Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Seaward wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
That happened well after the narrative had been constructed and put into use. Though it certainly helped them.

Well, let's be honest: it's not as though it's a narrative without merit, at least if we speak broadly about Democrats in general. They generally tend to be more favorable towards crap like the Assault Weapons Ban than Republicans.

Sure, no argument there.

But it was never a serious priority of Obama's, and they still made it into some kind apocalyptic issue which led to those runs on ammo and some guns that we experienced.

Given Obama's record as compared to the strident accusations and apocalyptic prophecies leveled at him, you have to wonder what's really underlying the narrative.

I think this before the recent embassy attackes... but Romney is leading in swing states:
http://race42012.com/2012/09/16/poll-watch-rasmussen-daily-swing-state-tracking-poll-3/
It'll be interesting what the impact would be...

Its a beat stick on Obama. It was really heated due to the UN Charter recently concerning about personnel own weapons. We all knew before it even hit the paperwork that it wasn't going to go through if the "treaty" was signed since it have to pass through the Senate. Obama didn't really say much at all about it and most of the talk was reps from the admin. Since he didn't make no comment on the treaty then he condone the treaty so people were all over it. Personaly I'm sure Obama be so "hands" off that treaty because its literally now a IED for either side

 whembly wrote:
I think this before the recent embassy attackes... but Romney is leading in swing states:
http://race42012.com/2012/09/16/poll-watch-rasmussen-daily-swing-state-tracking-poll-3/
It'll be interesting what the impact would be...

To be fair though, when does a Democratic candidate ever have the lead according to Rasmussen?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I think this before the recent embassy attackes... but Romney is leading in swing states:
http://race42012.com/2012/09/16/poll-watch-rasmussen-daily-swing-state-tracking-poll-3/
It'll be interesting what the impact would be...

To be fair though, when does a Democratic candidate ever have the lead according to Rasmussen?

Quite a lot actually...

I fully expect by Monday or Tuesday, Obama would be much higher... usually with these altercations, Americans rally around their President.

 Seaward wrote:

I'd consider Fox a prominent right-wing source, personally. Hotair is also a fairly popular conservative site.

Are you arguing just for the sake of argument, or do you really believe right-wing conservatives are comfortable with Obama's stance on gun control?

No, I believe that its not an issue at all. It isn't being seriously discussed by any politicians, or used against Obama in any meaningful way.

The only major organization that is leveraging gun politics, and particularly Obama's gun politics, is the NRA who are basically trying to justify their existence.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
To be fair though, when does a Democratic candidate ever have the lead according to Rasmussen?

Never, really. Rasmussen is not an unbiased polling station.

Anyone who gets their polling information from Rasmussen should feel ashamed and unclean, as they're basically lying to themselves. It's like trying to get information on Israel from early Al-Jazeera.

 Melissia wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
To be fair though, when does a Democratic candidate ever have the lead according to Rasmussen?

Never, really. Rasmussen is not an unbiased polling station.

Anyone who gets their polling information from Rasmussen should feel ashamed and unclean, as they're basically lying to themselves. It's like trying to get information on Israel from Al-Jazeera.

Ummm what?

In 2008, Rasmussen's last poll predicted 52% Obama/46% McCain.

Gallup predicted 55% Obama/44% McCain.

Some other final poll numbers were:

IBD/TIPP - 52% Obama/44% McCain
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby - 54% Obama/43% McCain
Marist - 52% Obama/43% McCain
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl - 51% Obama/43% McCain
Pew Research - 52% Obama/46% McCain
Ipsos/McClatchy - 53% Obama/46% McCain
ABC News/Wash Post - 53% Obama/44% McCain

The election results were

52.9% Obama/45.7% McCain

Rasmussen's 2010 undercounted the (R) takeover of the House...

None of the polls are 100% accurate, but Razzie is pretty close.

IIRC Rasmussen normally trends R prior to the election, and Gallup D, and they both converge closer to the actual numbers the closer you get to the actual date.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/sept-15-waiting-on-wisconsin/

At the very least, Mr. Obama’s lead in the national polls no longer seems to be growing. If he gained additional ground following the attacks on Americans in Benghazi, Libya — or from Mitt Romney’s response to it — there has been no sign of it in the most recent national tracking surveys.

