The 2012 Three Ring Circus AKA The US Presidential Election

[Objectiveland]

"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube."
Ayn Rand

Ugh. That's some rancid spam you're serving up there.

Edit: fixed my derp

Simply pointing out what others call obstruction by "gullible racist assholes" is simply an unwillingness to compromise what is right for what is wrong. It is only the wrong side that gains in a compromise.

[Northern Dominus]

Yeah but my head already hurts like a [INSERT OBVIOUS OBSCENITY HERE]

Unfortunately we don't have control over the mods.

yet

Damn, true enough.

Assuming direct control

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Ugh. That's some rancid spam you're serving up there.

Edit: fixed my derp

Simply pointing out what others call obstruction by "gullible racist assholes" is simply an unwillingness to compromise what is right for what is wrong. It is only the wrong side that gains in a compromise.

Like what, the unwillingness to raise the debt ceiling, which is essentially an unwillingness to pay one's already existing bills? How is that representative of fiscal responsibility? Or is it the refusal to fill necessary seats government that would have been filled under any previous Congress, with Presidents who were much farther to the left than our current incumbent?

[Silent Majority]

Ugh. That's some rancid spam you're serving up there.

Edit: fixed my derp

Simply pointing out what others call obstruction by "gullible racist assholes" is simply an unwillingness to compromise what is right for what is wrong. It is only the wrong side that gains in a compromise.

A great deal of the modern liberal platform originally came from Conservatives(like the individual mandate, and cap-and-trade). So it seems ridiculous to claim that the steadfast european-style opposition comes from some deep moral principle.

[Miss Defied]

Ugh. That's some rancid spam you're serving up there.

Edit: fixed my derp

Simply pointing out what others call obstruction by "gullible racist assholes" is simply an unwillingness to compromise what is right for what is wrong. It is only the wrong side that gains in a compromise.

I see. You were responding more to The Black Forest, rather than Northern Dominus. It makes a bit more sense. However, you should just say that in your own words as you did above, rather than use Rand's inane metaphors. I think you're a much better writer than she is.

[Khadgar]

Simply pointing out what others call obstruction by "gullible racist assholes" is simply an unwillingness to compromise what is right for what is wrong. It is only the wrong side that gains in a compromise.

Like what, the unwillingness to raise the debt ceiling, which is essentially an unwillingness to pay one's already existing bills? How is that representative of fiscal responsibility? Or is it the refusal to fill necessary seats government that would have been filled under any previous Congress, with Presidents who were much farther to the left than our current incumbent?

Or a refusal to vote for their own proposals? Oh wait, this is Objectiveland, nevermind.

[Miss Defied]

Simply pointing out what others call obstruction by "gullible racist assholes" is simply an unwillingness to compromise what is right for what is wrong. It is only the wrong side that gains in a compromise.

Like what, the unwillingness to raise the debt ceiling, which is essentially an unwillingness to pay one's already existing bills? How is that representative of fiscal responsibility? Or is it the refusal to fill necessary seats government that would have been filled under any previous Congress, with Presidents who were much farther to the left than our current incumbent?

Yes, exactly. Which side was the good and which the bad in that scenario?
Or take the heel digging when it came to supporting the folks who were sickened from cleaning up the ruins of the WTC in NY? Were the heel diggers in congress the good or the evil?

[Objectiveland]

Simply pointing out what others call obstruction by "gullible racist assholes" is simply an unwillingness to compromise what is right for what is wrong. It is only the wrong side that gains in a compromise.

Like what, the unwillingness to raise the debt ceiling, which is essentially an unwillingness to pay one's already existing bills? How is that representative of fiscal responsibility? Or is it the refusal to fill necessary seats government that would have been filled under any previous Congress, with Presidents who were much farther to the left than our current incumbent?

Yes. Democrats insisted on raising taxes to cover their irresponsible spending habits. Yes for the seats also. Only the wrong side gains from a compromise.

[Mavorpen]

Like what, the unwillingness to raise the debt ceiling, which is essentially an unwillingness to pay one's already existing bills? How is that representative of fiscal responsibility? Or is it the refusal to fill necessary seats government that would have been filled under any previous Congress, with Presidents who were much farther to the left than our current incumbent?

