Don't most of the tracking polls keep anywhere between 3-7 days worth of questions as the "current" poll to reduce the margin of error a bit and keep weird statistical bumps in check?
d-usa wrote: Don't most of the tracking polls keep anywhere between 3-7 days worth of questions as the "current" poll to reduce the margin of error a bit and keep weird statistical bumps in check?
Good question According to Gallup, it appears to be a seven day span. What was interesting was the clear majority of Democrats the called the debate in Romney's favor.
I did like Gore's comment about the air in Denver causing Obama's poor performance.
Romney did do a lot better. I would think that even MSNBC would call it that way.
I don't think the whole Denver thing is a good excuse, especially considering that Obama gave one hell of a performance during his speech there in 2008.
I don't know if he just walked into the thing way to confident, or if he tried to hard to be a nice guy and not call Romney on anything. The next one is a town hall, so it will be interesting to see how it turns out. I don't think it is as easy to attack your opponent during that format, so I am not too sure how both guys will interact with each other.
d-usa wrote: Romney did do a lot better. I would think that even MSNBC would call it that way.
I don't think the whole Denver thing is a good excuse, especially considering that Obama gave one hell of a performance during his speech there in 2008.
I don't know if he just walked into the thing way to confident, or if he tried to hard to be a nice guy and not call Romney on anything. The next one is a town hall, so it will be interesting to see how it turns out. I don't think it is as easy to attack your opponent during that format, so I am not too sure how both guys will interact with each other.
A good summary of the last debate:
Obama's never been a particularly good debater. He's a good orator. He looked good in 2008 because he was debating McCain, against whom several houseplants in my possession would stand a 50/50 shot of winning.
d-usa wrote: Romney did do a lot better. I would think that even MSNBC would call it that way.
I don't think the whole Denver thing is a good excuse, especially considering that Obama gave one hell of a performance during his speech there in 2008.
I don't know if he just walked into the thing way to confident, or if he tried to hard to be a nice guy and not call Romney on anything. The next one is a town hall, so it will be interesting to see how it turns out. I don't think it is as easy to attack your opponent during that format, so I am not too sure how both guys will interact with each other.
A good summary of the last debate:
Obama's never been a particularly good debater. He's a good orator. He looked good in 2008 because he was debating McCain, against whom several houseplants in my possession would stand a 50/50 shot of winning.
Hillary ate Obama up in the primary debates.
He is a good orator with a teleprompter in front of him.
I will give him credit though, he sounded like a much more confident public speaker, going unscripted like he did, then he has whenever he's been without the TOTUS over the last 4 years. Maybe some of his debate preperation actually involved going to some public speaking classes.
djones520 wrote: He is a good orator with a teleprompter in front of him.
I will give him credit though, he sounded like a much more confident public speaker, going unscripted like he did, then he has whenever he's been without the TOTUS over the last 4 years. Maybe some of his debate preperation actually involved going to some public speaking classes.
That's largely because he is a confident public speaker. He's an incredibly smart guy, as is Romney.
djones520 wrote: He is a good orator with a teleprompter in front of him.
I will give him credit though, he sounded like a much more confident public speaker, going unscripted like he did, then he has whenever he's been without the TOTUS over the last 4 years. Maybe some of his debate preperation actually involved going to some public speaking classes.
That's largely because he is a confident public speaker. He's an incredibly smart guy, as is Romney.
I am a confident public speaker. He is not. Were he in the same tech school class I was he'd have a permanent marker dent in his forhead from my instructor throwing them at him everytime he said "umm".
I'll never understand the myth about his great oratory abilities.
I am a confident public speaker. He is not. Were he in the same tech school class I was he'd have a permanent marker dent in his forhead from my instructor throwing them at him everytime he said "umm".
I'll never understand the myth about his great oratory abilities.
When's the last time you gave a speech to hundreds of thousands of people, out of curiosity?
Suggesting that any modern president is not a confident public speaker is pretty hilarious, honestly.
What you're trying to say is that he's not a good public speaker, but even that is wrong. There aren't a lot of people that are better with prepared material.
Without prepared material, he uses a lot of fillers, such as "umm." Know why? You say "umm" when you're thinking. If you make it through a debate without uttering that phrase, or another similar filler - such as a pause - then congratulations, you didn't think about a single thing you were saying.
He is a good orator with a teleprompter in front of him.
One interesting thing I have noticed with the whole "teleprompter in chief" thing.
If you look at most of the pictures and video footage of Romney speaking at events, you hardly ever see a teleprompter in the shot. It seems like the Republicans are making a very big effort not to have Romney be seen with a teleprompter at all when he speaks. But if you find non-standard angle photographs you can see that the teleprompters are still there and he uses them just as much as Obama does.
Making a big deal out of the "TOTUS" while ignoring the fact that every politician, including Romney, uses them is kind of old.
The gain Romney's gotten from that debate has been pretty significant, but polls released in the last couple of days have seen those gains receding already. It's a weird election this time around.
I think he prepared to target Romney on specific policies - the $5 trillion tax cut specifically, and to make Romney either accept the terms Obama was putting onto his policies, or make Romney back away from those policies entirely. Obama failed really badly to achieve either goal, and Romney just sidestepped the issue with more vaguenss and Obama just kept saying '$5 trillion'. He should have challenged to Romney to properly flesh out his policy.
Like I said. Unprepared. He wasn't mentally prepared at all
Edit
As I was when my wife saw all the new Chaos goodies that just came out. How much she threw down to build a Chaos Army. Her DE is shelved and now I have to paint her new Chaos Army. She saw the ugrade packs for Night Lords too. My Tau is not prepared to deal with this threat in the house...
d-usa wrote: One interesting thing I have noticed with the whole "teleprompter in chief" thing.
