Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:. . . Orman has said he would sit with whichever was stronger. If it ends up R50,D47(+2) and him, he gets to decide whether to have Biden as the tie-breaker and keep the Democrats in control, or to give the Republicans the Senate.

He's a Democrat. Let's be real.

he's a former Republican, Reform and Democrat who has moved back and forth across the 'divide' (which is pretty phoney). While many of his positions are closer to those of the Democrats - particularly on social policy - he also agrees with Republican budget positions and claims to be consistent in fiscal policy.

This is his answer to the people who say he's a "Democrat" or a "Republican": http://www.ormanforsenate.com/independence

After 11 years as a registered Independent and seven years as a registered Republican, and with the support and encouragement of Kansas Democrats, I decided in 2007 to explore the U.S. Senate Race in Kansas as a Democrat. I supported other Democratic candidates during that period and learned a great deal. While I met a number of folks who are now great friends, the timing wasn’t right and I never declared my candidacy, or filed to run with the Kansas Secretary of State.

In 2009 and 2010, I supported both Republicans and Democrats, but I was also starting to form the opinion that neither party truly represented me. I determined that the parties were becoming a part of the problem. With extremists controlling the primary process and Congressional districts becoming increasingly partisan, our elected officials were becoming more and more unyielding. I knew we needed to do something truly different if we were to put America back on the right path.

Sassenach wrote:Any idea what date those figures are taken from ? I couldn't see anything listed on your link but looking around I have seen the same list repeated elsewhere and it seems to be drawn from a chart compiled in 2010.

Odd. The page has a bit on the right hand side that can be expanded to show when and where it came from. H2 Gambling Capital in 2011, based on 2010 data. As it's a few years old, the h2GC site doesn't show it and it looks like their more recent output has to be paid for.

There's been an explosion in online sports betting in the UK since then so I suspect we'll have crept a little higher up the list.

Possibly, but gambling is a growth industry all over the world, too. We are still likely to be a long way behind Australia.

Also, since it's a per capita there's the potential in some cases for the figures to be a little skewed. A couple of big casinos in a small place like Singapore will have a disproportionate impact on the figures. I'm surprised places like Macau and Monaco aren't there actually.

Perhaps because they are not that skewed?

Oh - I looked and found a more recent report (based on 2013 data and again from h2GC): http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014 ... -problems/

Seems we are behind the USA!

That's a much better chart because it shows the breakdown between the different forms of gambling. The proportion of casino losses in America is incredible. It's probably mostly due to the restrictive gambling laws making other forms of gambling more difficult to access, but it's still a monstrously high figure.The average American loses nearly $300 a year in the casinos. When you consider that the vast majority of Americans will never even visit a casino during that year it shows the extent of the losses being made by those who do.

Slot machines seem to be the worst culprit. I read once that slots account for about 80% of the revenues in Vegas casinos. They're also the main reason why Australia ranks so highly in the list. People are stupid eh ?

Well, yes, we are. In our defence as a specie, the coginitive dissonance that means we are very poor at assessing risk/reward has helped to serve us well as an evolutionary device.

I have a friend who had a habit (not a full addiction so far as I could tell) for the fruit machines. He would borrow money to play, and while he did not get too far in, and did stop. But it did cause problems before he was able to make that decision (and does still relapse occasionally). It was just the pub based machines that have fairly low limits.

Now we have in betting shops these newer high value machines which can take hundreds of pounds in very short space of time, and they are an issue.

In all gambling the basic rule is that the house always wins.

danivon wrote:
In all gambling the basic rule is that the house always wins.

That is definitely true. But generally, the less a particular game is purely a game of chance (the more choices a player gets), the smaller the house's margin.

One reason the slots make up such a huge percentage. Also the slots are incredibly popular. In every American casino I've ever been to (not that many), the slots are always right up front and center. Not surprising.

freeman3 wrote:Unemployment January, 2009 7.8%
Unemployment September,2014 5.9%

Deficit FY2009 Bush) 1.559 trillion
Deficit FY 2014(Obama) 492 billion

GDP growth 2014 4.06%
GDP growth 2008 - .92%

Health Care Spending slowing but more people covered
57-39% against repeal of ACA

US military deaths 2008 469
US military deaths 2014 49

So by just about any measurement things have gotten a lot better under Obama than they were under Bush. Why would we give it back to Republicans to screw it up again ? I guess if you don't like high economic growth, low unemployment, lower deficits, declining health care costs while more people are covered, and fewer of our soldiers getting killed then, yeah, vote Republican.

Sources:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... care-costs
http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year
http://www.multpl.com/unemployment/table
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fed ... chart.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu ... repeal-it/
http://icasualties.org

I think there is merit to your meta analysis. What is interesting to me is that Democrats are running away from the President. For some reason they prefer to disassociate from Obama instead of defending his record. How come? Is there something wrong with the analysis, or is this just the typical 6-year President fatigue?

ray

How come?

My theories...
Because they don't know how to communicate the positive?
And because, despite the positives, income inequality hasn't been seriously addressed under Obama, so many don't feel the positives?
And because the dismal Middle East situation is something Americans think they should be able to control... despite the reality that the US can really do little.

