Be a Supporter!

Will Obama win or lose the election

  • 19,430 Views
  • 514 Replies
New Topic
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-19 21:31:52

At 9/19/12 09:28 PM, Elfer wrote: If what I've been reading in the papers lately is true, I think the best strategy for the Republicans at the moment is to seal Romney up in a barrel until after the election so he can stop ruining their campaign.

The SNL skit where Obama said that Romney was his secret weapon was priceless.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-20 13:08:57

At 9/19/12 01:24 AM, Feoric wrote:

I'm not sure where you're not getting it so I'll just start at the begining.

Point 1 How GM paid off its loan.

GM used an escrow account to pay off its loan to the government/taxpayer.
This escrow account was funded by the government/taxpayer.
Therefore GM repaid their loan to the government/taxpayer using money given to them by the government/taxpayer.

So yes...the loan is paid back. However, the taxpayer was paid with money taken from the taxpayer.

Not with GM profits. Now that GM had a very profitable year last year just adds insult to injury. The corporation and the UAW got theirs...but the taxpayer foots the bill.

It also means that you are incorrect when you say: "They would have needed it if the company was struggling to make ends meet. The fact that they were able to pay back the loan in full means the company was turning around, which is reflected in their profits."

They did not and could not pay off their debt to the government on their own with their own profits and revenue...instead they used government money to pay a government loan. GM owes a debt to the American and Canadian taxpayer to pay back what was put into that escrow account...the debt is still owed.

So while technically the loan was "paid", it was paid in a way that is fraudulent and with full government/administration culpibility.

Point 2 Debt-for-equity.

We hold about in GM stock valued at about $12.3 billion.
We paid, when we swapped debt for shares of stock with GM, $25.6 billion for it.
Since it's 2010 IPO...GM stock just hasn't performed as analysts predicted.

Oh, and I have no problem with the UAW getting a nice deal, because the last time I checked, unions weren't responsible ...

1) Who cares about white flight...good strawman attempt.
2) Yes, unrealistic contracts did raise the cost of vehicles leading to a decline in US auto sales.
3) Also, UAW contracts constricted the options businesses had to expand or contract their business such as getting rid of production plants which could have led to the shedding of redundant brands.
4) The headstart GM had due to WWII is a double edged sword and gave way in the 1970s and 1980s. See Japan, Germany and Korea had to totally rebuild factories with modern tech. Where as US plants didn't have an incentive to modernize. And besides, its not like we could completely bomb industrial experience out of existence in WWII.
5) Now we have money tied up supporting ppl who continue to make bad business decisions (and that is what the Volt is...a sign GM is still making bad decisions). We needed a Bain Capital to break it up and recycle its means of production to other venues such as Aptera.

But in the end...the UAW is partially repsonsible for creating the business environment in Detroit that let the American auto industry decline. I think the future for the US auto industry is to look at BMW, KIA, Toyota moving into areas that have people who need jobs...but are not self-absorbed union members.


...so you'll need to show me your sources if you want to discuss this further (the 44/45 billion figure comes from the WSJ, which is over a span of 20 years, btw). Which is a drop in the bucket when compared to the rest of TARP.

Already did so. If you re-read the sources I linked to the $44 billion originally came from Obama...not WSJ.


Right, yeah, I was making an analogy to Facbook but deleted it because it was stupid and I didn't modify the rest of my post. The IPO raised $18.1 billion, which is the second highest IPO ever.

Who cares? It didn't make enough.

No, you're entirely wrong. ... to reduce the money supply to slow down the rate of inflation. ... So, no, what you're describing is not going to happen in this universe.

Hate to break it to you...but we're not in the universe you describe. See...the Fed has found a way to both lower interest rates and increase the money supply. It's called QE3, and last week the Fed announced that it would buy $40billion/month in bond buy backs until 2015 which according to NASDAQ:
"Firstly, as the price of bonds is forced up, so interest rates on them are driven lower. Lower rates are meant to encourage lending and borrowing, which helps to stimulate the economy. Secondly, QE is effectively printing money."
source

My point is there are different kinds of inflation;
* inflation due to the intrinsic value of a commodity or product increasing (ie: as gas becomes more scarce and/or more demand...its value goes up).
* inflation due to the intrinsic value of a dollar decreasing.

