymimboFirst post back after many months being away.
Welcome back!
Quote: FarFromVegasI didn't think Virginia would go blue but I should have seen it coming when even my b-i-l was talking about voting for Obama. He's the new Republican base--fiscal conservative and social progressive. Heck--that's what I am.
So a Libertarian then? Too extreme I guess.
I really, really wish the Libertarians and libertarians would moderate just enough to take over the GOP. Fuck that social conservative noise. I just want to pay less in taxes and get the government out of as much as we feasibly can. Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty is trying to go this route in lieu of supporting the Libertarian party. Fat lot of good it has done them.
Quote: kewljWhat is kind of funny to me is the evolution of the Tea Party. The Tea party movement started out trying to be a bi-partisan group made up of both republicans and democrats that placed fiscal concerns (growing debt and growing government) as their main goals to tackle. It didn't take long before all that changed and they aligned with the republican party. I am not sure if the Republican Party took over the Tea Party or the Tea Party took over the Republican Party. lol But it came to be that they started to become more concerned with social issues like abortion and gay marriage and eventually Tea Party was just a re-branding of the far right conservative branch of the Republican Party.
I don't totally agree here. The Tea Party was not just about fiscal conservatism but smaller government in general. Along with an ideology of "equality of opprortunity, not equality of outcome." None of those three can be found in the Democrat Party where higher taxes, higher spending, more regulation, and "fairness" in the form of racial preference rule. RINO seats in the Senate were and are seen as seats wasted since what is the use of having a seat if the person in it does not share party views and will flip on the big issues (eg: Specter.)
Quote:Obviously the excitement and energy of this re-branded group, helped lead republicans to a big victory in 2010. But what have the effects been since? One can argue that the Tea Party has cost the republicans the senate at this point as there were 6 senate races in since 2010 that should have been slam dunk republican wins, that ultra conservative tea party republican candidates lost. In several of those cases, the ultra conservative Tea Party candidate first displaced a current, more moderate Republican Senator that would have continued to win his seat, and then the Tea Party candidate went out and LOST that seat. At this point I think the Tea Party brand is hurting the Republican Party more than helping. Interested to see what some of you that are republican supporters think.
When someone complains about the Tea Party my response is "What part of Constitutionalism do you not like?" What part of more personal freedom do you not like? And what part of lower taxes and regulations do you not like? I never get an answer. I get complaints saying "they are crazy birthers" but not once have I gotten a complaint about the tenents of the movement.
If the OWS movement asks me what I am against about their movement I can go on and on. And that movement had no center and fizzled out.
The Tea Party gets attacked very hard, indicating to me the left sees it as a long term threat. Yeah, some candidates were put up that might have cost a "safe" seat. This happens in most movements. The Founding Fathers were "crazies" at one point. I have been to a few rallies, and you will find the most polite and considerate group of people around. And it has grown from rallies to a few organized PACs. It may take 20 more years for the Tea Party to completely mature as a movement. 20 years is nothing in history.
As to the "brand" hurting the GOP I do not see it. If it does it is evened out by OWS, envrionmentalists, and unions hurting the Dem "brand." It is just the Tea Party is one movement, while leftist movements tend to me more narrow and just team up at election time.
Quote: AZDuffmanAs to the "brand" hurting the GOP I do not see it.
Then you are blind, or only hang out with people like you.
Tea Party gets nothing but laughs and shaming among my friends, who lean heavily toward the Democrat/liberal side. Sure they didn't like the GOP before, but they like it even less now.
I'm not saying you're wrong. Just saying that I have actively observed the Tea Party brand hurting the GOP.
Political Compass on the US election
Quote:This is a US election that defies logic and brings the nation closer towards a one-party state masquerading as a two-party state.
"The illusion of safety." -Fight Club
The illusion of choice.
Quote: AcesAndEightsThen you are blind, or only hang out with people like you.
Tea Party gets nothing but laughs and shaming among my friends, who lean heavily toward the Democrat/liberal side. Sure they didn't like the GOP before, but they like it even less now.
Oh my God-the Tea Party makes the GOP less favorable in the view of liberal people! The horror.
My guess is this same group of friends has a favorable opinion of OWS?
I'm not saying, I'm just saying.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhen someone complains about the Tea Party my response is "What part of Constitutionalism do you not like?".
There's probably a lot about contitutionalism you don't like, you simply imply the Supreme Court is wrong on those issues.
We are both stuck with things we don't like, but they are Constitutional, according to law.
Taxes and government are part of the system. Voting/the court/congress establishes limits of each but doesn't dictate percentages of each.
Almost all the structures you hate are just as constitutional as the ones you prefer.
Quote: AZDuffmanI don't totally agree here. The Tea Party was not just about fiscal conservatism but smaller government in general. Along with an ideology of "equality of opprortunity, not equality of outcome."
And yet the Tea Party are against any form of inheritance taxation. Doesn't sound too much 'equal opportunity' there.
Quote: AZDuffmanOh my God-the Tea Party makes the GOP less favorable in the view of liberal people! The horror.
Yeah. I didn't get my point across exactly the way I wanted to. But you are right on this point - not a big surprise.
Quote:My guess is this same group of friends has a favorable opinion of OWS?
Actually no!
Quote:I'm not saying, I'm just saying.
I'm glad you got the joke in there :)
Quote: 24BingoWhat surprised me wasn't that Silver was mostly right, but that the two upsets there were were both Democratic wins: the Senate races in Montana and North Dakota. North Dakota in particular he had as almost a lock for Berg. With all the variables in play that polling couldn't really account for, I was expecting the bettors' lines to be closer than his, with a number of scattered upsets in both directions, which would have shown his bias inasmuch as he had the Democratic favorites a lot more likely than the Republican. Instead, it looks like if anything he overcompensated.
Well, lesson learned - if in 2014 or 2016, the Intrade lines are well behind Silver's, I'm laying massively across the board. Unfortunately, I suspect everyone has learned this lesson, and they won't be.
I do not think that there will be a shortage of +EV.