Instead, the question is to what extent, if any, Mr. Obama’s lead has declined. The Gallup national tracking poll now shows him ahead of Mr. Romney by four points — down from a peak of seven. And there has been a clearer reversal in the Rasmussen Reports tracking poll, which has now reverted to showing a two-point lead for Mr. Romney.

Two online tracking polls do not show any signs of decline for Mr. Obama, however. In the American Life Panel survey conducted by the RAND Corporation, Mr. Obama had a smaller bounce than in some other polls — but it has held steady over the past week, as he has continued to hold roughly a three-point lead among likely voters. The RAND poll differs from others in that it uses a panel of the same 3,500 respondents who are asked their opinions about the presidential race continually throughout the contest; it is therefore subject to less statistical noise than other surveys.

Mr. Obama also enjoyed his widest lead to date, seven points, in the last version of the Ipsos online tracking poll, which was published on Thursday — although the poll has not been updated over the past two days.

There’s also been a large volume of state polling to sort through. Our view is that the consensus of the evidence from these surveys has shown pretty good numbers for Mr. Obama — but not great ones — and tends to provide the most support for the hypothesis that Mr. Obama holds a lead in the national race of just under four percentage points right now.

I still think Obama's polling is going to jump up....

No, it's not. Rasmussen is on average less accurate than other polls, often underestimating support for democrats.

This occurs, for example, in a recent September poll, where Rasmussen showed Obama's lead dropping by several points, while Gallup and several others showed him increasing his lead.

And in Wisconsin, it lists Romney as having a two point lead over Obama, but aggregate polls show the opposite is true-- that Obama leads by about three percentage points. this is fairly normal for Rasmussen.

Something going to happen in about 21 days in points probaly. If the ME doesn't calm down within a week, teacher strike in Chicago doesn't end soon, another job reports, and another another jobless claim report to go. Either be a lead or another neck to neck

 Mannahnin wrote:
IIRC Rasmussen normally trends R prior to the election, and Gallup D, and they both converge closer to the actual numbers the closer you get to the actual date.

Rasmussen tends to produce results that diverge widely from other polling groups, which is almost certainly an issue with the metric they use for determining likely voters.

There's also an issue regarding public perception of polling agencies that hasn't been explored in great detail. That is, voters who lean in a particular direction may be more likely to respond to polls taken by agencies they perceive as sympathetic thereby distorting the sample.

 Jihadin wrote:
Something going to happen in about 21 days in points probaly. If the ME doesn't calm down within a week, teacher strike in Chicago doesn't end soon, another job reports, and another another jobless claim report to go. Either be a lead or another neck to neck

Or more gaffes and stupidity from Romney on the national stage.

Romney and his campaign haven't made themselves look particularly competent after all, and people are starting to notice more and more.

 Seaward wrote:
Not quite. Nobody wanted to hit the debt ceiling. Many people did not want to just tack another extension on to the national credit card.

That's just wrong. In the wake of the debt ceiling crisis Republican Leader McConnell described his own party - "I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting."

Republicans recognise that many within their own ranks were happy to hit the debt ceiling.

We are, without question, going to hit a point where we simply cannot pay back all that we owe if we do not actually curb the rise of the debt level. Why that's such a hostile concept is beyond me, frankly.

It isn't a hostile concept. It's an issue that demands serious mid and long term solutions. The issue is that Republicans have waited until the boat is sinking before they decided people should stop spending money, and therefore they won't support anyone bailing any water out.

The reality of the issue is quite simple. The country isn't in an absolutely right now cannot have any more debt position. So calls to stop amounts of minor spending on things Republicans don't like has nothing to do with solving the deficit issue, and everything to do with Republican pushing forward the same policies they always push forward.

That's what people are hostile to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Democrats gone to crazy pants too...

There simply is not anyone like Michelle Bachman holding any kind of real power in the ranks of elected Democrats.

At least the Republican passed Budget bills that Harry Reid won't floor...

You keep claiming the Republican bill was anything more than an empty political gesture. I keep explaining how it actually worked. fething stop it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
It's certainly possible. If the 'pubs pick up both the White House and the Senate, as is very much within the realm of possibility, there won't be much to stop them from doing their version of saving us all, save for lack of backbone.