For example in the 1990s Batman comics increased in price because of better paper and ink made the product worth more. However, recent price changes are more likely reflective of the drop in the value of the US dollar.

To think that stocks are going to be immune from the second type of inflation (a devalued dollar) is naive and laughable. The stock market will adjust to reflect the devalued dollar.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-20 13:15:19

I accidently deleted what exactly I responding to so I reposted to avoid confusion.

At 9/19/12 01:24 AM, Feoric wrote: No, you're entirely wrong. ... Stock prices actually go down due to inflation. Here's why: as inflation increases, central banks such as the Federal Reserve increase interest rates to reduce the money supply to slow down the rate of inflation. ... So, no, what you're describing is not going to happen in this universe.
No, you're entirely wrong. ... to reduce the money supply to slow down the rate of inflation. ... So, no, what you're describing is not going to happen in this universe.

Hate to break it to you...but we're not in the universe you describe. See...the Fed has found a way to both lower interest rates and increase the money supply. It's called QE3, and last week the Fed announced that it would buy $40billion/month in bond buy backs until 2015 which according to NASDAQ:

"Firstly, as the price of bonds is forced up, so interest rates on them are driven lower. Lower rates are meant to encourage lending and borrowing, which helps to stimulate the economy. Secondly, QE is effectively printing money."

My point is there are different kinds of inflation;
* inflation due to the intrinsic value of a commodity or product increasing (ie: as gas becomes more scarce and/or more demand...its value goes up).
* inflation due to the intrinsic value of a dollar decreasing.

For example in the 1990s Batman comics increased in price because of better paper and ink made the product worth more. However, recent price changes are more likely reflective of the drop in the value of the US dollar.

To think that stocks are going to be immune from the second type of inflation (a devalued dollar) is naive and laughable. The stock market will adjust to reflect the devalued dollar.

The rest of your post I don't really know how to respond to. We're through the looking glass.

Hey...the thought experiment regarding shipping jobs overseas for cheap labor just doesn't jive with reality. So if you want to come out of the looking glass I'm here to help buddy. :)


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-20 15:24:50

At 9/19/12 07:36 PM, Feoric wrote:
What Bain specializes in is in buying a mature company, (sometimes/rarely) adding value to that company, and then selling it at a profit. Like every other firm that makes it's money on leveraged buyouts they're ruthless as shit about cutting costs and increasing profitability/productivity....

Don't wanna get bought out by Bain...don't suck. It's really that simple.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-20 17:35:42

At 9/20/12 03:24 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Don't wanna get bought out by Bain...don't suck. It's really that simple.

If only it were.

But it's not. The rules for public corporations make it quite easy for an outsider to come in and buy a company. Heck, the company (i.e. the directors and officers) can be severely punished for taking certain precautions against buyouts.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-20 18:41:11

Well...I've thought that Romney's 47% gaffe is equivalent to Obama's '08 'guns & religion' quote. But it has been gaining some traction.

But in the continuing cycle of amatuer campaigns competing to see who can be most incompetent, Obama's campaign has responded and raised the ante with two campaign missteps.

The lessor one involves actresses pledging allegiance to Obama.

The second misstep, and the one I think has a shot of having legs, is the campaign introducing an American flag redesign with the Obama 'O' in the blue field. The criticism has come fast and hard. And the campaign responds with this gem of absurdity on twitter: "a poster to say there are no red states or blue states, only the United States."
Cafe Mom

What the fuck?

A rendering of the American flag replacing part of it with a partisan symbol for an individual is a unifying symbol?

What the fuck? Did they even think about what they were tweeting and just how stupid they sounded?

On one hand I cannot wait to see the twists and incestuous mutations of logic that Obama supporters are going to come-up with to explain how it is unifying. But on the other hand, I don't want to because it also means a significant portion of our population is now totally devoid of reason, logic, critical thinking and intellectual integrity.