Yes. Democrats insisted on raising taxes to cover their irresponsible spending habits. Yes for the seats also. Only the wrong side gains from a compromise.

[Objectiveland]

Like what, the unwillingness to raise the debt ceiling, which is essentially an unwillingness to pay one's already existing bills? How is that representative of fiscal responsibility? Or is it the refusal to fill necessary seats government that would have been filled under any previous Congress, with Presidents who were much farther to the left than our current incumbent?

Or a refusal to vote for their own proposals? Oh wait, this is Objectiveland, nevermind.

Obama creating the Simpson-Bowles Deficit Reduction Commission. Obama promptly ignored the Commission's recommendations.

[The Black Forrest]

Yes and no.

I don't particularly like any party owning it all. When it's split there is some over sight when it comes to things. Nothing worst then a group that will rubber stamp stuff through.

It does need to be cleaned of the obstructionists and to some degree the "tea party"

They won't be to obstructionist as they will want a shot at 2016 let alone 2014.

Again, everybody gives too much credit to the voting public not having a sizeable chunk of gullible racist assholes mixed in there somewhere. That's how we got in this mess in the first place circa 2010 in the first place and given how the presidential campaign is going, that sort of tactic still works.

Well? I am a little bit of a Pollyanna when it comes to such things.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Like what, the unwillingness to raise the debt ceiling, which is essentially an unwillingness to pay one's already existing bills? How is that representative of fiscal responsibility? Or is it the refusal to fill necessary seats government that would have been filled under any previous Congress, with Presidents who were much farther to the left than our current incumbent?

Yes. Democrats insisted on raising taxes to cover their irresponsible spending habits. Yes for the seats also. Only the wrong side gains from a compromise.

You may not understand. This is money that we already owed. Debt incurred from putting two wars on a credit card, which was the fault of both parties. Refusal to pay money already owed is not a sign of fiscal responsibility. Quite the opposite, in fact. The rest of my response has already been covered by Mavorpen.

[Mavorpen]

Or a refusal to vote for their own proposals? Oh wait, this is Objectiveland, nevermind.

Obama creating the Simpson-Bowles Deficit Reduction Commission. Obama promptly ignored the Commission's recommendations.

Actually no, that was Ryan.

[Silent Majority]

Or a refusal to vote for their own proposals? Oh wait, this is Objectiveland, nevermind.

Obama creating the Simpson-Bowles Deficit Reduction Commission. Obama promptly ignored the Commission's recommendations.

Because they were terrible

[Mavorpen]

Obama creating the Simpson-Bowles Deficit Reduction Commission. Obama promptly ignored the Commission's recommendations.

Because they were terrible

And neither Obama, nor Romney like their plans 100%

[Khadgar]

Dear Objectiveland, you are not Mitt Romney, and this isn't the American media. You can't lie and get away with it, please stop trying.

[Mavorpen]

Yes. Democrats insisted on raising taxes to cover their irresponsible spending habits. Yes for the seats also. Only the wrong side gains from a compromise.

This line is the best. Democrats insist on raise taxes to cover for Republicans' irresponsible spending habits.

[The Black Forrest]

Ugh. That's some rancid spam you're serving up there.

Edit: fixed my derp

Simply pointing out what others call obstruction by "gullible racist assholes" is simply an unwillingness to compromise what is right for what is wrong. It is only the wrong side that gains in a compromise.

Quoting that ding-dong doesn't improve your argument.

Gullible racist assholes is an apt description when you consider all the of the tripe that has been tossed at this President.

What is right or wrong is simply an opinion. Compromise moves people forward as you can't have a society of like minded individuals. This batch of Republicans have made no attempt of compromise. Their version of compromise is the democrats supporting their agenda.

[Mavorpen]

Ugh. That's some rancid spam you're serving up there.

Edit: fixed my derp

Simply pointing out what others call obstruction by "gullible racist assholes" is simply an unwillingness to compromise what is right for what is wrong. It is only the wrong side that gains in a compromise.

