Octopus Overlords

GreenGoo wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

El Guapo wrote:I take his economic policies to be some mixture of cut taxes in a non-progressive fashion, cut spending, and encourage privatization and de-regulation.

Are there any numbers attached to this plan, or is that all we get?

I think that's all we get. Though to be fair, I don't take any candidates campaign promises (outside of one or two "signature issues" that they campaign on) to be all that serious as policy proposals. Even the most genuine candidate is going to have their agenda completely mangled and re-worked by subsequent events and by Congress. So campaign proposals are mostly useful to divine candidates policy preferences and the direction that they want to take things, such that you have some sense of how they'll guide policy when they have the chance.

I'm just curious why Romney has any credibility in the economy part of this equation. If people want to vote for Romney because Obama has had 4 years and I don't like what he's done with them, fine. Voting for Romney because he's going to "fix" the economy is basing your vote on vague notions and a lot of hope. And again, that's fine, but Romney doesn't seem to be very inspirational or instill any hope whatsoever. Which leads me to the idea that voting for Romney for the economy is basing your vote on some vague comments. Again, even that is fine. I just don't know why people would be so angry or forceful about it. I mean, that's not a lot to go on. I think I'd quietly vote and pray for the best. Romney is not someone I'd hitch my political wagon to, but you do what you can with what you have I guess. It's the championing him that has me scratching my head.

He has lots of business experience, he has balanced a state budget (states have to) and he saved the Salt Lake Olympics from financial ruin. His experience is far greater than President Oabama's was in terms of economic terms. Added to that the feeling that President Obama's programs have not been working and it isn't hard to see Romney being a strong challenger on the economy.

GreenGoo wrote: I'm just curious why Romney has any credibility in the economy part of this equation.

I'm assuming it's his business experience. That's part of the reason some people supported Perot, too.

IMO, though, I wouldn't want either of them in the role. Bloomberg, with his experience as both a businessman and as a popular mayor would, IMO, be a better choice. Why can't he be on the ballot?

Chrisoc13 wrote: He has lots of business experience, he has balanced a state budget (states have to) and he saved the Salt Lake Olympics from financial ruin. His experience is far greater than President Oabama's was in terms of economic terms. Added to that the feeling that President Obama's programs have not been working and it isn't hard to see Romney being a strong challenger on the economy.

The closest thing business and government have in common is bureaucracy. They really don't function in the same way, have the same motivations or pressures and money management is different. I'll give you that experience managing a state budget is valuable experience, but the business part is very nearly meaningless. I don't know what the issues were with the Olympics nor do I know what he did for them but I'll read up. My first question is how was a governor of Massachusetts involved in Salt Lake, so you see I have some reading to do.

That said, we're talking about the economy here, not running the government. I would argue that managing a nation's economy is unrelated to running a business or managing a government, so I still have a hard time seeing Romney as a strong challenger on this front, based on vague hand waving.

Now if people want Romney in to create the government they want via cuts and/or funding various aspects, fine. Making the economy go is a completely different subject though.

Reading articles from multiple sources.

One thing that stands out is that everyone who worked with him has a completely different opinion of him than that the perceptions of him during his campaign. Apparently he was personable, approachable and well liked. How he has managed to let himself be perceived as standoffish now is weird. But it just reinforces the notion that he has been campaigning not as himself but as he hopes voters want him to be. If he loses this election I suspect he is going to be pretty f'ing bitter about the whole experience. He seems to have hidden the real Romney away while on the national stage. Many democrats who worked with him on the games have very positive things to say about him.

Second, over 1 billion dollars in federal resources were requested by him for the games, which were granted. In his own words, he states that for all the management, frugality and cleaning up he did, the games would not have succeeded without federal funding support. It seems like he is campaigning to reduce this sort of drain on the coffers. While I don't see anything hypocritical about it, in that those are two different jobs that have different requirements for success, it is somewhat ironic that if he had been in the white house at the time, his greatest success (his own words? I don't recall) that is held up as an example of what he is capable of, would likely have been impossible (or at least a helluva lot more difficult). It's almost as if he's stating "I didn't build that".

I am continuing to read.

What an interesting campaign. It seems to me that Romney is on the offensive and Obama is on the defensive. Michigan, for example, was considered a no-brainer for Obama because of the auto bailout. After the D convention, polls were in double digits for Obama. Now? Not so much - around 2.7% lead for Obama according to one of the latest polls. Romney's PAC is spending $2.2 million on ads in Michigan, which means for the first time Obama is going to start airing ads in Michigan to counter. Pennsylvania, like Michigan, is also going to be a surprising battleground it seems.

cheeba wrote:What an interesting campaign. It seems to me that Romney is on the offensive and Obama is on the defensive. Michigan, for example, was considered a no-brainer for Obama because of the auto bailout. After the D convention, polls were in double digits for Obama. Now? Not so much - around 2.7% lead for Obama according to one of the latest polls. Romney's PAC is spending $2.2 million on ads in Michigan, which means for the first time Obama is going to start airing ads in Michigan to counter. Pennsylvania, like Michigan, is also going to be a surprising battleground it seems.