In the end, I get it. People wear bikinis with American flag prints. I had an American flag tie. We have as a society bastardized the flag. But we're talking about the president (even if it is through his campaign proxies) doing this...to serve his personal interests.

This is not a symbol of unity, but instead a symbol of a cult of personality. This is shit tin-pot dictators do...not the president of a free society. We don't pledge allegience to any one person or branch of government, nor do we salute that person's flag. This is highly inappropriate behavior on the part of the Obama campaign.

Oh...now AP is reporting that Jay Carney today announced that the 9/11/12 attacks in Lybia were terrorist attacks, changing their position. This could be an unraveling of the image they tried to sell that this administration was at least competent when it comes to international relations.

Will Obama win or lose the election


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-20 18:51:05

At 9/20/12 06:41 PM, TheMason wrote: The second misstep,

Hope you brought some beers, cause you're clearly fishing.

You fail to see why exactly Romney's misstep is so much more harmful to his campaign, and thus has gained more traction.

Obama doesn't have a widespread problem of independent or even that many conservative voters thinking he;s actively anti-American. Also, Obama never really had much traction with the small town folk in 08 and isn;t expected to carry them again this year. What sets Romney's gaffe apart is that it hits right smack dab in what is considered his biggest weakness. His comment falls right into his 'out of touch' feel that many Americans, Left, Right, and Independent alike feel. By commenting and saying the poorest are moochers who are guaranteed of going Obama (whilst somehow failing to realize a HUGE chunk of those same folk are die hard conservatives) and they merely want to be given shit for nothing just goes to further show how little Romney knows, understands, or even empathizes on a basic level the plight of the bottom half of Americans.

It would be the equivalent of Obama openly saying "I didn't care about the economy. I'd rather have healthcare for all and let the economy burn in hell."

Romney's statement, on its face, is equivalent to what oabam said in 08 (but still worse than the boots your fishing pole caught) but the context of the race makes Romney's statement shine like a neon sign.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-20 19:47:52

At 9/20/12 06:41 PM, TheMason wrote: The lessor one involves actresses pledging allegiance to Obama.

How the fuck is this a gaffe? A celebrity endorsement? This is a big enough deal to you for you to post about it?

THIS, however, is a gaffe.

The second misstep, and the one I think has a shot of having legs, is the campaign introducing an American flag redesign with the Obama 'O' in the blue field....This is highly inappropriate behavior on the part of the Obama campaign.

This is some really desperate petty patriotic jingoism. Faux outrage. Denial has set in. Denial that reeks of desperation and a deep, inner knowledge of the truth. Face it, nothing Obama has done or said can be used against him at this point to have the same impact as Romney's 47% statement. It's not over for sure, you never know what the next month will bring, but if the election was today it would sure as hell be over.

86% of voters say they're familiar with what Romney said [The 47% comment] and 53% consider his comments to have been inappropriate, compared to only 40% who feel they were appropriate. There are lots of Republicans that are either a) not voting for Romney over this, or b) actually voting for Obama for this.

Elfer
Elfer
  • Member since: Jan. 21, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 38
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-20 19:50:31

At 9/20/12 06:41 PM, TheMason wrote: Well...I've thought that Romney's 47% gaffe is equivalent to Obama's '08 'guns & religion' quote. But it has been gaining some traction.

It's certainly worse than the stupid flag graphic, and I'm pretty sure it's a lot more harmful than Obama's quote from '08, by a long shot. Obama came off as an out-of-touch rich guy who had misplaced sympathy for people whose problems he didn't really understand. Romney came across as a rich guy who's so out of touch that he's willing to completely write off half the country as not worth soliciting votes from because they don't have enough money to understand how great his policies are, because his big picture on policy is to help the people who do have money.

It's kind of like the difference between peeing in the pool and peeing into the pool. It's the same in theory, but presentation makes a big difference.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-20 20:18:32

At 9/20/12 07:50 PM, Elfer wrote:

Romney came across as a rich guy who's so out of touch that he's willing to completely write off half the country as not worth soliciting votes from because they don't have enough money to understand how great his policies are, because his big picture on policy is to help the people who do have money.