I've always seen that as a hilariously stupid line of attack. With all the legitimate things you could attack Obama for, you're seriously going to make a big issue out of him using a device that was also used by every single president since Lyndon Johnson? It's just the most vacuous argument imaginable; like arguing he's a poor writer because he uses a laptop.
Ouze wrote: I've always seen that as a hilariously stupid line of attack. With all the legitimate things you could attack Obama for, you're seriously going to make a big issue out of him using a device that was also used by every single president since Lyndon Johnson? It's just the most vacuous argument imaginable; like arguing he's a poor writer because he uses a laptop.
There was originally more of a substance to the attacks - heavy intimations that he was only good when he reading something someone else wrote. Basically that he was a puppet for some mysterious something. It was stupid (and had some pretty racist undertones) but it wasn't devoid of content.
As Obama became President and spoke off the cuff more, and as it became clear he wrote a lot more of his speaches than his contemporaries, that idea disappeared.
But, weirdly, the teleprompter chant didn't go away. It doesn't mean anything, it's just something people shout to diminish speaches by Obama that most people recognise were pretty good.
He is a good orator with a teleprompter in front of him.
One interesting thing I have noticed with the whole "teleprompter in chief" thing.
If you look at most of the pictures and video footage of Romney speaking at events, you hardly ever see a teleprompter in the shot. It seems like the Republicans are making a very big effort not to have Romney be seen with a teleprompter at all when he speaks. But if you find non-standard angle photographs you can see that the teleprompters are still there and he uses them just as much as Obama does.
Making a big deal out of the "TOTUS" while ignoring the fact that every politician, including Romney, uses them is kind of old.
I don't think anyone's under the illusion that Romney or any other national politician uses a teleprompter. TOTUS has to do with how awesome and inspiring Barry is with a teleprompter, and how much foot he chews on when he doesn't use it. It's not a statement by Republicans that teleprompters are not being used by their candidates and frontmen.
AustonT wrote: I don't think anyone's under the illusion that Romney or any other national politician uses a teleprompter. TOTUS has to do with how awesome and inspiring Barry is with a teleprompter, and how much foot he chews on when he doesn't use it. It's not a statement by Republicans that teleprompters are not being used by their candidates and frontmen.
But it isn't 'teleprompter' that makes that true. It's that he's quite good when he's got a chance to compose his thoughts, and prepare a 5 or 10 minute speach, but not so good at coming up with the right words on the spot. And everyone knows that.
The teleprompter thing came out of an effort to try and make people believe that Obama was just saying things other people wrote for him.
AustonT wrote: I don't think anyone's under the illusion that Romney or any other national politician uses a teleprompter. TOTUS has to do with how awesome and inspiring Barry is with a teleprompter, and how much foot he chews on when he doesn't use it.
Like when he said, off the cuff, that 47% of the country were victims who don't care about their own lives and so he shouldn't worry about them?
So the popular vote has closed up. Still, this election is not decided by popular vote. It is all about the Electoral College.
The question is, has Romney's road to 270 gotten any easier? I don't really see where it has? Nate Silver says he has a25% chance, up from 21% chance to win the Electoral College thanks to his Debate performance. Nate is a Poll Aggregator, so therefore more trustworthy than any single poll.
I think a lot of this "popular vote/ polls dead even" stuff is the Media trying to keep I a horse race. If you look at the Electoral College, things aren't as close.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: The teleprompter thing came out of an effort to try and make people believe that Obama was just saying things other people wrote for him.
If I were the uncharitable sort, I would think it is because people don't want to believe that Obama is good at anything.
Incumbents tend to do less well in debates because they're out of practice. When you can ignore anybody that doesn't agree with you for the better part of 4 years you tend not to be as on the ball.
Romney's spent the last year getting rocks thrown at him so he's much more in the game and used to adversarial settings. That really showed in terms of presidential presence and poise.
I don't think this is just media noise, either. Two weeks ago Obama had the thing 'in the bag' and was the clear frontrunner with the wind at his back. Now Romney is actually ahead on RealClearPolitics national polls and even more meaningfully the swing states where Obama's dominance more or less ensured a win are now much more contested.
Biden's going to try to steer the conversation to foreign policy, which is his area of expertise. Ryan is going to try to keep it on the domestic economy, which is his.
The distinctly left-of-center female moderator is a more interesting swing point to me. As the first lady debate mod, if she's too obviously partisan she can really screw up the whole gender equality aspects of the format if she doesn't do well.
I'm still trying to figure out what was 'historic' about the debate. It seemed like another Presidential debate, and not even one that had any really memorable lines or ideas.
Ahtman wrote: I'm still trying to figure out what was 'historic' about the debate. It seemed like another Presidential debate, and not even one that had any really memorable lines or ideas.
Yeah... I'm struggling with that too...
Just like I'm struggling that 60 million watched that debate...
Ahtman wrote: I'm still trying to figure out what was 'historic' about the debate. It seemed like another Presidential debate, and not even one that had any really memorable lines or ideas.
Apparently there had never been such a large margin of victory for a candidate in any presidential debate as this one.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Romney's 52 point win is the largest in any debate Gallup has polled.
If romantic comedies have taught me one thing it is this:
Married couple stuck in a rut plans big anniversary night, but husband thinks he is all that and doesn't prepare for it. Disappoints wife with his performance and sleeps on the couch instead of getting the complimentary "birthday and anniversary oral pleasure", marriage is on the rocks and children don't respect him anymore.