Advertising in Michigan and PA by the Romney campaign is more likely an acknowledgment that they aren't making progress in Ohio and need another route to victory. They also probably have money to burn.

I doubt either will go to Romney, but we'll see.

GreenGoo wrote:Reading articles from multiple sources.

One thing that stands out is that everyone who worked with him has a completely different opinion of him than that the perceptions of him during his campaign. Apparently he was personable, approachable and well liked. How he has managed to let himself be perceived as standoffish now is weird. But it just reinforces the notion that he has been campaigning not as himself but as he hopes voters want him to be. If he loses this election I suspect he is going to be pretty f'ing bitter about the whole experience. He seems to have hidden the real Romney away while on the national stage. Many democrats who worked with him on the games have very positive things to say about him.

Second, over 1 billion dollars in federal resources were requested by him for the games, which were granted. In his own words, he states that for all the management, frugality and cleaning up he did, the games would not have succeeded without federal funding support. It seems like he is campaigning to reduce this sort of drain on the coffers. While I don't see anything hypocritical about it, in that those are two different jobs that have different requirements for success, it is somewhat ironic that if he had been in the white house at the time, his greatest success (his own words? I don't recall) that is held up as an example of what he is capable of, would likely have been impossible (or at least a helluva lot more difficult). It's almost as if he's stating "I didn't build that".

I am continuing to read.

I think (and to be clear this is 100% my opinion only) that it is likely Romney is very personable face to face, but that does not come across well in large crowds or groups. It also doesn't help that the man he is running against is very charismatic. The comparison kills him. Add to this the excellent job the President's team has done painting Romney to be out of touch and I think you get the perception everyone has now. The debates helped to push that caricature away though.

In terms of his business success and experience as a governor and how it relates to managing the economy, I think he has about as strong a background as you can have coming into a presidential election. I'm not convinced a government should be run all that different from a business. This is only my opinion and everyone is free to have their own though. I'm not sure what more experience related to the economy anyone could ask Romney to have other than being President. He is working on that now so hopefully next time that won't be an issue .

Captain Caveman wrote:

cheeba wrote:What an interesting campaign. It seems to me that Romney is on the offensive and Obama is on the defensive. Michigan, for example, was considered a no-brainer for Obama because of the auto bailout. After the D convention, polls were in double digits for Obama. Now? Not so much - around 2.7% lead for Obama according to one of the latest polls. Romney's PAC is spending $2.2 million on ads in Michigan, which means for the first time Obama is going to start airing ads in Michigan to counter. Pennsylvania, like Michigan, is also going to be a surprising battleground it seems.

Advertising in Michigan and PA by the Romney campaign is more likely an acknowledgment that they aren't making progress in Ohio and need another route to victory. They also probably have money to burn.

I doubt either will go to Romney, but we'll see.

Or they have pretty much saturated the airwaves in Ohio and other battleground states so might as well burn the money in close-ish states and see what happens.

I don't think it means PA and MI are in play. They could be, but I don't think they are.

Chrisoc13 wrote:In terms of his business success and experience as a governor and how it relates to managing the economy, I think he has about as strong a background as you can have coming into a presidential election. I'm not convinced a government should be run all that different from a business. This is only my opinion and everyone is free to have their own though. I'm not sure what more experience related to the economy anyone could ask Romney to have other than being President. He is working on that now so hopefully next time that won't be an issue .

Which is fine. And of course "I'm as experienced/inexperienced managing a national economy as anyone who has taken this job" would probably not sell himself very well. I just don't see him being particularly strong on the economy, given what is coming out of his mouth/campaign.

There seems to be a business man=good economist connection in the public eye that I don't understand. He's certainly worked within an economy, so he can put that on his resume

Oh no! Dick Morris has updated his predictions. An even bigger landslide win for Romney!

Captain Caveman wrote:Oh no! Dick Morris has updated his predictions. An even bigger landslide win for Romney!

I heard he used to be a Democrat, so it must be true. And in the time it took me to type this, he has likely churned out five more books to add even more veracity to his predictions.

It also doesn't help that the man he is running against is very charismatic.

Ironically I've read reports from those who have worked with Obama personally that he is not a people person, and is very uncharismatic and stand-offish. It's almost like some kind of Freaky Friday thing where they switched bodies.

