What's new
By:

The Debates

https://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Recent polls (released today) have Romney up in Florida and Virginia and tied in Ohio* That has to be worrisome for Obama. These debates came at a perfect time for Romney. 32 days left and 2 more debates and a V.P. debate.

* Does anyone know anything about WeAsAmerica? Not sure about them...

Also Obama is kicking the crap out of Romney in Hawaii lol. 32% lead...ouch.
 
franklin said:
Obama campaigned against an individual mandate in his primary race, among many other flip flops. It's necessary to win the primary and general election, & I actually want the candidates to lie to their absurd wings before gravitating back toward center in the general election.
Click to expand...

If Obama is now saying that the individual mandate is the best way to provide health insurance coverage, I would agree that is a flip-flop. If he's saying its the best option he could get through Congress,but a single payer system woulod be better still, would you call that a flip-flop?
 
Stoked said:
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-romney-truth-debate-article-1.1174495

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/03/debate-fact-check_n_1937831.html

https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/fact-checking-the-presidential-debate-in-denver/

Like I predicted. It is a mixed bag where both candidates distorted the truth.
Click to expand...



Here's my question about the $5 trillion number: Every source I've seen bends over backwards to call it "half true" because they're grading Obama's statement there is a $5 trillion hole created and dinging him for not taking into account unspecified breaks as a "net number." In essence they ceded Romney's framing.

How would they grade the Romney statement that he doesn't cut taxes by $5 trillion? In my mind that seems to a "pants on fire" level lie given that the 20% decrease in marginal rates position is on his campaign website. Doesn't the grade here depend on the direction of the claim graded?

Liberal media my ***. Although I did thoroughly enjoy this Chris Wallace Q&A with Paul Ryan re: the $5 trillion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM66-SxHDu0&feature=player_embedded#!

Wallace asks him 7 times and Ryan never answers the question Wallace actually asked. He goes through every deflection tactic in the book. In my mind when he says "I won't get into a baseline argument with you" he's effectively saying "I have no intention of answering this question." The study that the Romney campaign is saying has been "thoroughly discredited" both by Ryan in this video and by Romney in the debates is a study commissioned by the Tax Policy Center. Politifact rated Romney's claim that it's been discredited as "mostly false" noting that some conservatives have taken issue but the number has been widely accepted.
 
Yeah the 5 trillion disclaimer seems like a stretch until ROmney gives details on how he offsets that, if he ever does.
 
Stoked: Keep in mind most polls are taken over a rolling 7-day timeline so many polls released today will actually only include one day worth of polling taking the debates into account and six days of pre-debate data.

Thought I'd give a cite to the "there are not many studies discrediting the Tax Policy Center study" point. Per Factcheck.org:

"When the president referred to the Tax Policy Center’s criticisms, Romney claimed it was contradicted by several others.


Romney: There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it’s completely wrong.

That’s not quite true, as we previously reported when the count was at five. We found that two of those “studies” were blog items by Romney backers, and none was nonpartisan.

The only one of those “studies” by someone not advising Romney was done by Harvey Rosen, a Princeton economics professor who once served as chairman of President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Rosen concluded that Romney could pull off his tax plan without losing revenue assuming an extra 3 percent “growth effect” to the economy resulting from Romney’s rate cuts. That’s an extremely aggressive assumption, and in conflict with recent experience. Despite Bush’s large tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, for example, real GDP grew by 3 percent or more for only two of his eight years in office. The average of the year-to-year changes was just over 2 percent.

Furthermore, Bush’s cuts reduced the total tax burden on the economy because they were not offset by base-broadening measures. In theory, at least, Romney’s revenue-neutral rate cuts would have even less of a stimulative effect than Bush’s cuts did."
Click to expand...

https://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/
 
Sirkickyass said:
Stoked: Keep in mind most polls are taken over a rolling 7-day timeline so many polls released today will actually only include one day worth of polling taking the debates into account and six days of pre-debate data.

Thought I'd give a cite to the "there are not many studies discrediting the Tax Policy Center study" point. Per Factcheck.org:



https://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/
Click to expand...

Very interesting. Romney is right that the studies are there. He just oh so nicely left out that they are biased towards him in obvious ways. Lol damn politicians.

About the polls- That would indicate that Romney was starting to move the polls in his direction before the debate. The debate performance by Obama will only accelerate that.
 
Stoked said:
Very interesting. Romney is right that the studies are there. He just oh so nicely left out that they are biased towards him in obvious ways. Lol damn politicians.