The people who view it that way weren't gonna vote for him anyway.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-20 20:20:21

At 9/20/12 05:35 PM, Camarohusky wrote: But it's not. The rules for public corporations make it quite easy for an outsider to come in and buy a company. Heck, the company (i.e. the directors and officers) can be severely punished for taking certain precautions against buyouts.

And Bain has no interest in companies they can't profit on. Don't suck, Bain wouldn't want anything to do with you.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-20 20:43:59

At 9/20/12 08:20 PM, LemonCrush wrote: And Bain has no interest in companies they can't profit on. Don't suck, Bain wouldn't want anything to do with you.

A very successful company actually presents Bain with more profit than a shitty one.

Company A sucks. Company B is an all star.

Bain buys company A on the hope that they can turn it around or sell it for scraps and get back their investment.
Bain buys company B for a hefty load, lets company B grow, gets almost guaranteed profit, takes all of the profit (and usually more) via dividends, and then leaves.

Leveraged buyouts buy purely equity firms almost always target successful companies, not weak ones.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-20 20:45:41

At 9/20/12 08:43 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Leveraged buyouts by purely equity firms almost always target successful companies, not weak ones.

Fixed

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-20 20:51:30

At 9/20/12 08:43 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
A very successful company actually presents Bain with more profit than a shitty one.

They don't seem to see it that way, as they seem to handle businesses that are failing.

Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-20 20:58:02

At 9/20/12 07:50 PM, Elfer wrote: It's kind of like the difference between peeing in the pool and peeing into the pool. It's the same in theory, but presentation makes a big difference.

Hah! If I sigged quotes, that would get sigged.

I think you nail the difference in the comparison to Obama's "cling" quote, as well. At the end of the day, Obama was at least trying to get people he thought would never vote for him to see that he was working in good faith... he just did it in an insulting fashion. Romney's quote is basically giving an unapologetic finger to a large portion of the electorate. Those independent voters who may or may not reside in that 47% will see only that finger, not the misguided sympathy that they saw with Obama, so that's a huge blow to Romney in the swing vote.

Secondly, and likely more important, but less measurable, is the effect on the 47% themselves. Of those, 47%, more than half DO pay taxes, if not federal income taxes, and they often do not depend on federal assistance (I would fall into that category, as would most of my friends) to live, and find the implication that paying no federal income tax is the same as paying no tax at all, and that they are getting some big-ticket free ride on the gravy train. Another large portion of that 47% are seniors and veterans living on untaxed pensions, disability and retirement. WHo do you think is going to be the demographic that decides how Florida (arguably the most important State electorally right now)? Another large portion are students and young workers/professionals/families.... what one might paint under the broad demographic of the "unlikely voter". A study was done recently on the preferences of Unlikely Voters. Obama led in that category 43% to less than 20%. A broad-swath painted-as-moocher tin-ear comment like this will only help the Dems mobilize larger portions of this unlikely demographic, which can only help him in the election.

Add to that the solidifying of the female demographic against him, (in hishome state, no less... and I'll be dipped the last time I saw a presidential candidate lead by 14 points in this very purple state) Romney better do something stu-goddamn-pendous during the debates to turn his Titanic around.


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-20 21:07:55

@ Camaro, Elfer 7 and Feoric

Here's the thing, the early data doesn't really indicate that Romney's 47% remark is going to get any real traction for the Obama campaign or loose Romney many votes. The reason is if you break down the numbers of the amount of Americans who do not pay taxes...they don't lean towards Romney whatsoever. Furthermore, for the most part the people who are honestly offended (or at least upset) by his comments are not in the 3% that is going to decide this election. The 3% are the honest-to-god independents who have yet to make-up their minds. (More on them later.)

Furthermore, early polling by Gallup doesn't really spell doom for Romney.

Of independent voters:
53%: Does not change how they plan on voting.
29%: Less likely to vote for Romney.
15%: More likely to vote for Romney.

Now it is always difficult divining how independents are leaning especially in this gallup poll b/c I did not see poll data showing where the independents are leaning to know how the 53% who this does not change their votes are leaning. That's important to tell us how big of a difference the 14% gap between the 'Less likelies' and the 'More likelies' really is.