Ah, no. That's not how US politics works. That's not how it's ever worked, and for a guy claiming he's dumbing things down for other people, I can't help but giggle a little at how crude your political prediction above is.

The Republicans held all three houses as recently as 2006. Democrats have controlled all three houses, even with a super-majority, from 2008 to 2010.

And yet neither party just solved the debt crisis their way. Because each of those members still wants to keep their seat, and each has different priorities that'll make that likely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Um...what?

Divided government typically encourages more compromise... When both Congress and WH is controled by one party... they generally have carte blanche over the government and the extreme elements of said party get's their wishlist in motion. In a divided government, the extremists are generally marginalize.

No, that's not true.

Where a party has a strong base of control, that power will tend to be focussed around the centre. That means they don't need to reach out to the fringes to win more votes, they can govern entirely from the centre. Think of New Labour in England as an example.

On the other hand, when the centre of politics is bitterly contested then a party will look to gain advantage by winning support from the fringes of politics. Consider all those proportional representative governments in Europe where no major party wins much of the vote, and they end up forming those screwball coalitions that include Communist parties or ultra-conservative Christian groups.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 youbedead wrote:
It's true though, historically the American people prefer split ticket voting and divided gov.

There is a tendency for people to vote against the President's party in the mid-term elections. But I don't know if its clear if there are people actively looking to check the power of the president, or if its just easier to get your base fired up when the other side controls the presidency.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
I think this before the recent embassy attackes... but Romney is leading in swing states:
http://race42012.com/2012/09/16/poll-watch-rasmussen-daily-swing-state-tracking-poll-3/
It'll be interesting what the impact would be...

Rasmussen is showing a strong right wing bias in their polls this electoral run. Other polls are showing nothing like that, and in fact are showing Obama with a strong lead in swing states, most importantly Ohio.

If you want a really solid, in depth look at consolidating all the polls, and adding in other information such as economic indicators head to this site;
fivethirtyeight.com


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Anyone who gets their polling information from Rasmussen should feel ashamed and unclean, as they're basically lying to themselves. It's like trying to get information on Israel from early Al-Jazeera.

That's a bit harsh. Rasmussen isn't dodgy, it's just that the way they conduct their polls produced a systemic right wing lean to Republicans of a couple of points (if memory serves correct they only phone poll, and only to landlines, thereby removing a lot of youth votes from their results).

They can be used, it's just that their systemic lean to the right needs to be accounted for, just as with the polls that tend to lean left.

 sebster wrote:

Ah, no. That's not how US politics works.

Yes, it is. If one party holds the House, Senate, and White House, they can write whatever legislation they want, with only the prospect of it being found unconstitutional or being filibustered to stop them.

That's not how it's ever worked, and for a guy claiming he's dumbing things down for other people, I can't help but giggle a little at how crude your political prediction above is.

It wasn't a prediction. I don't think they'll get it all.

The Republicans held all three houses as recently as 2006. Democrats have controlled all three houses, even with a super-majority, from 2008 to 2010.

And yet neither party just solved the debt crisis their way. Because each of those members still wants to keep their seat, and each has different priorities that'll make that likely.

Hence why I did not say, "If the Republicans held all three, the debt crisis would be instantly solved," but instead said that they could solve it under such circumstances if they had the backbone to do so. Is this just a reading comprehension issue?

Try to keep it friendly, please.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Democrats gone to crazy pants too...

There simply is not anyone like Michelle Bachman holding any kind of real power in the ranks of elected Democrats.

Uh... Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid... methinks your politics is fighting through...

At least the Republican passed Budget bills that Harry Reid won't floor...

You keep claiming the Republican bill was anything more than an empty political gesture. I keep explaining how it actually worked. fething stop it.

Looks at my flag.. looks are your flag...

What makes you think you know MORE than me?

I know how it works.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Um...what?

Divided government typically encourages more compromise... When both Congress and WH is controled by one party... they generally have carte blanche over the government and the extreme elements of said party get's their wishlist in motion. In a divided government, the extremists are generally marginalize.

No, that's not true.

Where a party has a strong base of control, that power will tend to be focussed around the centre. That means they don't need to reach out to the fringes to win more votes, they can govern entirely from the centre. Think of New Labour in England as an example.

