It'd be interesting to see how the GOP splinter further if Obama is re-elected. How will this affect the tea-party wing? The fact that they can't stop Romney and had to relent on the pay roll tax cut fight show their influence and power is weakening within the party.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF Jan 26 Debate/Florida Primary Topic
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
It'd be interesting to see how the GOP splinter further if Obama is re-elected. How will this affect the tea-party wing? The fact that they can't stop Romney and had to relent on the pay roll tax cut fight show their influence and power is weakening within the party.
Gary Whitta
Member
I love how Herman Cain gave such an enthusiastic, full-throated endorsement of Gingrich, as if anyone other than him gives a shit.
Yeah I'm waiting to see how that goes too. If Romney gets the election and then loses I think you're going to see some serious tantrums and in fighting in the GOP. The Tea Party will blame the loss on the establishment, and I wonder if that'll give them a bit more power. And if they get more power, then I can't see the Republicans winning much of anything after now, since they're really too radical for the mainstream.
Isn't the reverse also true, too, though? All the tea party candidates really need is a few really really rich dudes, or even possibly just one really rich dude, and they can stay in the game far longer than before. I mean in Newt's case he has 10 million dollars just from one guy, Sheldon Adelson.
Of course there was negative adds from the 2008 election. But it is very obvious that the adds now are much more negative and filled with more spins. The superpacs ensured this. I dont know why you keep bringing up 2008 when there is almost no comparison.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Who is that? The video won't load on my phone for some reason.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
Haha I'll admit I laughed at that. Anyway my justification for putting up those numbers was backed by the assumption that in those ads, a considerable amount of time was spent on the two shitting on each other, and anyone who followed those elections should easily recall.
Looking for 2016, obviously. Serious candidates won't go for 2012. 2012 is there for the lulz and smh.
The Librarian
Banned
It's a video of Bush saying "GOP can't be 'old white guy' party."
Which it already is.
Yeah, I kind of hope that the Republican party burns itself to the ground and then from the ashes we get something thats a little bit more sustainable and actually wants to have a talk about solutions to real problems. I'm pretty sure that won't happen, though.
The big problem is that we don't even all see the same "problems." You and I may look at someone poor or without healthcare and say that there's a problem that we need a solution to. We want parties to offer up different solutions to that, so we can vote on that and possibly solve that problem. A large chunk of people on the right don't believe that's a problem at all. Their worldview is so rigid that they absolutely believe anyone that's rich got there purely by themselves and anyone that's poor got there, again, purely by themselves and their decisions. They're never going to propose a solution to that problem, because they don't believe its a problem we all share. They think it's just that one person's problem, and they believe he has the tools to fix it. For that large chunk of people the only problem they see is government and the only solution they want is "less government" or "no government." People on the left, like me, will admit that yes there are a lot of problems with government, and we should solve those things, but how do you offer up logical solutions when the other side that's supposed to offer up other solutions believes almost the entire institution needs to be done away with as much as possible.
To me it's kind of like approaching a home renovation. One side wants to make the home better and build onto the framework, and the other side wants to just torch it. Then when asked where they're going to live afterwards the side that wants to torch it just says they'd be happy to live in the ashes.
EternalGamer
Banned
I agree that I would just like to see two parties that don't deny the importance of the environmental challenges we face but both offering different solutions.
But I honestly think there are also a couple of issues that democrats also remain blind and stubborn on. The biggest of which is public education and the negative impact Teachers Unions have. If you are going to fix public education you need to break the Teachers Union, which unfortunately has become a real road block because they are against rewarding good teachers, firing bad ones, or tougher teaching standards. They insist that every teacher should be treated the same, good or bad.
Budget issues are an issue where both parties are significantly blind. Everyone one knows you aren't going to solve the problem without both significantly cutting back (especially on military spending) AND raising taxes. But neither party is willing to speak honestly about it.
To his credit, though, Obama has not been a typical Democrat in these areas. In his State of Union, he promoted merit pay for teachers, which was a direct snub of the Teachers Union and he at least fought for not continuing the Bush tax cuts.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Just had a Facebook friend post the painting of Obama stepping on the Constitution with the poor guy sitting on the bench and the founding fathers behind him.
I wanted to go off but I chose not to. He's a hick--he probably wouldn't believe anything I said, even when posting clear proof.