[I]f you don't [stop Medicare] and I don't do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free.

- Ronald Reagan

Guess which president expanded Medicare, and increased the debt significantly.

[Khadgar]

Simply pointing out what others call obstruction by "gullible racist assholes" is simply an unwillingness to compromise what is right for what is wrong. It is only the wrong side that gains in a compromise.

Quoting that ding-dong doesn't improve your argument.

Gullible racist assholes is an apt description when you consider all the of the tripe that has been tossed at this President.

What is right or wrong is simply an opinion. Compromise moves people forward as you can't have a society of like minded individuals. This batch of Republicans have made no attempt of compromise. Their version of compromise is the democrats supporting their agenda.

It was Boehner I believe however you spell that prick's name, that said during the debt ceiling debacle, which nearly shoved us back into recession, that the Republicans had gotten 92% of what they wanted. Not only is that an oddly specific number, it also shows precisely how far the Democrats had to bend to get the Republicans to agree to anything. Those fuckwits would destroy our economy rather than do what they're in office to do.

[Objectiveland]

Yes. Democrats insisted on raising taxes to cover their irresponsible spending habits. Yes for the seats also. Only the wrong side gains from a compromise.

That's funny. Growth from 2010-2013 is 1.4% correct. In 2009 outlays rose from 2.9 trillion spent in 2008 to 3.5 trillion. Then in the following budgets Obama uses the inflated level of spending. http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/23/the-o ... ding-binge

[Mavorpen]

That's funny. Growth from 2010-2013 is 1.4% correct. In 2009 outlays rose from 2.9 trillion spent in 2008 to 3.5 trillion. Then in the following budgets Obama uses the inflated level of spending. http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/23/the-o ... ding-binge

Try again, but this time give me a link that's relevant. The graph shows annual federal spending PERCENTAGE INCREASES. THAT is why I gave you two other graphs (which you ignored), showing that spending has remained relatively level. Obama himself has only spent enough to raise federal spending 1.4%, while the overall amount of spending has relatively stated the same.

I'll post it again, since you ignored it. Funnily enough, this graph looks pretty much the same as the one in YOUR source. More proof that you posted a source that has jack shit to do with the first graph.

[Objectiveland]

That's funny. Growth from 2010-2013 is 1.4% correct. In 2009 outlays rose from 2.9 trillion spent in 2008 to 3.5 trillion. Then in the following budgets Obama uses the inflated level of spending. http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/23/the-o ... ding-binge

Try again, but this time give me a link that's relevant. The graph shows annual federal spending PERCENTAGE INCREASES. THAT is why I gave you two other graphs (which you ignored), showing that spending has remained relatively level. Obama himself has only spent enough to raise federal spending 1.4%, while the overall amount of spending has relatively stated the same.

I'll post it again, since you ignored it. Funnily enough, this graph looks pretty much the same as the one in YOUR source. More proof that you posted a source that has jack shit to do with the first graph.

Wow. The link I posted was written to refute the chart you showed! Either you didn't read it or you didn't understand it. Yes the percentage of growth is smaller and it flattens but the point is it does so at an already alarmingly high level. Make no mistake GW was a spender for sure but look you can't spend $100 one day then spend $1000 the next and then spend $1000 for the next three days and claim your spending growth flattened. So what if it flattened, you only have $100 to spend!

[Mavorpen]

Wow. The link I posted was written to refute the chart you showed! Either you didn't read it or you didn't understand it.

I'm not sure why, because it doesn't actually refute anything. Percentage INCREASE of annual spending is not the same is total spending. Your source completely neglects this crucial fact. The fact that you literally linked to a source that says essentially the SAME thing as another one of my graphs is laughable. I KNOW that federal spending remains at the levels of Bush. I never denied that. But the amount of spending Obama himself has contributed only amounts to 1.4% increased spending.

Yes the percentage of growth is smaller and it flattens but the point is it does so at an already alarmingly high level.

Which I NEVER DENIED. YOU claimed that Obama is trying to cut taxes to cover for his spending, when it isn't HIS spending. I ALSO gave you a graph that showed that at least HALF of the deficit is due to Bush's shit, and the rest has little to do with Obama, rather it is a part of past debt that REPUBLICANS caused.

