US Elections 2012 Part II: The Conventions, Debates and Election results

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

Stressing that he wants to help all Americans, rather than trying to defend him calling half the country that victimized sponges (including every single one of his republican supporters who don't pay income tax).

Actualy, I think than it's a good strategy for him to go this way, it's a little less obvious than he is in defensive plus the more anyone talk about the ''47% thing'' the more it will stick in the media.

[Urzu 7]

It'll bother me if they try to convince his supporters that what he really means is that he wants to "help all Americans" because we all know that is a crock of shit and that he was quite upset with all those not paying income taxes. He was even a bit bitchy when he brought up how they are critical about the wealthy getting tax cuts (aww, the poor wealthy people! ).

[james0246]

Y'all are thinking to much like a Liberal. Current Republican economic models are all based on the basic idea that if you can help the top enough then the bottom is directly helped as well. The evidence to support this on a macroeconomic scale is a bit lackluster, but it is still treated as a potential answer to America's economic woes. Consequently, under current Republican theory, Romney can still "help" the 47% he lambasted by directly helping their economic superiors.

Consequently, his words aren't really going to affect his base that much, and it is unclear how much they will affect the independents. But, Romney can still easily spin his words and turn them into a neutral...well he could if he was a decent politician. Sadly, Romney doesn't 't know his ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to politics.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by james0246

But, Romney can still easily spin his words and turn them into a neutral...well he could if he was a decent politician. Sadly, Romney doesn't 't know his ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to politics.

Which is one reason why it is crazy he is running for president. O.o

[Vexx]

This is what a president with a sense of humor does ...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/o...-election.html

https://twitter.com/BarackObama/stat...01257055121409

His interview with Letterman last night was both funny and Letterman put him on the spot a few times, more aggressive questions than I was expecting.

[ganbaru]

Corporate corruption a consideration for U.S. voters: poll
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...88I11E20120919

Trying to recover, Romney says he's poor Americans' best bet
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...88G19620120919
He can't be serious, no ?

[flying ^]

wow

look @ all the drama here generated by Romney saying things that may garner *nods* and *winks* and to some segments... rings common sense.

now here's for some REAL election news!



AP Poll:
Sept 13-17

0bama... 47
Romney... 46



The bounce has officially dissipated. A new AP/GfK national poll of likely voters shows Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in a virtual tie, with Obama having a 1-point edge at 47/46. The internals, noted by the Washington Post, show a demographic divide that should surprise no one paying attention to the race, but one that obviously balances out and doesn’t help the incumbent:

President Barack Obama and GOP challenger Mitt Romney stand about even among likely voters, with 47 percent backing Obama and 46 percent Romney. But there are sharp demographic divides driving each candidate’s support.

Women broadly back the president (55 percent for Obama vs. 39 percent for Romney) while men favor the GOP ticket (53 percent for Romney to 40 percent for Obama). The gender gap tightens some in the suburbs, where women tilt Obama by a narrower 51 percent to 45 percent margin, while suburban men favor Romney, 54 percent to 40 percent.

White voters without college degrees favor Romney by more than 30 points over Obama (63 percent back Romney compared with 30 percent behind Obama), a steeper split than the 18-point margin John McCain held over Obama among the group in 2008. White voters with college degrees are about evenly split (50 percent Obama to 48 percent Romney), about on par with 2008.

Younger voters are less apt to be likely voters than their elder counterparts, hinting at the turnout battle to come, but voters under age 45 remain solidly in Obama’s camp, 54 percent to 41 percent. Senior citizens, on the other hand, lean Romney, 52 percent to 41 percent for Obama.

Let’s compare these demographics to 2008. Obama won women by 13 in his last election but also edged McCain by one among men for a total gender-gap advantage of +14. The AP/GfK poll has him at a +3. The age demographics don’t exactly match up with 2008′s exit polls, but Obama won the 18-29YO vote by 34 points (66/32) and 30-44YOs by six, 52/46. Obama has lost ground here, and that’s before we talk about turnout and enthusiasm. Also, Obama only lost seniors by eight in 2008, and he’s performing slightly worse in 2012, down 11.

What about the sample? It looks surprisingly fair, at least among likely voters. The D/R/I without leaners is 31/30/30 (with 8% refusing to identify), an undersampling of both Democrats and Republicans. That was a big improvement from the 31/22/40 from the overall sample, which produced a ridiculous 52/37 Obama lead among all adults.

The rest of the likely-voter results are mixed news for an incumbent. The right/wrong direction is upside down, 41/52, but not as bad as the LV result just before the 2010 midterms, 39/59. Obama does have a positive job-approval rating at 52/47, which is an outlier even from Gallup’s registered-voter tracking polls, and suggests that Obama will underperform his approval rating among likely voters. On the economy, Obama gets a 47/52, a 35/56 on gas prices. However, Obama ends up leading on most of the other issues, albeit narrowly at times.