On the other hand, when the centre of politics is bitterly contested then a party will look to gain advantage by winning support from the fringes of politics. Consider all those proportional representative governments in Europe where no major party wins much of the vote, and they end up forming those screwball coalitions that include Communist parties or ultra-conservative Christian groups.

And here I think your knowledge of how the Parlimentary system works in Australia/Europe is mixing in how you think US politics works...

That's actually the opposite here... in divided government, both parties typically move to the center in order to get stuff done (called compromise). When one party controls WH/Congress... that's when big things happen (for good or bad). The Clinton tenure is a perfect example of parties moving to the center when Rep retook the house.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 youbedead wrote:
It's true though, historically the American people prefer split ticket voting and divided gov.

There is a tendency for people to vote against the President's party in the mid-term elections. But I don't know if its clear if there are people actively looking to check the power of the president, or if its just easier to get your base fired up when the other side controls the presidency.

I know a lot of folks who will generally vote for the challenger, simply to ensure that there is a divided government.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
I think this before the recent embassy attackes... but Romney is leading in swing states:
http://race42012.com/2012/09/16/poll-watch-rasmussen-daily-swing-state-tracking-poll-3/
It'll be interesting what the impact would be...

Rasmussen is showing a strong right wing bias in their polls this electoral run. Other polls are showing nothing like that, and in fact are showing Obama with a strong lead in swing states, most importantly Ohio.

If you want a really solid, in depth look at consolidating all the polls, and adding in other information such as economic indicators head to this site;
fivethirtyeight.com

Right... and look at their methodology... they're expecting the same D/R/I splits this year as in 2008.. that's why its skewed. They should be using the 2010 splits at least....

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Anyone who gets their polling information from Rasmussen should feel ashamed and unclean, as they're basically lying to themselves. It's like trying to get information on Israel from early Al-Jazeera.

That's a bit harsh. Rasmussen isn't dodgy, it's just that the way they conduct their polls produced a systemic right wing lean to Republicans of a couple of points (if memory serves correct they only phone poll, and only to landlines, thereby removing a lot of youth votes from their results).

They can be used, it's just that their systemic lean to the right needs to be accounted for, just as with the polls that tend to lean left.

Statistically speaking a foreigner is generally more knowledgeable about american politics then the average american

 Seaward wrote:
Yes, it is. If one party holds the House, Senate, and White House, they can write whatever legislation they want, with only the prospect of it being found unconstitutional or being filibustered to stop them.

As I already pointed out, the Republicans held the house, senate and presidency from 2000 to 2006. And yet in that time they didn't just write whatever legislation they wanted, because they are still a collection of individuals with their own priorities.

And the Democrats then held the house, a veto proof majority in the senate and the presidency from 2008 to 2010, and yet in that time they didn't just write whatever legislation they wanted, because they are still a collection of individual with their own priorities.

Political parties are not hive minds able to act with one will. Once you understand this you will understand why your political theories aren't very useful.

Hence why I did not say, "If the Republicans held all three, the debt crisis would be instantly solved," but instead said that they could solve it under such circumstances if they had the backbone to do so. Is this just a reading comprehension issue?

Don't try the smart arse stuff. Either know stuff, or be willing to learn. Otherwise your time on this board, or any other board for that matter, will just be a waste of time.

 sebster wrote:
And the Democrats then held the house, a veto proof majority in the senate and the presidency from 2008 to 2010, and yet in that time they didn't just write whatever legislation they wanted, because they are still a collection of individual with their own priorities.

When was the ACA passed, again?

Political parties are not hive minds able to act with one will. Once you understand this you will understand why your political theories aren't very useful.

I don't recall ever suggesting political parties were hive minds that acted with one will. I am attempting to educate you regarding the political process in the United States. When one party holds the House, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and the White House, the opposition party is functionally incapable of preventing them from passing the legislation they want to pass.

Don't try the smart arse stuff. Either know stuff, or be willing to learn. Otherwise your time on this board, or any other board for that matter, will just be a waste of time.