I wanted to go off but I chose not to. He's a hick--he probably wouldn't believe anything I said, even when posting clear proof.
I think many are exaggerating the fissures within the GOP. And to label the GOP as fractured is a bit premature. The party has encountered tension between various factions in previous elections, yet the party has remained largely united. The lack of a factional candidate underscores their relative unity. They may squabble over details. But the various factions largely agree on the major issues.
Obviously, Obama engaged in negative campaigning. A candidate cannot plausibly compete without attacking their opponent. Nevertheless, Obama was atypically positive for a presidential candidate. While he engaged in negative campaigning, it was significantly less relative to other presidential candidates. So the truth is nestled comfortably between hopey/changey and savage mudslinger.
Recent cover on the New Yorker
lol
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Yeah. He'll win handily. Intrade has him at 97%. Moreover, Silver's model assigns him a 95% chance. If the trend continues, he could surpass his margin of victory in NH.
Orbis Tabula
Member
Haha, we might have a mutual friend. I also had to restrain myself from posting. Not worth it. Maybe I'd argue with someone willing to argue, but I don't think he'll be the guy.
Gingrich got burned by the last debate. Normally he gets a boost after a strong showing but his floundering has really shown at the polls.
Recent cover on the New Yorker
That says it all.
I don't think we should ever expect a Republican to be honest about any encounter with Obama.
Krauser Kat
Member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPMEC2mcorY&t=0m28s
Got a kick out of this the other day. Why are people so angry at Obama, i was never this angry at bush, i though he was a jackass but i would vote him out when i could. The amount of anger at his radically bi partisan presidency is mind boggling.
Got a kick out of this the other day. Why are people so angry at Obama, i was never this angry at bush, i though he was a jackass but i would vote him out when i could. The amount of anger at his radically bi partisan presidency is mind boggling.
This is true. They weren't angry at Clinton either as far as I remember. I remember seeing a woman crying, bawling really, about having lost America, and how she wanted America back after Obama won. I don't know where she thought America went off to.
The Chosen One
Member
I think only to a limited degree. Newt was vastly overwhelmed in Iowa and now Florida. Yes the ad spending was equal in South Carolina but that's because Romney didn't really compete hard for SC until the final week when he had some momentum from Iowa and NH. But the two states where the establishment put their full weight into it, Newt has been completely annihilated.
Granted Newt didn't help himself with the recent debate performances but he was already slipping in the polls before he laid an egg in the last debate. In large media markets, you need more than one or two rich guys to face off against the establishment.
Without Super Pacs, Newt would have had a much stronger showing in Iowa and probably wouldn't even needed Sheldon Adelson's money to stay in the game longer. So I wouldn't say Newt has benefited substantially in the new Super Pac system. He's just playing by the new rules which he's destined to lose at. Same goes for any other Tea Party candidate.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I'm honestly not sure if it's because America is getting more bi-partisan or if it's because he's black.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Mitt outspent Newt 5-1 in Florida. Money Machine cho cho
Not surprising. It makes me wonder how much he'll have to work with once he's the nominee.
5:1 is the ratio Mitt's super PAC outspent Newt's. He'll be fine.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
I'm thinking more than any Republican ever had. I think it will be a LOT.
Oh, I know he'll be more than well off. I know he won't run out of cash. Especially since he's no doubt got corporate backing as well.
I'm just genuinely curious about how much he'll have. With corporate backing, he might come close to Obama's supposed billion dollar campaign.
Would he perform well enough to win the nomination? No.
Invisible_Insane
Member
24 days to the next debate? I wouldn't count on it. Newt will have to make the news by saying outlandish shit. Romney is coasting from here.
Eh, I remember being angry about Bush.
Seeing this reaction to Obama has made me understand bipartisanism. One side just really really hates the other. I mean, I remember plenty of calls to impeach Bush, Bush is Hitler, we have to leave America in 2004 if Bush wins because this country is Nazi Germanizing.
Republicans are going through it too. I'm sure it makes it worse that Obama is black, like it made it worse that Bush stole the 2000 election. Adds the incredulity angle.