*enter White House inspired work-out montage with inspirational music*
Obama ties in the second debate, doubts himself and wonders if he can still make it. His mother-in-law yells at him about "this is not the man that married my daughter", Michelle moves into the VP house "until things get better".
*enter new debate prep-montage that leaves the white house and focuses on Obama preparing for the final showdown in the tough suburbs of Chicago with the 47% that need him. Also more inspirational music*
Obama totally owns the last debate, Romney starts crying, marriage is saved, kids are happy, ending credits fade in as Obama gets his delayed anniversary oral pleasure.
Relapse wrote: Romney's 52 point win is the largest in any debate Gallup has polled.
This feels historic in the same way that the guy who ate the most nickels is a world record holder.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Michelle moves into the VP house "until things get better".
This is when I knew it would make a mint at the box office.
It is surprising though, since looking at news stories, all that seems to be talked about are Romney gaffes and mistakes and accusations of lying. Even Democrats gave Romney a 10 point or so lead over Obama.
Relapse wrote: It is surprising though, since looking at news stories, all that seems to be talked about are Romney gaffes and mistakes and accusations of lying. Even Democrats gave Romney a 10 point or so lead over Obama.
I think that gets to the core of the nonsense of who 'won' a debate. The winner is the guy people thought was more confident, more forceful, and generally commanded the situation better. Which has nothing to do with whether anything you said made sense or not, or whether any of it was true.
That's what annoyed me about debate class in school. I thought it sounded great, until I joined and the teacher started explaining how it was all about confident and clear speaking, and posture and stuff... and basically sweet feth all points were given for the actual content of your argument.
Romney scores a win because his style on the night was much better than Obama's, but long term he's had to shift again on his tax policy. With no-one, especially not Romney, actually able to tell us what the guy plans to do once he's in the White House, can anyone see his bump actually lasting?
“In places like North Carolina, Virginia and Florida, we’ve already painted those for Romney. We’re not polling any of those states again. We’re focusing on the remaining states.”
Um... what? Florida!? Seems waaay too early to call them.
Can't resist though... As Han Solo said: "Don't get cocky kid!".
Relapse wrote: It is surprising though, since looking at news stories, all that seems to be talked about are Romney gaffes and mistakes and accusations of lying. Even Democrats gave Romney a 10 point or so lead over Obama.
I think that gets to the core of the nonsense of who 'won' a debate. The winner is the guy people thought was more confident, more forceful, and generally commanded the situation better. Which has nothing to do with whether anything you said made sense or not, or whether any of it was true.
That's what annoyed me about debate class in school. I thought it sounded great, until I joined and the teacher started explaining how it was all about confident and clear speaking, and posture and stuff... and basically sweet feth all points were given for the actual content of your argument.
Romney scores a win because his style on the night was much better than Obama's, but long term he's had to shift again on his tax policy. With no-one, especially not Romney, actually able to tell us what the guy plans to do once he's in the White House, can anyone see his bump actually lasting?
Okay... I need to ask you about this...
This is strange to me... I don't remember any "explicit plans" Obama (or McCain) had in '08... nor any other presidential candidates since Clinton (don't remember past him).
Presidential candidate run on framework and ideals.
I think the angst with this is wanting to know HOW a candidate can achieve their objectives. What they SAY they want to do during a campaign is often different when those ideas are implemented.
And yes, I see this bump lasting because it gives those undecideds and previous Obama voters something to latch on to... simply put, Romney changed the "narrative" that's going to last.
That more than 75% of voters think PBS is more than 1% of the budget is probably even sadder, but less funny.
It does explain why people could sit in there living rooms listening to Romney talk about PBS in an answer to deficit reduction and not shout 'this man is a lunatic' at the television.
whembly wrote: Um... what? Florida!? Seems waaay too early to call them.
Can't resist though... As Han Solo said: "Don't get cocky kid!".
That's odd, Romney tipped ahead in polling in Florida for the first time in months this week.
Okay... I need to ask you about this...
This is strange to me... I don't remember any "explicit plans" Obama (or McCain) had in '08... nor any other presidential candidates since Clinton (don't remember past him).
Presidential candidate run on framework and ideals.
I think the angst with this is wanting to know HOW a candidate can achieve their objectives. What they SAY they want to do during a campaign is often different when those ideas are implemented.
And yes, I see this bump lasting because it gives those undecideds and previous Obama voters something to latch on to... simply put, Romney changed the "narrative" that's going to last.
McCain and Obama both released tax policies in 2008. Don't you remember the comparison emails going around, pointing out that under both tax plans people under about $200,000 would have their tax reduced, but it was way more in Obama's plan, because McCain's plan actually delivered even greater cuts to people over that, while Obama taxed them more?
Bush had a rather noted plan to cut taxes, and a stated belief per the Laffer Curve that revenue would increase despite the cuts. He followed through on it.
Presently Obama has a plan to keep the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, and phase out the tax cut on the wealthy.
I can't remember Kerry or Gore's positions, but that was eight and twelve years ago, respectively, so I'll ask for a little leniancy on that Clinton had a rather detailed series of financial reforms, most of which he managed to get through by working with the Republican controlled congress, and led to the sound budgets you guys produced in the latter 1990s.
In comparison to all that Romney has this plan where people's taxes can be dropped by 20% across the board, and it'll be paid for by cutting deductions. Unless that would impact the deficit (it would, there aren't enough deductions available to pay for a quarter of the tax cut Romney is calling for), in which Romney will... what?
All that said, I agree with you in general, that presidential campaigns are not about policy specifics, because a president can't make his preferred policy just happen, no matter how many people voted for him. But the problem is that Romney isn't just failing to put up policy specifics, he doesn't even have generalities. He's just got stuff he claims one day, to one audience, that he backs away from almost straight away.