I know perfectly well how Congress functions and legislation is passed. I'm doing my best to pass on that knowledge, but you seem unwilling to listen. If you wish to continue insisting that a White House, House of Representatives, and Senate controlled by one party or the other could not pass legislation without the other side being capable of blocking it - provided the Senate majority was filibuster-proof - I cannot stop you, but I can continue to tell you that you are incorrect.

 whembly wrote:
Uh... Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid... methinks your politics is fighting through...

No, that's just not a sensible claim. You might not like Pelosi or Reid, but it just doesn't match reality to claim they're anything like as extreme as Bachman.

Do you know who Bachman is?

Looks at my flag.. looks are your flag...

What makes you think you know MORE than me?

I know how it works.

To be perfectly honest, what makes me think I know more than you about US politics is our conversations here on dakka. I correct you constantly, because you keep posting the standard Republican claims on various isses. The classic example of which is the 'Republicans voted for a budget, Democrats didn't vote for a budget' line.

As I've already explained, putting up a fantasy budget that you know the other side will simply not accept is not constructive politics. It's political grandstanding. The Democrats could have put up a bill that kept every piece of social spending, and balanced the budget by halving military spending and cranking up taxes on the mega-rich to 80%, and it would have been just as constructive.

So you can please stop pretending that 'Republicans have posted a budget and Democrats haven't' is anything more than political grandstanding?

And here I think your knowledge of how the Parlimentary system works in Australia/Europe is mixing in how you think US politics works...

People don't stop being people because they start to live in the USA. Political realities continue to be the same.

That's actually the opposite here... in divided government, both parties typically move to the center in order to get stuff done (called compromise). When one party controls WH/Congress... that's when big things happen (for good or bad). The Clinton tenure is a perfect example of parties moving to the center when Rep retook the house.

It's a huge mistake to confuse the actions of one politician, noted for his centrist values, with the actions of political parties as a whole.

Instead look at how the Democrats and the Republicans have looked to secure their own power bases in the last congressional cycle. See how they've attempted to secure advantage by appealing to fringe elements, like the Democrats making noted outreaches to the gay community? That's because when politics is close fought parties will attempt to expand their bases.

I know a lot of folks who will generally vote for the challenger, simply to ensure that there is a divided government.

There is a lot of talk of that. But from the evidence I've seen it's pretty debatable whether it actually happens on a meaningful scale. Instead what does change consistantly is turnout - you get a noted drop from demographic groups that are typically in support of the President's party, while the demographics that support the President typically hold firm or decline less.

Right... and look at their methodology... they're expecting the same D/R/I splits this year as in 2008.. that's why its skewed. They should be using the 2010 splits at least....

First up - they aren't expecting DRI splits. They compile surveys, including ones that have already undergone likely voter adjustments. Where a survey doesn't account for likely voters, it is adjusted for such by regression analysis with other polls already given.

Second up, claiming Rasmussen should be focused in on, while fivethirtyeight should be ignored is a pretty odd stance when your argument for Rasmussen used the accuracy of their 2008 final poll. fivethirtyeight successfully predicted the way every single state would go in 2008.

Rasmussen was reasonably close with their last poll. fivethirtyeight got it exactly right.

There is some truth to this...

At the end of the day Razzie was very close to the actual turn out (see 2008). He actually underestimated the Republican victories in the house in 2010...

It's September... waaaaaaaay to soon to really pay attention to the polls... it's crapshoot now. We haven't had any Debates either.

fivethirtyeight predicted all but two of the senate seats in 2010 (both of which predicted Republican wins and instead were won by Democrats), and was only off on the number of seats won in the House by 8 (and the site was very open about how difficult predictions are for the House, with less than 25% of districts getting polled before election day). The site's record is seriously impressive.

More to the point, how are you now claiming it's a little early to pay attention to the polls. You brought this up by raising Rasmussen in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
When was the ACA passed, again?

That's right. Two years of unlimited control of the legislative process, and the end result is one major bill that just gets over the line.

Which basically is about the best evidence you could get for the point I'm trying to explain - that when a party gains complete control that doesn't translate to a series of sweeping reforms. Instead each elected official continues to advance his own agenda. In that Democrats in general tend towards certain political beliefs, and Republican in general tend towards certain political beliefs, increased control of congress and the presidency means a tendency towards certain kinds of reforms, but nothing more than that.