Most likely the majority of the 29% 'less likelies' were already going to vote Obama and the 15% 'more likelies' were going to vote for Romney.

Furthermore, as the campaign progresses this will get coverage and messages will get out there and things clarified. Afterall, Aiken in Mo has already recoverd 4-5% points (in the Democratic run PPP poll he closed a 10% gap to 1%) after a far, far, far more stupid comment. So with this...it didn't really hurt Romney all that much to begin with so this won't be what sinks him (if Obama wins).

====

The 3%.

In every race there are only about 3% of voters who truly do not know who they are going to vote for this close to the election. Most have really made up their minds around the conventions. Most years, the 3% don't really matter all that much since one party or the other has things locked up around this time. But not this year. This year it is going to be a photo-finish. Neither candidate has sealed the deal...neither candidate is winning. Most likely the state of the race is both are tied around 47.5-48% of the vote.

This year the 3% are going to be the deciders.

From the demographical breakdown I've seen, the 3% are not in the '47%' Romney allegedly attacked. Socio-economically speaking they tend to be middle and upper-middle class. And if you look at the Gallup poll about this subject...this is the socio-economic strata where the 'less likelies' start decreasing and the 'more likelies' start increasing.

====

Romney w/'Brown Face'. Seriously, you're going to post something filtered through a Manhattan arts & intelligentsia gossip rag like Gawker? They of all ppl should know that is make-up for TV and not an idiotic ploy to wear Latino 'black face'. That was just someone with a regular camera being an ass.

====

As for the flag and pledge of allegience misstep. A few things:

* It's not a gaffe, but a poor and incompetent decision by the campaign.
* I'm not fishing. This is called polioptics, how visuals and the use of symbols can effect a campaign. To plaster something so obviously partisan onto the American flag is just stupid. It's only really going to appeal to Obama's base, it also energizes his opposition and turns-off potential swing voters in the 3%.
* I've heard the term 'faux outrage', and that makes me sad. It's a made-up concept used by political shills to convince one's side that the other side is heartless, manipulative machines that are hell-bent on winning through whatever loathsome means necessary. Basically anyone who then goes on to repeat it, is most likely veiwing everything through heavily partisan lenses.
* The thing with my WTF moment about the tweet is this: how can a supposedly brilliant campaign (the best one in recent history according to Feoric) be so incredibly...

I've got to pause here, there is no word to describe the tweet. It is like stupidity & absurdity fucked and had a cognitively handicapped baby. So yeah...whatever word that would be...

...be so incredibly cognitively-handicapped-lovechild-of-stupidity-&-absurdity to think that putting the Obama 'O' on the American flag is a symbol of unity that erases the red state/blue state divide.

With a race that is so close...why imprint yourself on national symbols that will illicit emotional responses? The 2008 'Hope' poster: iconic and a brilliant work of political art (also not made by the Obama campaign but a supporter). This flag? An unnecessary kicking of a sleeping animal in such a close race.

And since they are plastering these all over social media, bumper stickers, t-shirts, etc...if they don't pull them they are going to be everywhere as a constant reminder and generating emotional responses from supporters, opponents and undecideds all the way to the election.

Long after Romney's 47% gaffe has faded.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Elfer
Elfer
  • Member since: Jan. 21, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 38
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-20 21:13:01

At 9/20/12 08:18 PM, LemonCrush wrote: The people who view it that way weren't gonna vote for him anyway.

Campaign image isn't always about convincing people one way or the other (although there are probably a few people here and there for whom this would be the last straw), it's more about controlling the news cycle and getting contributions to run a stronger campaign. The businesses who donate that money do it as an investment, and they don't want to throw good money after bad. If Romney keeps handing out quotes that let the Obama campaign run away with the news cycle, then Romney is going to start losing monetary support, which is the real nail in the coffin.

I'm not saying that it's not stupid for this to be as huge of a deal as it is, but any kind of politics on a national level is nonsense anyway. Elections are basically a game, but Romney has recently been showing how crappy he is at that game.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-20 21:23:13

At 9/20/12 09:07 PM, TheMason wrote: Long after Romney's 47% gaffe has faded.