The bottom line from this poll is that we have an incumbent who can’t get to 50% even in a sample where likely voters approve of his job performance, and where demographic support has significantly eroded from 2008. That’s not good news for Team Obama, and the events of last week will likely push this even lower.

Credits...

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by flying ^

wow

look @ all the drama here generated by Romney saying things that may garner *nods* and *winks* and to some segments... rings common sense.

now here's for some REAL election news!



AP Poll:
Sept 13-17

0bama... 47
Romney... 46



The bounce has officially dissipated. A new AP/GfK national poll of likely voters shows Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in a virtual tie, with Obama having a 1-point edge at 47/46. The internals, noted by the Washington Post, show a demographic divide that should surprise no one paying attention to the race, but one that obviously balances out and doesn’t help the incumbent:





Let’s compare these demographics to 2008. Obama won women by 13 in his last election but also edged McCain by one among men for a total gender-gap advantage of +14. The AP/GfK poll has him at a +3. The age demographics don’t exactly match up with 2008′s exit polls, but Obama won the 18-29YO vote by 34 points (66/32) and 30-44YOs by six, 52/46. Obama has lost ground here, and that’s before we talk about turnout and enthusiasm. Also, Obama only lost seniors by eight in 2008, and he’s performing slightly worse in 2012, down 11.

What about the sample? It looks surprisingly fair, at least among likely voters. The D/R/I without leaners is 31/30/30 (with 8% refusing to identify), an undersampling of both Democrats and Republicans. That was a big improvement from the 31/22/40 from the overall sample, which produced a ridiculous 52/37 Obama lead among all adults.

The rest of the likely-voter results are mixed news for an incumbent. The right/wrong direction is upside down, 41/52, but not as bad as the LV result just before the 2010 midterms, 39/59. Obama does have a positive job-approval rating at 52/47, which is an outlier even from Gallup’s registered-voter tracking polls, and suggests that Obama will underperform his approval rating among likely voters. On the economy, Obama gets a 47/52, a 35/56 on gas prices. However, Obama ends up leading on most of the other issues, albeit narrowly at times.

The bottom line from this poll is that we have an incumbent who can’t get to 50% even in a sample where likely voters approve of his job performance, and where demographic support has significantly eroded from 2008. That’s not good news for Team Obama, and the events of last week will likely push this even lower.

Credits...

All this tells me is that too many Americans don't get what is going on and don't get what the GOP has been doing to America since the day Obama took office. And all you can do is cheer on Romney and the GOP?

[willx]

^ FYI great data, but the poll you're citing was prior to his 47% insight/gaffe (despite his holding the line and Ann's fervent defense, it's mostly seen as a misstep.. Not to mention his quote about using Ann sparingly..)

We haven't seen the full impact of that yet on public opinion, same with Libya related stuff. Also, I'd like to see the rates of voter participation in the 18-30 demographic election over election, particularly with Team Obama's social media focused and tech savvy campaign.. I have a feeling the long and very public GOP battle will increase some voter turn-out in the younger demos..

Bachman, Cain and Co. scare a lot of folks..

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by flying ^

wow

look @ all the drama here generated by Romney saying things that may garner *nods* and *winks* and to some segments... rings common sense.

Common sense? What common sense was there about what he said? He remarked that some people will vote for Obama no matter what, so he's not going to worry about it - I agree. He said that 47% of people don't pay federal income tax (which many Republicans like to spin as "pay no tax" - as if there's a card that people get that makes them tax-free). That seems to be true.

Then he goes on to say that he can't teach those 47% to take personal responsibility or care for their lives. It means that he seems to think that everyone in that 47% are moochers and that they're moochers because they're irresponsible and don't care about themselves. How much truth is there to that? Not much - an article examining the claim indicates that the people making up the 47% aren't all poor, and they're not even receiving government aid. They don't pay federal income tax because the government has gone nuts with granting tax breaks (a strategy which the Republicans happen to be huge fans of, I might add). Let those tax cuts expire and, according to the article, that number of 47% slips down to 18%.

Do we want people on government aid? It doesn't matter what the political affiliation is, nobody wants that. We want to be there for people who fall on hard times, but we want them to get out of those times as soon as possible. Nobody likes a moocher. But Romney's comments indicate that he doesn't understand why the number is as high as it is, and it also indicates that he's incredibly judgmental of people receiving aid.

You don't have a problem with that? This isn't about common sense, it's about someone not understanding the numbers and then writing people off based on those numbers. You think that's a good leadership skill? I think it's idiocy.