Make no mistake GW was a spender for sure but look You can't spend $100 one day then spend $1000 the next and then spend $1000 for the next three days and claim your spending growth flattened. So what it flattened you only have $100 to spend!

Do you know what the word growth means? Stop grasping at straws now that I've proven you wrong.

[Alien Space Bats]

It's both really. The fact is, assuming "McCain + NC and IA" and the 9 states of FL, OH, MI, VA, CO, NV, IA and NH in play, there is basically no map what so ever that shows Romney winning without either Florida or Ohio (well, full disclosure, there is ONE. A complete sweep of every other swing state, MI, VA, WI, CO, IA, NV, and NH will put him at exactly 270)

In Ohio, Obama continues to post a 2-5 point lead, and has done so consistantly. The window is closig on Romney pulling out a win in Ohio.

Likewise the inverse is true in Florida. What was Romney's state to lose is starting to tighten considerably.

Romney needs to win one or the other. Ohio is falling out of reach, and Florida is looking less and less secure by the day (though Florida is still trending red)

This really belongs in the "horse race" thread, but...

I think Florida is moving it.

Throughout these last several months, everyone has just sort of assumed that Romney would win Florida. He's got a Republican Governor there along with a Republican Legislature, too - but more than that every EC path anybody has been able to come up win begins with "... And of course, if Romney loses Florida, that's it; he's done; he has to win there..."

So in drawing up plausible scenarios for Mitt to get elected, we just kind of assume he'll wind Florida right off the bat - and that assumption has sort of infected our minds.

But what we're seeing in the early voting numbers is similar to what we're seeing in Nevada, Iowa, Ohio, and North Carolina: Democrats are doing a phenomenal job of moving their people to the polls or getting them to vote absentee, and that's changing the dynamics of the race in each of these States.

Now, I understand the logic behind the Republican argument that all this early voting isn't really helping the Democrats get more votes; they're just banking certain votes rather than adding new ones (which Republicans, interestingly enough, claim to be doing with their early voting effort). The problem with this argument is that many Democratic voters, coming from the lower-income portion of our society, have problems voting on Election Day due to transportation issues, work schedule conflicts, etc.; by comparison, far fewer Republican voters do. Thus, while both sides are, to some extent, banking "certain" votes, Republican early voting - which the GOP, for all its bad-mouthing of Democratic EV efforts, is also pushing - is doing far less for their final vote totals than Democratic early voting is doing for theirs.

Indeed, Democratic EV efforts in all of the so-called "swing" States that allow early voting (New Hampshire and Virginia really don't; they allow absentee voting, but only for cause) - except for Wisconsin - are doing so well that I'm almost ready to predict that they'll take every one of these States; I only hesitate in Colorado and North Carolina because races in both of these States after accounting for early voting are really too close to call.

In my pool prediction, I gave Mitt Romney the benefit of the doubt, just because sometimes the best pool strategy is to try and be unique in your pick, and too many other people had already jumped on the most likely outcome (Obama wins the EC 332-206); I assumed he'd win New Hampshire (which is really too close to call) and fend off Democratic early voting surges in North Carolina and Colorado; I also assumed that the Republican GOTV machine (their best in the country) would beat the (much weakened) Democratic GOTV machine in Wisconsin; finally, I gave Romney the benefit of the doubt in Maine's 2nd Congressional District (where he's close, but probably still trails); all of this produced what I wanted - a unique 308-230 win prediction for the President.

But I'll be honest: Except for Wisconsin, Democratic GOTV efforts are running so hot that I could easily see the opposite result: Obama wins every State he won in 2008 - except for Indiana - and emerges with a 347-191 landslide.

It's those nightly reports going up on the web sites of Secretaries of State around the country, showing the number of registered Democrats, Republicans, Greens, and independents who have cast early ballots thus far (not actual votes, but voter counts) that are moving Nate Silver's numbers now, as much as any poll (and maybe more, since polling has been somewhat screwed up by Sandy).