Hope the water's nice, cause you're still fishing.

The O flag is hardly going to effect anything. To even make it a gaffe or a bad move you have to jump through hops forward backward and with a college degree. Gaffes aren't about intelligent things. They're about stupidity, and as such they have to be equally frank and easy to understand. I seriously doubt the Average American or undecided voter is going to take the time needed to do the mental gymnastics needed to think this is an insult to anyone.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-20 21:23:21

At 9/20/12 08:58 PM, Ravariel wrote: Romney's quote is basically giving an unapologetic finger to a large portion of the electorate. Those independent voters who may or may not reside in that 47% will see only that finger, not the misguided sympathy that they saw with Obama, so that's a huge blow to Romney in the swing vote.

I don't think so. The swing vote is most likely people of the same socio-economic status in that room: small business owners, middle and upper-middle class. According to the early Gallup data, not only is this not affecting the vote of 53% of independents, as you move up the socio-economic ladder the more these comments get him votes.


A broad-swath painted-as-moocher tin-ear comment like this will only help the Dems mobilize larger portions of this unlikely demographic, which can only help him in the election.

This is where it could help Obama, turn-out the base. The problem is this demographic is incredibly unstable and unreliable. So it is kind of a hail-mary, toss the ball and hope it's caught, way of winning an election.


Add to that the solidifying of the female demographic against him,

1) The female demographic is not going to win or loose this race, because it does not win or loose presidential races. They tack Democratic.

2) Obama won Ma by 25.8 last time and Kerry by 25.1 in '04. So if Romney is only running 14% behind...then he's not doing so bad. If you're talking about Michigan then Obama won by 16..4% in '08. And Mi is a Dem stronghold...so it doesn't matter what he's doing there or not.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-20 21:25:16

At 9/20/12 09:23 PM, TheMason wrote: I don't think so. The swing vote is most likely people of the same socio-economic status in that room: small business owners, middle and upper-middle class. According to the early Gallup data, not only is this not affecting the vote of 53% of independents, as you move up the socio-economic ladder the more these comments get him votes.

The swing state vote is made up of LARGE populations of conservatives in the 47% Romney gave the finger. Don't underestimate the disdain for the arrogant wealthy among the poor white crowd.

Elfer
Elfer
  • Member since: Jan. 21, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 38
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-20 21:32:47

At 9/20/12 09:07 PM, TheMason wrote: With a race that is so close...why imprint yourself on national symbols that will illicit emotional responses?

Elicit! I'm not calling you stupid here I just have to point out the difference because I have a problem okay.

And since they are plastering these all over social media, bumper stickers, t-shirts, etc...if they don't pull them they are going to be everywhere as a constant reminder and generating emotional responses from supporters, opponents and undecideds all the way to the election.

See, the thing with this is that I looked it up, and it's not really something that's being plastered around, it's a limited edition series of prints that you can buy from the Obama website, as part of a thing called "Artists for Obama," so presumably, it wasn't even created by his actual paid campaign, just some guys. Normally that wouldn't sound believable to me, but if there's anyone who provides unnecessary, raving support for Obama, it's graphic designers who make this kind of crap all the time.

So really, it's not as widespread as you're trying to make it seem, and without a major amount of use by the campaign (which it almost definitely won't be getting, now that it's been noticed by some critics), it'll be quickly forgotten, and in fact probably won't even see much awareness among the general public.

Romney's comments, on the other hand, are something that can be hammered on in the media for at least a couple of weeks, and it's the Obama campaign that's going to control the discussion. That's not great. Romney's position might not be dire right now, but the trend is pretty bad, he's been making a series of errors and the Obama campaign has been capitalizing on them.

It's certainly not impossible for Romney's campaign to turn it around this far out from the election, but they've got their work cut out for them. They have to stop the bleeding and then control the news cycle with their own message, and at the same time hope that Obama's campaign starts making a few more serious mistakes.

BrianEtrius
BrianEtrius
  • Member since: Sep. 28, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 32
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-20 23:13:14

Honest question now for conservatives at this point: do you honestly believe in Mitt Romney as a candidate? Please have your answer not include the words "not" "Obama".