Originally Posted by flying ^

The bottom line from this poll is that we have an incumbent who can’t get to 50% even in a sample where likely voters approve of his job performance, and where demographic support has significantly eroded from 2008. That’s not good news for Team Obama, and the events of last week will likely push this even lower.

And the latest Pew poll indicated that Obama had something like an eight-point lead over Romney, 51 to 43... but believe what you want, none of these polls are perfect.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

And all you can do is cheer on Romney and the GOP?

Just go to the explanation than many went to a few day ago: he is trolling. At least I hope than he is.

[Ithekro]

It also means that a large amount of people don't see it the way most people on this board do. They will vote GOP for their own reasons. Rational reasons to themselves.

I won't vote for Obama, but I might not vote for Romney either. I just haven't found a part that is represented here that I agree with.

[Urzu 7]

I won't vote for Romney because what the GOP has done is completely unacceptable and wrong. This four year term hasn't been business as usual like all other terms in the last few decades. And the GOP has been hijacked by extremists. And I'm sure if Romney gets elected, in a short amount of time after he gets into office, they will declare war with Iran. People will fight it, but it may end with us going to war. That would mean we would invade another country because we see them as a potential threat, and it'd probably last far longer than anyone would want it to, and it'd probably result in civil war in that nation, and it'd be very costly; for Iranian lives, U.S. soldier lives, and it would also cost trillions of dollars. On top of all of this, Romney has no clear plan on how he would help the economy if he were to become president. He is just saying he'd do better than Obama. And somehow that is good enough for a lot of Romney supporters.

[SaintessHeart]

Although I am in support of a war on Iran, something tells me there is still a spark of leadership change, namely a reverse Iranian revolution where Ahmadinejad and Khomieni are burned alive in the public alongside their cronies in the IRGC; then we can have a REAL nuclear reactor with REAL waste disposal without it being dressed as a sham for salted or thermo bombs.

Keep the option of war off the table and focus more on political action missions. And stop making enemies out of the rest of the world.

[Ithekro]

The Iranian President will be out of office by I believe August of next year due to term limits. The Ayatolla on the other hand is for life...or the Imans do something.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Although I am in support of a war on Iran, something tells me there is still a spark of leadership change, namely a reverse Iranian revolution where Ahmadinejad and Khomieni are burned alive in the public alongside their cronies in the IRGC; then we can have a REAL nuclear reactor with REAL waste disposal without it being dressed as a sham for salted or thermo bombs.

Keep the option of war off the table and focus more on political action missions. And stop making enemies out of the rest of the world.

I feel conflicted about Iran, because I think they are pushing forward for making nuclear weapons, and I wouldn't want them to have them. What you were saying sounds ideal as it can get about going to war with Iran - only going to war with them when we know for sure that they are trying to develop nuclear weapons. Right now it isn't totally clear, only that everyone really suspects it is the case.

There are a lot of reasons going to war with Iran would be bad, but I don't want them to get nuclear weapons. If we hadn't of had the war in Iraq, the idea of going to war with Iran would be a lot better. Just another reason why it is so frustrating that the Iraq war happened (and related to this, it is so frustrating that the Afghanistan war has lasted as long as it has; how it relates to a war in Iran is that we spent so much money in Afghanistan and too many U.S. soldiers are worn out from serving more than they should have or should be from the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war).

[Netto Azure]

I find it funny when my Global Studies professor pointed out that as a State, Iran is acting rationally for pursuing Nuclear Weapons considering that it is surrounded or close by nations with Nuclear Weapons (India, Pakistan, Russia, Israel) or allied with the US. (Saudi Araibia and the like)

[ganbaru]

Amid court challenges, early voting begins in U.S. election
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...88J05R20120920

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Common sense? What common sense was there about what he said?

The kind that's common to those with no common sense, of course.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

For those who "don't want Iran to have Nuclear Weapons", I have a serious question; are you willing to invade, militarily occupy, install a puppet leader, and continue to lose your soldiers's lives for the next few generations to ensure another country can't have what America has?

For that matter, if you could go back in time, would you be willing to invade, militarily occupy, and effectively colonise Pakistan AND India if that means they would not have became the nuclear powers they are now?

To say "I don't want Iran to have Nuclear Weapons" is a big deal. This isn't a position that just involve a simple war, this will require the subjugation of an entire nation because you don't like their choices. Invading Iraq to kill Saddam was at least achievable. Killing Osama was at least accomplished. But "Do not want Iran to have nukes" is an open-ended commitment that doesn't have a conclusion. A commitment that future generations would have to live with, to pay for, and to die for.

Is that truly worth it?