As for Dick Morris, he's not the only one rejecting Nate Silver's 77% win odds for Obama. There are a lot of folks who think Nate is smoking crack.

FWIW Axelrod has bet his mustache that Obama won't lose any of Minnesota, Michigan, or Pennsylvania.

YellowKing wrote:

As for Dick Morris, he's not the only one rejecting Nate Silver's 77% win odds for Obama. There are a lot of folks who think Nate is smoking crack.

Based on what? He's just dealing with data.

Is the Princeton site down (PEC)? I haven't been able to connect all day. Maybe too much traffic as he is drawing a lot of viewers recently.

Be very interesting to see what sort of impact Romney's latest comments about the auto industry bailout have on his populsrity in Michigan. He already wasn't liked in this corner of the state but coming out - again - against the bailout by suggesting it created more jobs in China than in the US isn't going to win a single friend in the (auto) industrialized areas of the state. The paper had a short blurb today about GM and Chrysler both countering his claim and in not so friendly language.

More importantly for Romney is industrialized Ohio, where Jeep is largely made and the Ohio Tiers that support it.

I figure Romney's already lost Ohio anyway but not every one agrees with me. He never had a hope in Michigan. Obama has given so many hand outs to our unemployed, students, and selective home owners, as well as so many corporate credit handout he directed at our state has been unreal.

If I were about the pork, he'd be my favorite Michigan senator ever.

Captain Caveman wrote:Based on what? He's just dealing with data.

He's still applying that data to forecast models of his own invention.

I'm not saying that he has an agenda, just that he only has one Presidential election under his belt. Even he admits that he could be way off base.

YellowKing wrote:

Captain Caveman wrote:Based on what? He's just dealing with data.

He's still applying that data to forecast models of his own invention.

I'm not saying that he has an agenda, just that he only has one Presidential election under his belt. Even he admits that he could be way off base.

If state polling is accurate, Obama is going to win. Perhaps it isn't, in which case garbage in=garbage out (i.e., the models are wrong because the data are wrong), or perhaps it'll change in the next week. But assuming the data are accurate and relatively stable, they suggest that Obama is a considerable favorite next week... just as Silver (and other polling aggregators) are indicating. That doesn't mean it's a slam dunk by any means. Just that odds are in his favor.

YellowKing wrote:

It also doesn't help that the man he is running against is very charismatic.

Ironically I've read reports from those who have worked with Obama personally that he is not a people person, and is very uncharismatic and stand-offish.

I can totally see that, and I don't think his over the top, fake voice wavering speeches (that REALLY hits a nerve, no matter who is doing it...Obama is certainly not the only one) are as good as most people think. Now Michelle...HER speeches I dig...she seems much more charismatic than he does as well as more sincere, I guess.

Honestly I think Clinton (William J) was and is a much better speaker than Obama.

I like Obama, I just don't and never have thought he was all that in terms of charisma. I wonder if it has to do with who his charisma is constantly being measured against? John McCain and Mitt Romney? I think you can see my point.

I did think his 2004 speech was good (I think it was then, when he spoke at the DNC?).

And I will say it again...he constantly looks pissed off, like he HATES being President (again, in contrast with Clinton, who seemed to love his job)

Having said all that, I did vote today to give him a second chance at turning the country around, even though I am MUCH less enthusiastic about him than the first time around...and I am sure I'm not the only one.

Laura wrote:Is the Princeton site down (PEC)? I haven't been able to connect all day. Maybe too much traffic as he is drawing a lot of viewers recently.

It's almost as if some freaky weather phenomenon might be happening around there.

YellowKing wrote:

Captain Caveman wrote:Based on what? He's just dealing with data.

He's still applying that data to forecast models of his own invention.

I'm not saying that he has an agenda, just that he only has one Presidential election under his belt. Even he admits that he could be way off base.

But it's roughly the same prediction other analysts re getting using the same state polling data (admittedly, I got that reading his latest article comparing his results with the other, but still..)

Defiant wrote:

Laura wrote:Is the Princeton site down (PEC)? I haven't been able to connect all day. Maybe too much traffic as he is drawing a lot of viewers recently.

It's almost as if some freaky weather phenomenon might be happening around there.

It was fine yesterday and he did move to another server before the storm.

Edit...It has been confirmed to be down, possibly due to weather.

Yeah, I think Obama's charisma and especially his speech giving ability is overrated. I do think it's better than Romney's, though. But definitely way, way behind Clinton's.

I just listened a Romney stump speech. Of course I'm usually down on Romney, but he just has no business trying to fire up a crowd. It's clear that he's not comfortable delivering big bold statements, so they come off as not only unconvincing but unconvinced.

He should stick to those quiet rooms.