The idea that a Democrat or Republican would never cross the floor to oppose legislation proposed by their own party is frankly laughable.

I don't recall ever suggesting political parties were hive minds that acted with one will.

No, but your political claim assumed it. And I am pointing out that once you realise it isn't true, your ideas about politics stop being plausible.

I am attempting to educate you regarding the political process in the United States. When one party holds the House, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and the White House, the opposition party is functionally incapable of preventing them from passing the legislation they want to pass.

But the party isn't a single mind. A majority government is 240 to 250 people in the House of Representatives. It's 51 (or 60 to be veto-proof) senators. And a president. Each has their own political values, with more than few having their political fortunes tied to specific state issues.

And getting legislation passed means producing something that's more or less agreeable to each of them.

I mean... did you pay any attention at all during the creation of ACA?

I know perfectly well how Congress functions and legislation is passed. I'm doing my best to pass on that knowledge, but you seem unwilling to listen. If you wish to continue insisting that a White House, House of Representatives, and Senate controlled by one party or the other could not pass legislation without the other side being capable of blocking it - provided the Senate majority was filibuster-proof - I cannot stop you, but I can continue to tell you that you are incorrect.

Is the problem here that you just aren't bothering to read my posts? Because at no point did I say the problem had anything to do with the opposition.

The problem with your theory is that a party doesn't act in perfect unison. If the Republicans were to achieve total victory in the upcoming election, then your theory of 'they can do whatever they want' would involve the assumption that Jim DeMint and Susan Collins had the exact same legislative ambitions. Which is just fething wrong.

 Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
And the Democrats then held the house, a veto proof majority in the senate and the presidency from 2008 to 2010, and yet in that time they didn't just write whatever legislation they wanted, because they are still a collection of individual with their own priorities.

When was the ACA passed, again?

Are you pulling my leg? If the ACA was an example of what you've suggested, it would have passed about a year earlier, and have included a public option. Instead they spent a year compromising it to appeal to right-leaning Dems and to try to get bipartisan support.

 Mannahnin wrote:

Are you pulling my leg? If the ACA was an example of what you've suggested, it would have passed about a year earlier, and have included a public option. Instead they spent a year compromising it to appeal to right-leaning Dems and to try to get bipartisan support.

Because they wanted bipartisan support, and they needed it to get through the Senate, where they did not have a filibuster-proof majority. Not the scenario I'm talking about. It was a gak bill, nobody's first choice, and they wanted cover for it in the mid-terms and the general.

Question: do you agree with the statement that with control of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, control of the House, and control of the White House, a party can pass the legislation it chooses without the opposition being able to stop it? That's the point of contention.

Bring back the old Filibuster. Not this "I filibuster, now let's go have tea" bs. Make those fethers stand up there and actually fill that goddam time like they used to. I want to see the Honored Representative from Ohio standing up there for 10 hours reading Twilight or 1990s Jerry Springer Show Transcripts.

 kronk wrote:
Bring back the old Filibuster. Not this "I filibuster, now let's go have tea" bs. Make those fethers stand up there and actually fill that goddam time like they used to. I want to see the Honored Representative from Ohio standing up there for 10 hours reading Twilight or 1990s Jerry Springer Show Transcripts.

Damn straight.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Uh... Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid... methinks your politics is fighting through...

No, that's just not a sensible claim. You might not like Pelosi or Reid, but it just doesn't match reality to claim they're anything like as extreme as Bachman.

Do you know who Bachman is?

Yes, I know who Bachman is... it's telling to me that you don't think Pelosi or Reid has the same sort of issues...

Mrs Pelosi "we'll have to pass the bill in order to read it"...

Mr. Reid "I'm not going to work with the House, cause its to my best interest to keep the status quo"...

Looks at my flag.. looks are your flag...

What makes you think you know MORE than me?

I know how it works.

To be perfectly honest, what makes me think I know more than you about US politics is our conversations here on dakka. I correct you constantly, because you keep posting the standard Republican claims on various isses. The classic example of which is the 'Republicans voted for a budget, Democrats didn't vote for a budget' line.

As I've already explained, putting up a fantasy budget that you know the other side will simply not accept is not constructive politics. It's political grandstanding. The Democrats could have put up a bill that kept every piece of social spending, and balanced the budget by halving military spending and cranking up taxes on the mega-rich to 80%, and it would have been just as constructive.

