rickyp wrote:steve

So, what exactly is your "I predicted 2008" post doing here? Another non-sequitur in a long line of same?

Its a statement of fact. On our last Presidential prediction contest on these boards I came closest to the popular vote and electoral college final numbers Look it up. .

No thanks, but it does remind me that even a blind, deaf, and crippled dog peas outside once in a while. So, congratulations--3 years ago, you bested, what, 6 others?

How did you do in 2010? Did you see the Republicans taking the House?

Surely you can take a shot at things for 2012? Not even a wild guess? Oh wait . . .

I won't make any specific predictions yet, because its too damn early.

I call "bolshoi." For a few months you have been harping on every poll that shows Obama leading a Republican in a head-to-head poll. But now, it's too early? I think even you can see that is inconsistent. "Obama is going to win based on this poll" and "It's too early" are contradictory claims.

However I think Obama's chances improve every day. Mostly because the republican primaries have been a race to the extreme in order to attract the committed core of the republican base. Partly because the economy is inching ahead...

What you don't get is this: Obama is so inept and so liberal that the base will support anyone. I would even vote for Paul. That's how desperate I am to get rid of Obama before he concludes his "work," which as far as I can see means plunging us into an economic black hole from which no one can extract us.

And thats exactly why Huntsman isn't gaining a lot of traction. Which, I agree with Archduke, is unfortunate.

That last sentence ought to scare Russ to death.

He is obviously very bright, knowledgable, and prepared ... And principled, in that he isn't pandering to the no nothing religionists that disavow science and reality.

Mercy. Here's what you are too thick to grasp: even Bachmann Perry, and Paul, who are as conservative as anyone in the race, would not impose non-evolution teaching. In fact, they would return all education to where it belongs: the States. So, it really doesn't amount to much--except putting the Federal government in its place.

(In the shape of deporting 8 million illegals and building hundreds of billions for ineffective border fences, and ignoring the historical precedent of American taxation policy and deregulation failures... )

A laundry list of incoherent gibberish. Then again, I could cut and paste any of your posts and say the same thing. First, there are far more than 8 million illegal aliens. Second, no one is calling for rounding them up and deporting them. If you know some candidate who is, please post a link. Second, your other topics are so broad and your explication of them so narrow as to make the post, well, even worse than a generic rickyp post. Congratulations!

Part of the problem with the large slate of candidates is that each time one gains enormous support and then collapses due to their own failings . Failings that are noticed only with greater scrutiny and attention that seems to come with gaining the approval of sufficient primary voters to nudge the polls... ... It portrays the over all republican message in a bad light.

Right. I notice poll after poll citing jobs and the national debt as unimportant.

Wait. There are no polls like that! I guess, hmm, you don't know what you're talking about.

As long as the extreme rhetoric, like "Obama the socialist" is maintained ...it creates a problem. When moderates look around and realize that socialism sure ain't that different than 4 years ago ... it destroys the entire message.

Except Bush, as big a spender as he was, has been made to look like a cheapskate. Obama has run up the biggest three year deficit in history. And, how many cuts has he proposed? What did he do with his own debt commission's recommendations? How much leadership did he exhibit during the super-committee negotiations? During the budget negotiations?

I mean weren't you all tingly for Trump? (Careful I know where you posted..)

Go ahead and link it. I've nothing to be frightened of. I know exactly what I think of Trump: he would be better than Obama. Then again, so would my dog.

Archduke Russell John wrote:George Will has a column today saying the choice between Romney and Gingrinch is between bad and worse. He says Perry and Huntsman should be given another look. He kind of brushes over Perry (I think he is included because his wife works for Perry - which he admits in the column). He spends more time with Huntsman. From the article.

Jon Huntsman ... is the most conservative. He endorses Paul Ryan’s budget and entitlement reforms. (Gingrich denounced Ryan’s Medicare reform as “right-wing social engineering.”) Huntsman would privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Gingrich’s benefactor). Huntsman would end double taxation on investment by eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends. (Romney would eliminate them only for people earning less than $200,000, who currently pay just 9.3 percent of them.) Huntsman’s thorough opposition to corporate welfare includes farm subsidies. (Romney has justified them as national security measures — food security, somehow threatened. Gingrich says opponents of ethanol subsidies are “big-city” people hostile to farmers.) Huntsman considers No Child Left Behind, the semi-nationalization of primary and secondary education, “an unmitigated disaster.” (Romney and Gingrich support it. Gingrich has endorsed a national curriculum.) Between Ron Paul’s isolationism and the faintly variant bellicosities of the other six candidates stands Huntsman’s conservative foreign policy, skeptically nuanced about America’s need or ability to control many distant developments.

Other Republicans seem to be starting to see what it is I have seen.

We'll see. Keep that optimism! However, I'd wait before maxing out on him.

From the article you cite:

Gingrich, who would have made a marvelous Marxist, believes everything is related to everything else and only he understands how.

So, if it is Gingrich, I guess the whole "socialist" thing will be off the table. Both parties will have nominated one.

I think Will got into a little of Stephanopolous' stash.