I mean, when Obama came in in 2008 you could say with some confidence any initiative he took on tax policy would look to shifting more of the burden to the rich, and away from the middle class. What can we say about Romney's tax policy at this time, that he won't have contradicted somewhere else?
sebster wrote: Romney scores a win because his style on the night was much better than Obama's, but long term he's had to shift again on his tax policy. With no-one, especially not Romney, actually able to tell us what the guy plans to do once he's in the White House, can anyone see his bump actually lasting?
sebster wrote: Romney scores a win because his style on the night was much better than Obama's, but long term he's had to shift again on his tax policy. With no-one, especially not Romney, actually able to tell us what the guy plans to do once he's in the White House, can anyone see his bump actually lasting?
Absolutely.
Absolutely his short term bump may be countered by long term problems with policy incoherence?
I just want the moderator to have a 'mike-kill' button next time, there was too much cutting in on both sides. Moderators need to be harsher, I was watching this thing and trying to hear their answers over the other guy's cutting in, and it was just a bit of a mess.
I don't personally care for either candidate...but as an observer I find it funny how many people on this here forum made comments like.."Debates don't really matter"..."The debate won't change a thing", "Only people who are REALLY into politics pay attention" etc.etc.
And here we have a massive upswing for Romney right after the debate.
And all the Obamites can come up with is Big Bird?
generalgrog wrote: I don't personally care for either candidate...but as an observer I find it funny how many people on this here forum made comments like.."Debates don't really matter"..."The debate won't change a thing", "Only people who are REALLY into politics pay attention" etc.etc.
And here we have a massive upswing for Romney right after the debate.
And all the Obamites can come up with is Big Bird?
sheesh
GG
Well, considering how vague Romney's been on stuff it's not that strange that there's not much to counter...
motyak wrote: I just want the moderator to have a 'mike-kill' button next time, there was too much cutting in on both sides. Moderators need to be harsher, I was watching this thing and trying to hear their answers over the other guy's cutting in, and it was just a bit of a mess.
God on earth why? Only wussies need moderators. If you can't hang toe to toe with your opponent GTFO. If it was good enough for Lincoln and Douglas, its good enough for these jerkwads.
generalgrog wrote: I don't personally care for either candidate...but as an observer I find it funny how many people on this here forum made comments like.."Debates don't really matter"..."The debate won't change a thing", "Only people who are REALLY into politics pay attention" etc.etc.
And here we have a massive upswing for Romney right after the debate.
And all the Obamites can come up with is Big Bird?
He is a good orator with a teleprompter in front of him.
So, he's a good orator. Reagan was also a good orator, and Reagan also used a teleprompter.
One of the advantages that the great orators of the past had was that audio recording technology didn't exist. For example, we don't actually know what Lincoln said when he gave his "Four Score" speech, we just know how the speech was written, and how other people remembered it.
I suspect it has more to do with his natural lack of aggression. When you debate someone "civility" is only a matter of cloaking attacks in diplomatic language. To win a debate, you have to be direct.
generalgrog wrote: I don't personally care for either candidate...but as an observer I find it funny how many people on this here forum made comments like.."Debates don't really matter"..."The debate won't change a thing", "Only people who are REALLY into politics pay attention" etc.etc.
And here we have a massive upswing for Romney right after the debate.
And all the Obamites can come up with is Big Bird?
Statistically the debates don't matter. If you look at the historical relevance of debate victories and losses to election victories and losses debate performance is statistically insignificant. There's sufficient data regarding this such that its become a fact of the study of Presidential politics.
This doesn't mean that they can't have a significant effect in particular situations, but it does mean that they generally don't have a large enough one to be considered important.
Perhaps more importantly, as Sebster has already noted, Presidential debates, much like any other debate, primarily have to do with influencing people by way of rhetorical techniques. Of course, so do elections, hence the reason so many people are fond of demeaning politicians as crooks and liars. Of course, the unfortunate truth is that an effective lie will primarily turn on on understanding the ignorance of who you are lying to. This is why debate judges generally aren't given notice of the topic to be debated prior to the debate itself.
Frazzled wrote: Obama has no problem launching attacks. Outside of the debate he's been as polite as a hammer. Not sure where you're getting that.
There is a huge difference between what a Presidential campaign does, and what a Presidential candidate does. Attack ads are usually written by campaign staff or contracted consultants, and published by affiliated campaign funds. The content of the ad may be approved by the candidate, but it usually isn't. Hell, candidates have about as much say regarding their campaign as their campaign managers and other high level functionaries.
Indeed, the first rule of attack ads is to distance them from the campaign itself.
generalgrog wrote: I don't personally care for either candidate...but as an observer I find it funny how many people on this here forum made comments like.."Debates don't really matter"..."The debate won't change a thing", "Only people who are REALLY into politics pay attention" etc.etc.
And here we have a massive upswing for Romney right after the debate.
And all the Obamites can come up with is Big Bird?
Big Bird has already responded with a request to be dropped from politics. The Obama campaign is considering whether or not it will obey copyright law.
Big Bird has already responded with a request to be dropped from politics. The Obama campaign is considering whether or not it will obey copyright law.
This whole thing can very easily fall under Fair Use and the campaigns would be able to use Sesame Street as it relates to commenting on public events and news.
But despite it being perfectly legal it wouldn't look pretty.
Big Bird has already responded with a request to be dropped from politics. The Obama campaign is considering whether or not it will obey copyright law.
This whole thing can very easily fall under Fair Use and the campaigns would be able to use Sesame Street as it relates to commenting on public events and news.
But despite it being perfectly legal it wouldn't look pretty.