Has anyone ever read stories on Beck's site, The Blaze? I mean, I have no illusions about the people who comment at TPM or Huffington Post, but I read a story on voting machines, and the level of paranoia is incredible. Apparently not only is Obama stealing this election, he stole 2008.

If it's Beck, the conspiracy goes back to Woodrow Wilson at least.

Teggy wrote:Has anyone ever read stories on Beck's site, The Blaze?

Is it really possible to read them? I thought you had to smoke them. Or maybe inject them.

All it really takes is taking off the tinfoil hat and they get beamed into your head.

Defiant wrote:Yeah, I think Obama's charisma and especially his speech giving ability is overrated. I do think it's better than Romney's, though. But definitely way, way behind Clinton's.

Clinton and, much as I hate to admit it, Bush Jr. are two of the more talented public speakers of the last 40 years imo. I like Obama but he is not in either of their leagues.

Remus West wrote:Clinton and, much as I hate to admit it, Bush Jr. are two of the more talented public speakers of the last 40 years imo. I like Obama but he is not in either of their leagues.

Claiming that Bush was a good public speaker is like saying that Tim Tebow is a good quarterback. It's just simply not true. Clinton is consistently great, like a Drew Brees. Obama certainly has high upside, but will have many weeks where he underperforms and doesn't dazzle you. He's the Eli Manning of public speakers.

Chris Christie ‏@GovChristieNJ
Today I'm touring NJ with President Obama. Yes, he's a Democrat, and I'm a Republican. We're also adults, and this is how adults behave.

Christie's 2016 campaign has already started.

Exodor wrote:

Chris Christie ‏@GovChristieNJ
Today I'm touring NJ with President Obama. Yes, he's a Democrat, and I'm a Republican. We're also adults, and this is how adults behave.

Christie's 2016 campaign has already started.

I linked this in the other thread but:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who has also been out front in the days after the hurricane struck his state, is now 33/1 to win the presidential election in 2016, according to William Hill.

Exodor wrote:

Chris Christie ‏@GovChristieNJ
Today I'm touring NJ with President Obama. Yes, he's a Democrat, and I'm a Republican. We're also adults, and this is how adults behave.

Christie's 2016 campaign has already started.

He's political calculations are probably more immediate. Isn't he up for re-election soon? New Jersey is a blue state with high unemployment, so he might not be a shoe-in for re-election.

I seriously doubt he's got a chance at the presidency or even Republican nomination (of course, if the competition is the caliber of Rick Santorum, you never know)

Captain Caveman wrote:

Exodor wrote:

Chris Christie ‏@GovChristieNJ
Today I'm touring NJ with President Obama. Yes, he's a Democrat, and I'm a Republican. We're also adults, and this is how adults behave.

Christie's 2016 campaign has already started.

He's political calculations are probably more immediate. Isn't he up for re-election soon? New Jersey is a blue state with high unemployment, so he might not be a shoe-in for re-election.

I seriously doubt he's got a chance at the presidency or even Republican nomination (of course, if the competition is the caliber of Rick Santorum, you never know)

If he wins re-election he's got a shot, though he may need to start going all Mitt Romney in his presidential run up phase (i.e. start becoming a "severely conservative" governor).

After sitting on the sidelines, and not having endorsed anyone in 2008, Bloomberg gives an endorsement of Obama, because of his response to Sandy and his addressing climate change.

Edit: Here's an article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wire ... erg-obama/" target="_blank

I wonder if Bloomberg's endorsement matters at all. I'm trying to think of a swing state where his views would carry some weight.

El Guapo wrote:I wonder if Bloomberg's endorsement matters at all. I'm trying to think of a swing state where his views would carry some weight.

Dick Morris thinks New Jersey is in play.

But yeah. Who in Ohio gives a crap about Bloomberg? Maybe it might sway some business leaning VA guys who live in the DC suburbs, but broader than that I don't see it mattering much (besides perhaps sucking up some air time in these pivotal last few days). Seems to me it's the beltway and media type that find him enchanting.

Edit: and maybe a few NY retirees living in FL?

(in general, I don't think endorsements do much either way)

Captain Caveman wrote:

El Guapo wrote:I wonder if Bloomberg's endorsement matters at all. I'm trying to think of a swing state where his views would carry some weight.

Dick Morris thinks New Jersey is in play.

But yeah. Who in Ohio gives a crap about Bloomberg? Maybe it might sway some business leaning VA guys who live in the DC suburbs, but broader than that I don't see it mattering much (besides perhaps sucking up some air time in these pivotal last few days). Seems to me it's the beltway and media type that find him enchanting.

Yeah I suppose it could plausibly help him in Arlington. Really though, I think Christie's rather effusive praise over his Sandy response is more likely to help him in the election.