About the polls- That would indicate that Romney was starting to move the polls in his direction before the debate. The debate performance by Obama will only accelerate that.
Click to expand...

Since you're very sure and I'm very sure (franklin is even quoting me in his sig) I propose a wager.

Would you like to do a straight winner or would you like to set an over under on electoral votes won by Obama?
 
Sirkickyass said:
Since you're very sure and I'm very sure (franklin is even quoting me in his sig) I propose a wager.

Would you like to do a straight winner or would you like to set an over under on electoral votes won by Obama?
Click to expand...

What's the wager and sure we can.

Edit: I am not sure by any means. I just think Romney is very much in this. I say they end up within 15 electoral votes.
 
Stoked said:
What's the wager and sure we can.

Edit: I am not sure by any means. I just think Romney is very much in this. I say they end up within 15 electoral votes.
Click to expand...

Sure, what kind of stakes would you like? Traditionally, on message boards it's avatars or signatures for a specified period of time.

Since you believe they end up within 15 electoral votes I will set my number at Obama with 279 electoral votes. That would put Romney at 259. Is that a spread you would accept?

Edit: Just out of curiosity, are Romney backers aware that Obama really only needs Ohio or Florida realistically to win the election and Romney's gonna need both unless he can sweep basically all the other swing states?
 
Stoked back out while you can, seriously. Tink had a dream about this, and we all know how accurate they are.
 
Sirkickyass said:
Sure, what kind of stakes would you like? Traditionally, on message boards it's avatars or signatures for a specified period of time.

Since you believe they end up within 15 electoral votes I will set my number at Obama with 279 electoral votes. That would put Romney at 259. Is that a spread you would accept?

Edit: Just out of curiosity, are Romney backers aware that Obama really only needs Ohio or Florida realistically to win the election and Romney's gonna need both unless he can sweep basically all the other swing states?
Click to expand...

OK I am down with that.

The winner gets to choose the Avatar or Sig for the other. 20+ and you win and within that I win.

I am willing to change what you choose (Avatar or Sig) if I loose but I ask that it be my Sig. I am personally, very fond of my Avatar.

Nothing porn related please. Not on this comp.
 
Sirkickyass said:
Here's my question about the $5 trillion number: Every source I've seen bends over backwards to call it "half true" because they're grading Obama's statement there is a $5 trillion hole created and dinging him for not taking into account unspecified breaks as a "net number." In essence they ceded Romney's framing.

How would they grade the Romney statement that he doesn't cut taxes by $5 trillion? In my mind that seems to a "pants on fire" level lie given that the 20% decrease in marginal rates position is on his campaign website. Doesn't the grade here depend on the direction of the claim graded?
Click to expand...

Stoked said:
Yeah the 5 trillion disclaimer seems like a stretch until ROmney gives details on how he offsets that, if he ever does.
Click to expand...

I've been saying for months that Romney won't cut taxes on the rich and that he'd come out saying exactly what he did last night. What will happen is Romney proposes a nice, clean 20% cut while campaigning and then adjusts that to reality when he's in office based on what independent analyses say. Look, this is a very good proposal and one democrats should be in love with. He's saying he will cap special tax deductions for those who itemize (i.e. the rich) while leaving the current deductions and credits for those who take the standard deduction (i.e. the middle class and poor). Why is this so hard for the media to wrap their minds around? And if you really think Romney could push anything else through the democratically controlled senate then you are nuts. Yeah, that assumes they retain control, but I that's pretty much a lock at this point.


Sirkickyass said:
Edit: Just out of curiosity, are Romney backers aware that Obama really only needs Ohio or Florida realistically to win the election and Romney's gonna need both unless he can sweep basically all the other swing states?
Click to expand...

Yes, I realize it is a huge uphill battle. That's why Romney has chosen to save everything for the last 35 days. Trying to relate or win people over earlier would have worn the sting completely off his punches. It's Obama's to lose but Romney will make it closer than you think.
 
Scat said:
Cutter admitting the 5 trillion number is incorrect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kg0BmPhz2Dw
Click to expand...


CNBC is the only publicly owned news outlet left in the US. They'll hold your feet to the fire every time and don't care about agendas. Investors can't afford to let b.s. ideological talking points cloud their decisions. And if you think that only goes one way then you haven't watched Steve Liesman dismantle the Tea Party blowhard Rick Santelli time and again.


+rep for a vid with Erin Burnett. I love all my sexy CNBC ladies, except that lazy eye Becky Quick. My suspicions of her servicing Warren Buffett for interviews has ruined it for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top