Evidently PBS and the Sesame Street disagree with you. Big Bird is a private, copyrighted property. Royalties and permission need to be paid and obtained.
Well you can say Romeny old school if he said Big Bird instead of that evil little SoB I needed to hunt for to cover down on Bday's and Xmas....yep that little red monster Elmoe
Big Bird has already responded with a request to be dropped from politics. The Obama campaign is considering whether or not it will obey copyright law.
This whole thing can very easily fall under Fair Use and the campaigns would be able to use Sesame Street as it relates to commenting on public events and news.
But despite it being perfectly legal it wouldn't look pretty.
Evidently PBS and the Sesame Street disagree with you. Big Bird is a private, copyrighted property. Royalties and permission need to be paid and obtained.
Don't mess with Big Bird's lawyers...
And Fair Use allows you to use private, copyrighted property without permission, as long as it falls under the covered areas. News is one of them.
If Romney talks about Big Bird, and other people want to talk about Romney talking about Big Bird, then they can use Big Bird as long as they are talking about the news.
Big Bird has already responded with a request to be dropped from politics. The Obama campaign is considering whether or not it will obey copyright law.
This whole thing can very easily fall under Fair Use and the campaigns would be able to use Sesame Street as it relates to commenting on public events and news.
But despite it being perfectly legal it wouldn't look pretty.
Evidently PBS and the Sesame Street disagree with you. Big Bird is a private, copyrighted property. Royalties and permission need to be paid and obtained.
Don't mess with Big Bird's lawyers...
And Fair Use allows you to use private, copyrighted property without permission, as long as it falls under the covered areas. News is one of them.
If Romney talks about Big Bird, and other people want to talk about Romney talking about Big Bird, then they can use Big Bird as long as they are talking about the news.
Now, I do not hold a law degree or anything, but I do believe that using something to sell your product without the copyright holders permission, is a violation of fair use. It's giving the impression that the people who "own" Big Bird endorse Obama.
It's the same reason the AARP has told Obama to stop using them like they've endorsed him.
Big Bird has already responded with a request to be dropped from politics. The Obama campaign is considering whether or not it will obey copyright law.
This whole thing can very easily fall under Fair Use and the campaigns would be able to use Sesame Street as it relates to commenting on public events and news.
But despite it being perfectly legal it wouldn't look pretty.
Evidently PBS and the Sesame Street disagree with you. Big Bird is a private, copyrighted property. Royalties and permission need to be paid and obtained.
Don't mess with Big Bird's lawyers...
And Fair Use allows you to use private, copyrighted property without permission, as long as it falls under the covered areas. News is one of them.
If Romney talks about Big Bird, and other people want to talk about Romney talking about Big Bird, then they can use Big Bird as long as they are talking about the news.
Attack ads are not news....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Talking about Romney wanting to cut Big Bird, and using Big Birds likeness to cover that news, is fair use.
That doesn't imply endorsement. Using a guy in a Big Bird costume saying "I like Obama" would be, and that wouldn't fall under fair use.
Now is it stupid of Obama to use Big Bird if they have asked him not to? Yup. But that doesn't mean he is violating copyright law.
No thats an attack ad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: None of the Sesame Street characters wear clothes except the Count (Closet Gay) and Bert and Ernie (Openly gay).
Obama is promoting nudism and "alternative life styles".
I could care less about Captain Chicken wing, but Ernie and Bert are cool.
sourclams wrote: CEO of Sesame Workshop (which owns Sesame Street) makes $650,000/year salary.
PBS gets something like 1/2 billion dollars annually of federal money.
When all of our taxes are going to materially increase in 3 months, is Big Bird really such a sacred cow that we can't question expenditures?
I don't even know why it's a political issue considering it has such a small impact on the budget.
That's the problem though. It's always such a "small impact". A small impact here, another there, eventually they add up. No one wants to go after the small things though, because those are the pet projects.
sourclams wrote: CEO of Sesame Workshop (which owns Sesame Street) makes $650,000/year salary.
PBS gets something like 1/2 billion dollars annually of federal money.
When all of our taxes are going to materially increase in 3 months, is Big Bird really such a sacred cow that we can't question expenditures?
I don't even know why it's a political issue considering it has such a small impact on the budget.
That's the problem though. It's always such a "small impact". A small impact here, another there, eventually they add up. No one wants to go after the small things though, because those are the pet projects.
I suppose so, but I think it would make more sense to cut spending on bigger things like military.
sourclams wrote: CEO of Sesame Workshop (which owns Sesame Street) makes $650,000/year salary.
PBS gets something like 1/2 billion dollars annually of federal money.
When all of our taxes are going to materially increase in 3 months, is Big Bird really such a sacred cow that we can't question expenditures?
I don't even know why it's a political issue considering it has such a small impact on the budget.
That's the problem though. It's always such a "small impact". A small impact here, another there, eventually they add up. No one wants to go after the small things though, because those are the pet projects.
I suppose so, but I think it would make more sense to cut spending on bigger things like military.
Cut them too. However, if you completely eliminated all military spending you would still have a massive deficit.
Just like for profit news like CNN and Fox News can use pictures and footage of Big Bird to talk about it, even though they are making a profit by using his picture.
Easy E wrote: To shill for Democrats so Conservatives can have another "liberal" organization to crusade against inthe name of fairness?
Obviously, I'm paraphrasing.
paraphrasing isn't the word I would use.
CPB’s mission is to facilitate the development of, and ensure universal access to, non-commercial high-quality programming and telecommunications services. It does this in conjunction with non-commercial educational telecommunications licensees across America.