RJ, Obama's approval rate is low which is why Democrats are running away from him, I think . And second-term fatigue could be part of the answer. And I suspect Republican attacks on him had a cumulative effect. In particular, the combination of Obama 'a red line comment in Syria and how that was not handled and the Ukraine crisis were used by Republicans to make him look weak. Here is Gallup poll tracking which shows a decline of about 50-40 during May-Oct, 2013. http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barac ... roval.aspx

Clinton and Reagan's popularity was in the mid-60s at about this time in their second terms, so presidents can still be very popular in their second terms . The ACA may have cost some popularity. But he really has gotten little to no credit for the economic recovery and taken disproportionate hits on a foreign policy record which in my mind is still ok given very difficult circumstances. If the economy had been going like it is now prior to his reelection his popularity might have gotten into the high 60s. But it wasn't and I think Obama has not gotten any bounce from economic growth in second term and took hits on foreign policy things which did not have any significant impact.

It is unfortunate that the Democratic candidates do not have the courage of their convictions. If they believe that Obama's policies are correct and produce better outcomes than the Republican alternative, then they should explain that to the electorate. I just don't have respect for politicians who are unwilling to explain their agenda so that the voters can decide.

BTW, this morning the liberal Boston Globe endorsed the Republican candidate for Governor . I was both pleased and shocked.

I have to agree with you, RJ. Running away from Obama is a confession that Democrats cannot run the government. So why would you vote for a Democrat? But they have a good record to run on...it's very frustrating.

Well, the Republican candidate is liberal on some social issues and it seems the paper was a bit concerned about one-party rule...but yeah, surprising. I guess I could vote for a moderate Republican who was demonstrably competent in the job...hypothetically speaking.

Ray Jay wrote:BTW, this morning the liberal Boston Globe endorsed the Republican candidate for Governor . I was both pleased and shocked.

I don't follow these things very closely, but I do live in MA...seemed to me that in general, while that endorsement is somewhat shocking, it's more because Coakley isn't a very good candidate. Nobody seems to like her very much, even Democrats, and most of those who will vote for her are doing so largely because they've never before voted for a Republican and aren't about to start.

danivon wrote:

After 11 years as a registered Independent and seven years as a registered Republican, and with the support and encouragement of Kansas Democrats, I decided in 2007 to explore the U.S. Senate Race in Kansas as a Democrat. I supported other Democratic candidates during that period and learned a great deal. While I met a number of folks who are now great friends, the timing wasn’t right and I never declared my candidacy, or filed to run with the Kansas Secretary of State.

In 2009 and 2010, I supported both Republicans and Democrats, but I was also starting to form the opinion that neither party truly represented me. I determined that the parties were becoming a part of the problem. With extremists controlling the primary process and Congressional districts becoming increasingly partisan, our elected officials were becoming more and more unyielding. I knew we needed to do something truly different if we were to put America back on the right path.

He's lying.

That provides two things: he's a politician and he's a Democrat trying to win in a Red State.

If he wins, he will vote with Obama. The Democrats talked their nominee into removing himself to give Orman a shot. Think they did that because they hate Pat Roberts or because they know Greg Orman?

Occam's Razor.

theshrizzz wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:BTW, this morning the liberal Boston Globe endorsed the Republican candidate for Governor . I was both pleased and shocked.

I don't follow these things very closely, but I do live in MA...seemed to me that in general, while that endorsement is somewhat shocking, it's more because Coakley isn't a very good candidate. Nobody seems to like her very much, even Democrats, and most of those who will vote for her are doing so largely because they've never before voted for a Republican and aren't about to start.

I can't believe she was permitted to get the nomination. She has to be the worst candidate I've ever seen for a super-majority party. She lost to Scott Brown--and should not have. But, she's said so many incredibly dumb things. For example, she guessed the gasoline tax in MA was 10 cents a gallon--live, in a debate! Who does that?

My daughter told me that Coakley has said (I don't have a reference) that rape victims should not use lethal force (a gun) to defend themselves. If a Republican said that . . . it would be national news.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

After 11 years as a registered Independent and seven years as a registered Republican, and with the support and encouragement of Kansas Democrats, I decided in 2007 to explore the U.S. Senate Race in Kansas as a Democrat. I supported other Democratic candidates during that period and learned a great deal. While I met a number of folks who are now great friends, the timing wasn’t right and I never declared my candidacy, or filed to run with the Kansas Secretary of State.

In 2009 and 2010, I supported both Republicans and Democrats, but I was also starting to form the opinion that neither party truly represented me. I determined that the parties were becoming a part of the problem. With extremists controlling the primary process and Congressional districts becoming increasingly partisan, our elected officials were becoming more and more unyielding. I knew we needed to do something truly different if we were to put America back on the right path.

He's lying.

So, he was not a registered Independent for 11 years, and a registered Republican for 7 years? He didn't support Republicans as well as Democrats in 2009 and 2010 or later? Like Akin, Brown, Romney...

Please demonstrate what the lies are, and how you know them to be lies based on fact (not just your prejudice).

That provides two things: he's a politician and he's a Democrat trying to win in a Red State.

Well, yes, he's a politician. I take what he says with a pinch of salt, like I do any politician. But your partisan black and white thinking is typical of the problem that leads people to vote for Independents.

If he wins, he will vote with Obama. The Democrats talked their nominee into removing himself to give Orman a shot. Think they did that because they hate Pat Roberts or because they know Greg Orman?

Because they were going to lose anyway, and yes, they probably do hate Roberts. And they clearly know him, but he ran against them as well. Sure, they'll take him over a Republican, especially when his candidacy is sapping their vote.

Occam's Razor.

That does not mean what you think it means.