Again, I think perception matters. I've seen plenty of Huntsman. He comes across as unlikeable, stiff, and as someone whose platform doesn't match his persona. Apparently, according to Will and the WSJ editorial board, his platform is very conservative. However, his campaign has been a sprint to gain the approval of Chris Matthews, Ricky, and the liberal elites. I'm sure they will all be voting for him in the primaries where that is allowed.

rickyp wrote:How well does he have to do in New Hampshire to continue his campaign do you think?

I think he has to finish a close second. Personally, anything less then that doesn't get him the money and recognition he needs to keep going.

call "bolshoi." For a few months you have been harping on every poll that shows Obama leading a Republican in a head-to-head poll. But now, it's too early? I think even you can see that is inconsistent. "Obama is going to win based on this poll" and "It's too early" are contradictory claims

.

Well, it would be inconsistent if I actually said that a specific poll was conclusive. I've only used head to head polls for two things:
-to indicate the relative popularity of potential candidates at this point in time. I understand that none are fixed and that they are only indicators.
- to demonstrate to you that your dependence on polls showing disapproval of Obama's performace as the clear indicator that Obama was sunk. What the head to head polls, often different questions in the same poll, have demonstrated is that your indicator may not hold true this time.

What you don't get is this: Obama is so inept and so liberal that the base will support anyone

I'm sure you are right, that the "base you refer to has this perception. But what base? The base of republican support? At around 30 to 34% that base has to reach past it to elect a president.
Obama's base is around 40 to 44% His job is (mathematically) less difficult.
What you don't recognize is that extreme positions make the conversion of 16% of the populace who are independent or swayable voters to the republican cause more difficult.
Huntsman represents probably the best candidate to actually appeal to those swing voters... .He's actually the most fiscally conservative (although I don't know all his taxation policy) but doesn't hold many extreme social views. (And he appears to some to be a MINO, which might appeal to those who don't hold with Romneys faith).
Here's prediction. Gingrich will zoom up a little in the polls and as the spotlight falls increasingly on him and he deals with increased scrutiny he'll make a dopey pronouncement or two, and his past dopey pronouncements and behaviours will be revisited frequently ...and his support will subside. Mostly nationally but also within the Republican "base".

rickyp wrote:

call "bolshoi." For a few months you have been harping on every poll that shows Obama leading a Republican in a head-to-head poll. But now, it's too early? I think even you can see that is inconsistent. "Obama is going to win based on this poll" and "It's too early" are contradictory claims

.

Well, it would be inconsistent if I actually said that a specific poll was conclusive. I've only used head to head polls for two things:
-to indicate the relative popularity of potential candidates at this point in time. I understand that none are fixed and that they are only indicators.
- to demonstrate to you that your dependence on polls showing disapproval of Obama's performace as the clear indicator that Obama was sunk. What the head to head polls, often different questions in the same poll, have demonstrated is that your indicator may not hold true this time.

I'd get you a waffle iron for Christmas, but you obviously have an industrial strength waffle-maker.

What you don't get is this: Obama is so inept and so liberal that the base will support anyone

I'm sure you are right, that the "base you refer to has this perception. But what base? The base of republican support? At around 30 to 34% that base has to reach past it to elect a president.
Obama's base is around 40 to 44% His job is (mathematically) less difficult.
What you don't recognize is that extreme positions make the conversion of 16% of the populace who are independent or swayable voters to the republican cause more difficult.

You simply know-nothing. I'll make some wagers with you.

First, polls show Americans describe themselves as "conservative" twice as often as they do "liberal." Bet? How much?

Second, Obama will not get 50% in the election. Bet? How much?

Huntsman represents probably the best candidate to actually appeal to those swing voters... .He's actually the most fiscally conservative (although I don't know all his taxation policy) but doesn't hold many extreme social views. (And he appears to some to be a MINO, which might appeal to those who don't hold with Romneys faith).

Yeah, we see how well the GOP does when it worries about swing voters. Dole, McCain . . . great choices, they appealed across the aisle.

Here's prediction. Gingrich will zoom up a little in the polls and as the spotlight falls increasingly on him and he deals with increased scrutiny he'll make a dopey pronouncement or two, and his past dopey pronouncements and behaviours will be revisited frequently ...and his support will subside. Mostly nationally but also within the Republican "base".

That's sooo bold! Not.

Come on! Take a risk. Tell us that Obama will hold Florida and Ohio.

All talk and no walk from Canadian Crystal Ball Conjurist. Perhaps the Ontario Oracle will accept? Hardly think so. Much easier to banter without strong enough belief in his position coming to fruition.

I offered Danivon and RickyP both a $10 donation for each of the House, Senate and Presidency elections. Danivon politely declined, but RickyP was silent. The offer still stands for the Toronto Fortune Teller to accept.

After all, It can only help Redscape...

Doctor Fate wrote:First, polls show Americans describe themselves as "conservative" twice as often as they do "liberal." Bet? How much?

When asked that question, 'Conservative' is much more popular that 'Liberal'.