The fundamental purpose of public service media is to provide programs and services that inform, enlighten, and enrich the public. CPB has particular responsibility to encourage the development of programming that involves creative risks and that addresses the needs of unserved and underserved audiences, particularly children and minorities.
sourclams wrote: CEO of Sesame Workshop (which owns Sesame Street) makes $650,000/year salary.
PBS gets something like 1/2 billion dollars annually of federal money.
When all of our taxes are going to materially increase in 3 months, is Big Bird really such a sacred cow that we can't question expenditures?
I don't even know why it's a political issue considering it has such a small impact on the budget.
That's the problem though. It's always such a "small impact". A small impact here, another there, eventually they add up. No one wants to go after the small things though, because those are the pet projects.
I suppose so, but I think it would make more sense to cut spending on bigger things like military.
The military is already eating a drastic 10% budget cut. One that our leaders across the board are saying will be damaging to our ability to defend our nation. At the same time, I still challenge anyone to show how the money spent on the DoD doesn't have massive resounding impacts on our entire economy. More so then any other dollar our government spends. Several million direct employees, untold millions of indirect employees. How many jobs does each base create in the local communities they're located in?
The US Military gives back to the economy in huge ways. Yet that is always the first thing that people scream at when it's time to make cuts.
Frazzled wrote: Close all the foreign except 2-3 strategic ones. Save that money.
Why do we now have troops in Jordan? Seriously?
To help monitor Syrian chemical weapons sites, it sounds like. I don't think that's a bad reason to be there.
I saw that too. But Why ?
Those sites are in Syria, guarded by Syrians.
Because the country is extremely unstable right now and those weapons could potentially fall into the hands of a variety of groups, and we would prefer that those groups not gain access to those kinds of weapons. Plus it's only 150 soldiers (at least officially), which isn't really that huge of a deployment in the grand scheme of things.
The military is already eating a drastic 10% budget cut. One that our leaders across the board are saying will be damaging to our ability to defend our nation.
Of course it will, that's what happens when you cut the military budget. That doesn't mean it isn't a sound decision given that you also have to question to what degree superfluous military capability is necessary given the extant threat to US security.
At the same time, I still challenge anyone to show how the money spent on the DoD doesn't have massive resounding impacts on our entire economy. More so then any other dollar our government spends. Several million direct employees, untold millions of indirect employees.
By "several million" you mean ~4 million, including the National Guard the members of which are not full time employees. If you exclude them the number falls to about 3.2 million. I would further argue that many of the remaining 3.2 million DoD employees aren't providing a useful service to the country, because they are not necessary for effective national defense. Of course, one could also argue that the military is a really effective make-work program, but I suspect lots of soldiers and conservatives would be put off by that sentiment.
With indirect employees the effect is more difficult to assess. For example, the only reason the US has anything approaching a textiles industry is the demand for military uniforms (at least if they're still made in the US). The manufacturing sector also gets a boost because of the arms industry, but outside the local business you mention below I can't think of any other major way in which the military increases demand. Maybe bulk foodstuffs?
How many jobs does each base create in the local communities they're located in?
Many, sadly those communities will likely see what happens when you base your economy around a single source of income. Maybe not now, but most certainly eventually.
Yet that is always the first thing that people scream at when it's time to make cuts.
You know that isn't true, its one of three things. The other two being Medicare/Medicaid, and Social Security. This is likely because those are the three largest segments of the budget.
Either way, if you want to balance the budget without raising taxes (or at least minimizing the amount they are raised by) then the military will need to incur budget cuts, that's simply the political reality of the situation.
To help monitor Syrian chemical weapons sites, it sounds like. I don't think that's a bad reason to be there.
They also train PLA and Iraqi security forces in Jordan.
Frazzled wrote: Close all the foreign except 2-3 strategic ones. Save that money.
Unless you also intend to significantly downsize the number of active duty personnel, place a good deal of existing hardware into storage, and reduce procurement you're talking about the construction of several new bases in the US; and a massive decrease in defense readiness.
Of course, if you do intend to do those things you're talking about incurring the job losses many conservatives seem to be adamantly against.
Frazzled wrote:
Close all the foreign except 2-3 strategic ones. Save that money.
Unless you also intend to significantly downsize the number of active duty personnel, place a good deal of existing hardware into storage, and reduce procurement you're talking about the construction of several new bases in the US; and a massive decrease in defense readiness.
Nope
1. We have plenty of US bases. We can recoppy abandoned ones if need be.
2. Defense readiness, no. Offense readiness yes.
3. I'm ok with reducing the active duty personnel.
Its not like this is not going to happen. Either we can manage it properly or just have it collapse.
To quote the immortal bard: the center cannot hold.
How many jobs does each base create in the local communities they're located in?
Many, sadly those communities will likely see what happens when you base your economy around a single source of income. Maybe not now, but most certainly eventually.
It's all about bootstraps these days. Or so I'm told.
The entire point to the automatic spending cuts trigger that they put in place during the summer was to create a spending cut so draconian that both sides would be forced to meet in the middle and actually figure out a way to get the US balance sheet more balanced.
It's a reflection of how dire the situation can potentially become that policymakers felt it necessary to put that sort of 'big red button' into place.
If left to trigger, we could be looking at 2% econonomic constriction; joblessness spikes, Recession Part Deux.
sourclams wrote: The entire point to the automatic spending cuts trigger that they put in place during the summer was to create a spending cut so draconian that both sides would be forced to meet in the middle and actually figure out a way to get the US balance sheet more balanced.
It's a reflection of how dire the situation can potentially become that policymakers felt it necessary to put that sort of 'big red button' into place.
If left to trigger, we could be looking at 2% econonomic constriction; joblessness spikes, Recession Part Deux.
We never really came out of the recession.