My friend sent me this:
"Since everyone seems to be so in favor of people paying their "fair share," here's a nice little analogy of our tax system:
Imagine that everyone in this country was asked to bring food to a bake sale. The top 1% (who earned 20% of the money) would provide 38% of the baked goods. The government would host the bake sale. Then after all the profits were collected and counted at the end of the day, the wealthiest 1% would get about 1% of the profit. To recap: They earned 20% of the money, brought 38% of the goods, and received 1% of the payout.
It's one thing to believe that the economy functions better when there is a more equal distribution of wealth. It's entirely another to insist that the 1% isn't paying their fair share. Oh and remember, half of the people didn't bring any baked goods. They did, however, receive 50% of the earnings of the sale."
How should I respond to this poligaf?
"Since everyone seems to be so in favor of people paying their "fair share," here's a nice little analogy of our tax system:
Imagine that everyone in this country was asked to bring food to a bake sale. The top 1% (who earned 20% of the money) would provide 38% of the baked goods. The government would host the bake sale. Then after all the profits were collected and counted at the end of the day, the wealthiest 1% would get about 1% of the profit. To recap: They earned 20% of the money, brought 38% of the goods, and received 1% of the payout.
It's one thing to believe that the economy functions better when there is a more equal distribution of wealth. It's entirely another to insist that the 1% isn't paying their fair share. Oh and remember, half of the people didn't bring any baked goods. They did, however, receive 50% of the earnings of the sale."
How should I respond to this poligaf?
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Similar propaganda is spreading through mail and facebook here in Quebec, but the story is about people going to a bar and paying for beer, charged according to their income.
Similar bullshit.
Compare productivity gains to wages, and make the 1% the chairmen of the bakery which doesn't do much but takes all of the wealth from the productivity or something. That should sufficiently slant things in an opposite exaggeration to point out how ludicrous it is.
ThisWreckage
Banned
It's over period. The only reason why Newt won SC and is remotely close to Romney in Florida is because of the geographical location. Once it starts moving out west and up north, Romney will win all of those states.
I'm confused, what is the 1% payout an analogy for? Are they receiving only 1% of federal aid? 1% of tax breaks? If baked goods is an analogy for wealth then the top 1% has about 45% of all the baked goods and the top 15% have 85% of all the baked goods.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Unlimited money, he will be fine.
Democratic donors are not on board the whole SuperPAC thing like Republican Donors are.
Although I did hear that Obama's campaign has signaled to their bundlers that they can raise funds for SuperPACs too now.
The amount of money that will be spent in 2012 Elections will be mind boggling.
"The 20% is the percent of all income earned annually. The 1% earns 20% of the country's total individual income. The 38% is the percent of income taxes collected by the government that the 1% contributed. The 1% payout is the percentage of federal aid, subsidies, and handouts, the 1% receives."
How should I respond to THAT?
cartoon_soldier
Member
Ignore, unfriend.
Can I please just get a response to cream this guy....?
Trying to make sense of his analogy and its make-believe numbers and fantasyland scenario was your first mistake.
I told my friend it doesn't accurately represent the tax system and he just told me that he thinks it definitely does....
He then said: "If we are talking about "fair share," the richest one percent pay a larger portion of their income in taxes than anybody else. They also are responsible for a larger portion of tax revenue than they are for the percentage of income earned by the nation as a whole. Finally, they receive 1% of government benefits."
All i'm trying to do is prove him wrong but I don't know how....
He then said: "If we are talking about "fair share," the richest one percent pay a larger portion of their income in taxes than anybody else. They also are responsible for a larger portion of tax revenue than they are for the percentage of income earned by the nation as a whole. Finally, they receive 1% of government benefits."
All i'm trying to do is prove him wrong but I don't know how....
cartoon_soldier
Member
They are using a flawed analogy to try and make a point. The question is not how much they contribute in taxes, the wealth gap is so freaking huge that a 15% tax rate on top 1% can eclipse a 35% tax rate on the bottom 50%.
Also, saying that the top 1% only benefit from 1% of government's spending is well BS.
You won't be able to.
Invisible_Insane
Member
It's really stupidly question begging to assert that people making in excess of three hundred thousand dollars a year are receiving very little in direct government payouts.
His argument makes no sense. His example is not correspondent with reality. Your response to him, no matter how eloquent, is unlikely to correct his delusions. Let it go.
- Status