New to Politics?/ Friend of the Devil/ I review writing! PM me
"Question everything generally thought to be obvious."-Dieter Rams

BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-21 19:45:02

Well....

Will Obama win or lose the election

Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-21 20:53:44

At 9/20/12 09:23 PM, TheMason wrote: I don't think so. The swing vote is most likely people of the same socio-economic status in that room: small business owners, middle and upper-middle class. According to the early Gallup data, not only is this not affecting the vote of 53% of independents, as you move up the socio-economic ladder the more these comments get him votes.

There is a big difference between "small business owners" and business(wo)men who can afford to attend a $50,000.00/plate fundraiser. Your average swing vote isn't in the top few percent, they're in the middle both in politics and in incomes. They're the ones who make $40-100,000/yr, who don't live high enough in the brackets to enjoy those 14% tax rates, who tend towards social and fiscal libertarianism, for whom tax breaks are welcome but not necessary for survival, but who are well-educated enough to realize that there's a difference between "paying no federal income tax" and "paying no taxes" as Romney was implying. They don't believe that their harried waitress who works another job at a daycare is somehow "not taking personal responsibility or care with her life." They're not high up the ladder enough to have such a disconnect with the working poor, the disabled and the elderly.

Add to that the solidifying of the female demographic against him,
1) The female demographic is not going to win or loose this race, because it does not win or loose presidential races. They tack Democratic.

Whoa. Just..... whoa. "The female demographic... does not win or lose presidential races"? Just because they "tack" democratic? I'm sorry, but since when does 51% of the population shifting by multiple percent in one direction, REGARDLESS of their "tack". If 60% of them were blue (on average) before, 65% of them being blue now is not insignificant. That also treads close to the normal Rep stance of "women don't matter".

2) Obama won Ma by 25.8 last time and Kerry by 25.1 in '04. So if Romney is only running 14% behind...then he's not doing so bad. If you're talking about Michigan then Obama won by 16..4% in '08. And Mi is a Dem stronghold...so it doesn't matter what he's doing there or not.

MI, regardless of it's actual electoral allocations, is a very purple state. We've got a republican governor, a HEAVILY republican legislature (64R-46D in the House, 26R-12D in the senate) and most areas outside of Detroit, Traverse City, and Marquette are redder than Texas. A reasonable republican could easily take this state. Romney is from here, he should be rocking this state, but hell he only took the primary by 3% against Santorum. This should be a stronghold for him, even with his difficulty with rust-belt working class.


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-21 23:27:44

Edit...

At 9/21/12 08:53 PM, Ravariel wrote: I'm sorry, but since when does 51% of the population shifting by multiple percent in one direction, REGARDLESS of their "tack".

... constitute an event that "does not determine elections"?

It's always good to finish one thought before beginning another.... derp.


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-21 23:42:46

At 9/21/12 07:45 PM, Feoric wrote: Well....

I also find it ironic, because I was watching old debates of the '84 election and Reagan was giving a similar response like Obama is now, saying that while we haven't fully recovered that we were making progress. Granted it was a much different election, but the parallel seems striking. Although I guess this is intentional because that's what Democrats tend to do; emulate Reagan.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
DragonPunch
DragonPunch
  • Member since: May. 12, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-22 01:03:15

Really don't think Romney's winning this thing.


SCREW THE SYSTEM!!! Play video games instead.My Official Art Thread! COMMENT ON IT!

BBS Signature
BumFodder
BumFodder
  • Member since: Jan. 14, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 37
Melancholy
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-22 06:10:05

It should be obvious to everyone that Romney is going to lose now.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-22 07:15:13

At 9/20/12 01:08 PM, TheMason wrote: Point 1 How GM paid off its loan.
[...]
So yes...the loan is paid back. However, the taxpayer was paid with money taken from the taxpayer.

This is really easy to understand and I'm not sure exactly what's going awry here. Let me put this in the simplest terms I can. The escrow account was an extension of TARP via the US Treasury and the Canadian government. GM assessed how much money was given to them and figured they had gotten too much. They said "hey, we don't need this" and they gave it back. It boggles my mind how anyone could think this is some fraudulent scheme. The whole 'taxpayers paid with taxpayer money' thing is a red herring. It's completely besides the point.