Again, even this doesn't balance the budget. If you want to balance the budget you have to make your revenues and expenses match.
You know, if Congress acts, they can undo what has been done by previous inaction with the Debt Commission.
Also, there is a good chance that Congress doesn;t really care about balancing the Budget after the elections, and will instead revoke/change/remove the issue of the Fiscal Cliff one way or the other. It is not exactly a Fait Accompli yet.
No, we did come out of recession. Recession ends with economic growth; that occurred in 2010.
Since then we've more or less staggered sideways in spite of a whole lot of stimulus. That's the problem, we're reaching a point where stimulus will implicitly end; taxes are increasing and subsidies are declining. That means our 'real' economic comfort is going to drop.
sourclams wrote: No, we did come out of recession. Recession ends with economic growth; that occurred in 2010.
Since then we've more or less staggered sideways in spite of a whole lot of stimulus. That's the problem, we're reaching a point where stimulus will implicitly end; taxes are increasing and subsidies are declining. That means our 'real' economic comfort is going to drop.
Lateral movement is not growth. 1% is not growth. We're still in it.
Make it simple. Take a shot if either candidate says "Umm". Take a drink if either candidate says "and...and". Take a shot if either candidate makes a comment thats worth a good laugh.
So Democrats are not allowed to talk about "Bush did this when he was in power" because it was so long ago, but Republicans can talk about "Democrats did this when they had control"?
d-usa wrote: So Democrats are not allowed to talk about "Bush did this when he was in power" because it was so long ago, but Republicans can talk about "Democrats did this when they had control"?
The "they will take $X from Medicare to pay for Obamacare, they are robbing Medicare" statement that has been proven to be wrong for quite a while now, and is the same number that Ryan uses in his budget.
d-usa wrote: The "they will take $X from Medicare to pay for Obamacare, they are robbing Medicare" statement that has been proven to be wrong for quite a while now, and is the same number that Ryan uses in his budget.
Ah...
Semantics...
Money got shifted...
Problem is, the Medicare benefits to seniors don't change, but the reimbursements to providers will have to change.
...
When it comes to comparing Obamacare to the Ryan plans, Ezra is right. I’ve long argued the same thing: that the way to understand the difference between Ryancare and Obamacare is not in the scale of the cuts to Medicare, which are roughly similar, but in the competing mechanisms used in reform.
...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh... still really buzzed... but...
I'm not really paying attention, but from what I can tell, a Confused Old Man is screaming at Ryan to GET OFF MY LAWN!!!
d-usa wrote: Which is what both plans are doing, but Romney/Ryan are making it sound like a bad thing even though their plan is doing the same.
That's RYAN's plan... not, ROMNEY's plan.
The Ryan plan is the Romney plan, except for the parts that they don't agree with, which neither of them is able to say what they are, because they have not talked about it.
Biden's looking good actually, he's not slipped up or gaffed and has slapped Ryan down on some issues. Ryan appears cheesy, he reminds me of the evil frat kid from every 80s teen movie. His 'wrinkle head puppy look' into the camera would only be completed if he was wringing his hands, wearing a pastel sweater and starting the sentences with 'But Dean!'...
The polls are calling it somewhere between a modest Biden win and a draw, which from what I heard of it this morning sounds about right. Ryan turned up with his own special facts from his own special Republican Land, and Biden took him up on them, but didn't quite nail it. I like Biden, but even when he isn't gaffing he isn't that quick to phrase his arguments.
generalgrog wrote: I don't personally care for either candidate...but as an observer I find it funny how many people on this here forum made comments like.."Debates don't really matter"..."The debate won't change a thing", "Only people who are REALLY into politics pay attention" etc.etc.
And here we have a massive upswing for Romney right after the debate.
Historically, few debates have had meaningfully impacted polling. When they have, they've rarely had a lasting impact, being more like the convention bump and pushing numbers up for a short time before they return to where they were previously.
Time will tell if Romney gets a lasting impact out of the first debate. It's way too early to call that, when we've not even seen a second debate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sourclams wrote: CEO of Sesame Workshop (which owns Sesame Street) makes $650,000/year salary.
PBS gets something like 1/2 billion dollars annually of federal money.
When all of our taxes are going to materially increase in 3 months, is Big Bird really such a sacred cow that we can't question expenditures?
No, it's a stupid cow. When you have $3.6 billion in expenditure, and you want to talk about how to cut that and you start talking about $450 million, then you're trying to address the issue by talking about 0.01% of the budget.
I mean, if my partner came to me and said 'our household expenditure of $1,000 a month is far too high, we need to make cutbacks' and I started talking about my wife spending an average of 10c a month on cotton wipes, she'd laugh me out of the house. And she'd be right to, because you don't address spending issues by fussing over something that takes up .01% of the budget.
And yet Romney thinks talking about $450 million in PBS is meaningful. And Democrats respond by pretending he doesn't like Big Bird.
The real issue here is that Romney has said nothing substantial on the deficit. He dances around the issue by taking Ryan as VP, but then backs off from his proposal. And when it comes to balancing the budget, he says he'll do it, but doesn't outline anything that'll substantially get there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sourclams wrote: The fiscal cliff issue is very real and spending is going to be cut while taxation will be increased. This is going to happen.
Well, the fiscal cliff itself isn't a thing. There's no point that you can suddenly lurch over and find yourself plumetting. It's more a fiscal steep hill, where every point down makes it harder to turn around, and you've been on that steep hill since the Reagan tax cuts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sourclams wrote: The entire point to the automatic spending cuts trigger that they put in place during the summer was to create a spending cut so draconian that both sides would be forced to meet in the middle and actually figure out a way to get the US balance sheet more balanced.