However, more people are registered Democrats than registered Republicans. Because the two parties are not perfectly analogous to Liberal and Conservative labels (and because the term 'liberal' has become a for of abuse in recent years), the poll question is not necessarily indicative of VI (voting intention).

Brad - as I said before to you (and to Steve, if he's still reading), I am happy to wager on the Presidency at $10. I don't see any point in betting on the House, as it's very likely to remain Red. And the Senate seems to be a toss-up, but I haven't made any real predictions on it so have nothing to 'back up'.

My bet stands, if you want to take the action. If you guys are so convinced that Obama is going to lose, then what is stopping you?

Nothing is stopping me. I will take it! You have Obama, I have everyone else...

Sadly, I was taking RickyP to task about his continued belief that the House would go Dem and the Senate would stay Dem, and we know how he feels about the Pres. I was giving an opportunity to help Redscape with $30. It is my belief he is not fully supportive of his stated position.

Cool. So the bet is this (I will retain the original terms) - If Obama wins the Election in November, you donate $10 (above any amount you would anyway) to Redscape. If anyone else wins, I will donate $10 - at the prevailing exchange rate.

Thanks for that link to the George Will article. Man, he really doesn't like Gingrich. I also heard Gingrich called a political sociopath on Meet the Press. I don't remember who said it, but no one disagreed.

I don't get his appeal either. Yes, he can put two words together, but the very concept of charisma has passed over him. Absolutely no way he can be elected.

Danivon, Yes, Agreed.

Great moments in Presidential speaking by the President today. First, unemployment is added to by ATM's and the Internet:

"Layoffs too often became permanent, not part of the business cycle. And these changes didn't just affect blue collar workers. If you were a bank teller or a phone operator or a travel agent, you saw many in your profession replaced by ATMs and the internet," President Obama said at a campaign event in Kansas.

Second, he misidentifies where he is--but with 57 to choose from, who can blame him?

While giving an economic speech in Osawatomie, Kan., President Obama said, "It is great to be back in the state of Texas."

Third, he flat-out lied (as if that's surprising). He said he is addressing issue raised by the Tea Party.

In small-town Osawatomie, in a high school gym where patriotic bunting lined the bleachers, Obama presented himself as the one fighting for shared sacrifice and success against those who would gut government and let people fend for themselves. He did so knowing the nation is riven over the question of whether economic opportunity for all is evaporating.

"Throughout the country, it's sparked protests and political movements, from the tea party to the people who've been occupying the streets of New York and other cities," Obama said.

"This is the defining issue of our time," he said in echoing President Theodore Roosevelt's famous speech here in 1910.

"This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class and all those who are fighting to get into the middle class," Obama said. "At stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home and secure their retirement."

The Tea Party was founded over none of the issues he lists.

This is a make-or-break moment for sure. At stake is whether this will be a country that can even see solvency. If Obama is elected, we are destined to have none of the things he lists as possible.

Fourth, he lied again (same link):

Responding to those who want to cut taxes and regulation in the belief success will trickle down, Obama said: "Here's the problem: It doesn't work. It's never worked."

His regulations have cost tens of thousands of jobs in the energy industry alone. Cutting taxes and regulation will spur growth. Yet, that's not what he wants. From Obamacare to Dodd-Frank, from the NLRB to the EPA, and from bailouts to excessive spending, Barack Obama has consistently raised barriers to work and ensured that the future workers of the US will have to pay more in taxes to even have a shot at keeping this country afloat.

Poster for the reelection campaign?

rickyp wrote:

call "bolshoi." For a few months you have been harping on every poll that shows Obama leading a Republican in a head-to-head poll. But now, it's too early? I think even you can see that is inconsistent. "Obama is going to win based on this poll" and "It's too early" are contradictory claims

.

Well, it would be inconsistent if I actually said that a specific poll was conclusive. I've only used head to head polls for two things:
-to indicate the relative popularity of potential candidates at this point in time. I understand that none are fixed and that they are only indicators.
- to demonstrate to you that your dependence on polls showing disapproval of Obama's performace as the clear indicator that Obama was sunk. What the head to head polls, often different questions in the same poll, have demonstrated is that your indicator may not hold true this time.

Or it may. I was shocked to discover Ricky had yet to post this poll since he loves head-to-head polls so much:

Mitt Romney has now jumped to his biggest lead ever over President Obama in a hypothetical Election 2012 matchup. It’s also the biggest lead a named Republican candidate has held over the incumbent in Rasmussen Reports surveying to date.

The latest national telephone survey finds that 45% of Likely U.S. Voters favor the former Massachusetts governor, while 39% prefer the president. Ten percent (10%) like some other candidate in the race, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

Do I think it's over? No. However, I think there are many reasons to think Obama may struggle to win. The unemployment rate is going to be high; the housing market is still going to be in the dumps; he has failed to deliver on a number of campaign promises; the unfolding mess in Iraq; the potential for crisis in Iran; his failure to do anything regarding the debt/deficit; the unpopularity of Obamacare . . . I could go on and on.

steve, you're quoting Rasmussen?

Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly

The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.

Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen’s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases — that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued

source:http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/