So you can please stop pretending that 'Republicans have posted a budget and Democrats haven't' is anything more than political grandstanding?

Seb... you're arguing with me based on your opinions. Stop saying everything out of your mouth is "facts".

The fact is, that "fantasy" bill that your keep bringing up (ya know, that Ryan plan) was derived from the Simpson-Bowles commission that Obama just ignored.

You seem to think that when a bill is passed in the House, that the Senate must pass it "as is". That's NOT how it works. The Senate has an opportunity to then take that bill and tweak it, add stuff, whatever... then if that pass, it goes into conference to the House for them to approve.

It's at back and forth thing.

And here I think your knowledge of how the Parlimentary system works in Australia/Europe is mixing in how you think US politics works...

People don't stop being people because they start to live in the USA. Political realities continue to be the same.

Didn't say you weren't "people"... and no, political realities are NOT the same. That's too simplistic.

That's actually the opposite here... in divided government, both parties typically move to the center in order to get stuff done (called compromise). When one party controls WH/Congress... that's when big things happen (for good or bad). The Clinton tenure is a perfect example of parties moving to the center when Rep retook the house.

It's a huge mistake to confuse the actions of one politician, noted for his centrist values, with the actions of political parties as a whole.

Instead look at how the Democrats and the Republicans have looked to secure their own power bases in the last congressional cycle. See how they've attempted to secure advantage by appealing to fringe elements, like the Democrats making noted outreaches to the gay community? That's because when politics is close fought parties will attempt to expand their bases.

If that's how you interpret that...

The Tea Party was a grassroot movement without any established Republican endorsment for a long time. That 2010 election was more about pissed off electorate, than the Republican "reaching out" to the fringe elements.

Don't make the same mistakes that the alliances you see in your Parlimentary system works the same way here.

I know a lot of folks who will generally vote for the challenger, simply to ensure that there is a divided government.

There is a lot of talk of that. But from the evidence I've seen it's pretty debatable whether it actually happens on a meaningful scale. Instead what does change consistantly is turnout - you get a noted drop from demographic groups that are typically in support of the President's party, while the demographics that support the President typically hold firm or decline less.

You're right, it is debatable... but, it shouldn't be ignored.

Right... and look at their methodology... they're expecting the same D/R/I splits this year as in 2008.. that's why its skewed. They should be using the 2010 splits at least....

First up - they aren't expecting DRI splits. They compile surveys, including ones that have already undergone likely voter adjustments. Where a survey doesn't account for likely voters, it is adjusted for such by regression analysis with other polls already given.

Second up, claiming Rasmussen should be focused in on, while fivethirtyeight should be ignored is a pretty odd stance when your argument for Rasmussen used the accuracy of their 2008 final poll. fivethirtyeight successfully predicted the way every single state would go in 2008.

Rasmussen was reasonably close with their last poll. fivethirtyeight got it exactly right.

Well see shall we?

There is some truth to this...

At the end of the day Razzie was very close to the actual turn out (see 2008). He actually underestimated the Republican victories in the house in 2010...

It's September... waaaaaaaay to soon to really pay attention to the polls... it's crapshoot now. We haven't had any Debates either.

fivethirtyeight predicted all but two of the senate seats in 2010 (both of which predicted Republican wins and instead were won by Democrats), and was only off on the number of seats won in the House by 8 (and the site was very open about how difficult predictions are for the House, with less than 25% of districts getting polled before election day). The site's record is seriously impressive.

More to the point, how are you now claiming it's a little early to pay attention to the polls. You brought this up by raising Rasmussen in the first place.

LOL... fair enough... (I'll check out that site, first time I've heard of it).

 whembly wrote:
The Clinton tenure is a perfect example of parties moving to the center when Rep retook the house.

The Republicans took the House explicitly because they didn't move to the center.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The Clinton tenure is a perfect example of parties moving to the center when Rep retook the house.

The Republicans took the House explicitly because they didn't move to the center.

I was talking about Clinton and the rest of the Dems moved to the center...

 whembly wrote:

I was talking about Clinton and the rest of the Dems moved to the center...

But they didn't, they just stopped passing bills.