It's a reflection of how dire the situation can potentially become that policymakers felt it necessary to put that sort of 'big red button' into place.
If left to trigger, we could be looking at 2% econonomic constriction; joblessness spikes, Recession Part Deux.
I think the issue is that cut needs to happen, but they need to be steady, measured change. Drastic cutrs and immediate pull back in spending might cause a system shock in an economy that's already teetering, and move to double dip.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Lateral movement is not growth. 1% is not growth. We're still in it.
It is growth. Increase in GDP is growth, and when there's growth then you are not in recession.
I get your point that the growth in the US is basically just keeping up with population growth, but you don't make that point by making up your own meanings for words.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ryan said to Biden: Sometimes the words don't come out of YOUR MOUTH the right way (after BIden's 47% statement)
Why did that get such a big laugh? It was so obviously the pre-packaged line Ryan was gonna use when Biden mentioned Romney's 47%. And is anyone actually pretending Romney just accidentally said 47% will vote Democrat because of the welfare state?
Problem is, the Medicare benefits to seniors don't change, but the reimbursements to providers will have to change.
It isn't semantics. The money isn't cutting services, it's realising that government is overpaying for some stuff, and planning on paying less for it in future. It's a solid idea, and such a solid idea that Ryan included the same savings in his own budget.
And yet he and Romney keep pretending that the 716 billion is a cut. Well if it's a cut he's making it too according to his own budget.
No, it's a stupid cow. When you have $3.6 billion in expenditure, and you want to talk about how to cut that and you start talking about $450 million, then you're trying to address the issue by talking about 0.01% of the budget.
I mean, if my partner came to me and said 'our household expenditure of $1,000 a month is far too high, we need to make cutbacks' and I started talking about my wife spending an average of 10c a month on cotton wipes, she'd laugh me out of the house. And she'd be right to, because you don't address spending issues by fussing over something that takes up .01% of the budget.
Not one something, no. But if you cut back on those cotton wipes, nix the $20 a week in Starbucks, start clipping coupons, start paying attention to those small ways to save energy and cut down on the electric bill, etc., you can reduce that expenditure.
Or you can sell your car. Most people will try to get a variety of little savings that mean nothing by themselves but add up working for them rather than just axing the biggest-ticket item they have.
We could cut all discretionary spending (including Foreign Aid and Public Broadcasting) and guess what, we still would not make a dent in the Debt. Therefore, this whole PBS talking point is ridiculous talk.
I know a lot of righties think PBS and Foriegn Aid take up huge swathes of the Federal budget, but it just isn't true. Sorry.
Easy E wrote: We could cut all discretionary spending (including Foreign Aid and Public Broadcasting) and guess what, we still would not make a dent in the Debt. Therefore, this whole PBS talking point is ridiculous talk.
I know a lot of righties think PBS and Foriegn Aid take up huge swathes of the Federal budget, but it just isn't true. Sorry.
Not at all. IN the great game of the budget EVERYTHING is discretionary. Everything needs to be cut.
When I watched the VP debates, this phrase came to mind
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill.
Biden constantly spoke during Ryan's turn. Biden would look at the camera and speak directly to the American viewers.
Biden was being aggressive and Ryan let him.
Thinking about it more, I think that phrase can also be applied to the Romney/Obama debate as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: We could cut all discretionary spending (including Foreign Aid and Public Broadcasting) and guess what, we still would not make a dent in the Debt. Therefore, this whole PBS talking point is ridiculous talk.
Americans have a few problems when it comes to spending. Both Republicans and Democrats are being so damn partisan right now they wont agree to any of these changes.
First, we have historically low tax rates. If were going to balance the budget, we need to all pay more in taxes. I know its an unpopular thing to say, but its true. You can't balance the budget without income.
Secondly, we need to cut down on our military. We spend more on our military than the rest of would does combined. During the arms race in the 80s, it was understandable -- but today we have no great threats. China is not going to go to war on us because we would stop buying their crap. Aircraft carriers don't stop terrorists, homeland security does. We could cut our military by 50% and still have the greatest military in the world.
Third, Social Security is poorly designed for the modern era. Currently its a ponzi scheme where money from Bob is used to give grandma her check, then excess funds are spent on treasury bills. Instead it should work more like a 401k where initally your investments would be in stocks, and as you got older moved to T-Bills. This would prevent a market collapse wiping out all of "grandmas" savings.
The problem is "how can you still pay grandma while changing Bob's money to a real investment?"
We need to address Medicare/Medicaid and our healthcare costs as a whole. We pay more for healthcare than any other industralized area as a percentage of GPD, yet we don't have better health. We need to investigate this and lower the cost. Lowering health care costs will lower the amount we need to pay for Medicare/Medicaid.
Finally, we need to invest into our future. In a more competitive global economy we need to invest into education and research. College costs are making it prohibitive for average Americans to attend. We have cut funding into research projects like NASA. We need to shift the direction and push forward. Yes, this includes things like Sesame Street. Education should be our #1 priority to ensure Americans can compete in today's global economy.
All that matters is the Electoral College. That hasn't changed much, except Florida has gotten a LOT tighter to call. However, Romeny will still have an uphill battle to 270 even if he wins Florida.
That being said, he is going ot have to completely clean the President's clock in the next two debates to continue his momentum. That could change things dramatically enough, maybe. Romney just drawing the next two debates won't be enough for him, but it is enough for the President.
Or there could be some sort of late October surprise such as foriegn crisis, economic collapse, etc.
Clinton had a rather detailed series of financial reforms, most of which he managed to get through by working with the Republican controlled congress, and led to the sound budgets you guys produced in the latter 1990s.