It also means that you are incorrect when you say: "They would have needed it if the company was struggling to make ends meet. The fact that they were able to pay back the loan in full means the company was turning around, which is reflected in their profits."

I don't see how that's the case, because the amount given to them via TARP was appropriated by the Treasury and the amount of the appropriations was derived from the Treasury and Obama's chief economists. GM was in better shape than they realized after the 'government takeover' took effect.

They did not and could not pay off their debt to the government on their own with their own profits and revenue...instead they used government money to pay a government loan. GM owes a debt to the American and Canadian taxpayer to pay back what was put into that escrow account...the debt is still owed.

You can look at the daily TARP updates for yourself and see that roughly 40 billion of the AIFP has been repaid, which is roughly half of the ~80 billion bailout of the automobile industry so far.

Point 2 Debt-for-equity.
[...]

When it became clear that GM was going to have to destroy 60-70% of itself rather than offload it to other businesses to run more successfully than GM's idiot management could, the government stepped in because the lowered demand on suppliers and vendors would have created an enormous wave of layoffs all over the world. For example, Toyota publicly supported the GM bailout. Even though GM going under would have eliminated their until-recently chief worldwide rival, the disruption to Toyota's supply chain from the stress on the suppliers would have caused them significant short term problems. Maybe worse than the earthquake did, for that matter, since it wouldn't have just been a matter of restoring roads and electricity. Demonstrate to me the loss we're likely to make to the tune of 14 billion is worse than that. Not only that, the car industry is subsidized as hell, so you'd also have to measure in if it's useful for you to pay GM through taxes so that car production continues in Detroit rather than buying a car built by GM in Germany subsidized by German tax payers.

1) Who cares about white flight...
[...]

I don't know how anyone can say this with a straight face so I won't even go there.

But in the end...the UAW is partially repsonsible for creating the business environment in Detroit that let the American auto industry decline. I think the future for the US auto industry is to look at BMW, KIA, Toyota moving into areas that have people who need jobs...but are not self-absorbed union members.
Already did so. If you re-read the sources I linked to the $44 billion originally came from Obama...not WSJ.

The issue with the 45 billion figure is that it's a tax break (what you're talking about is found here). Despite the vague tag line of "a tax break that could be worth as much as $45 billion," the actual value appears to be significantly lower. Essentially, the source of the tax break is the special dispensation to carry prior losses forward despite having gone through bankruptcy. While GM expects (expected?) tax savings from a variety of sources, only $19 billion of it was from this exception:

"The $45.4 billion in future tax savings consist of $18.9 billion in carry-forwards based on past losses, according to GM's pre-IPO public disclosure. The other tax savings are related to costs such as pensions and other post-retirement benefits, and property, plants and equipment."

This would seem to indicate that the tax savings due to loss carryforward ended up being $14 billion rather than the $19 billion predicted in new GM's pre-IPO disclosure. Based on this information, I would say that the losses to GM were $14 billion in special tax breaks, plus some additional unknown amount from investment we do not expect to be recouped, but I don't know for sure.

Who cares? It didn't make enough.

The US government made a few billion in profit when GM IPO'd for the second time in 2010.

To think that stocks are going to be immune from the second type of inflation (a devalued dollar) is naive and laughable. The stock market will adjust to reflect the devalued dollar.

I never said the stocks will be immune, I said the exact opposite. They do adjust. DOWNWARDS.Inflation, whether in the form of demand-pull or cost-push, compresses a company's P/E ratio. You said "The government can get stock prices to $53/share through inflation" which is beyond my imagination, really. You think the government hopes to get GM's stock to 53 dollars a share through fucking QE3? You're nuts.

Make a new thread if you still want to drag this on, I'm not going to clog this thread up with this anymore.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-22 07:17:59

At 9/21/12 11:42 PM, Warforger wrote: Although I guess this is intentional because that's what Democrats tend to do; emulate Reagan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfelqZpapZA