WorldTraveller

At this point in time, I could agree with this.

Really? That's your counter argument?

There was no need, they had the advantage, now all of a sudden there is a need.

"practically dead even race" with RCP showing the race 1.1% so yeah, if there ever was a case to say "practically" dead even race, this would be it. You can always tell when someone becomes frustrated, we began with a discussion, I provided facts, you provided emotion, and then you followed through with the ad hominems, sure sign of a frustrated individual losing the debate.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/do-presidential-polls-break-toward-challengers/ Leave it up to Nate to concoct some sort of weird formulation to support his bias, even though there is clear evidence that suggests otherwise.

What they should do is scrap the whole thing and allow unlimited contributions from disclosed donors to the candidates directly.

What are you deaf?

Not according to Nate Silver

So while we both acknowledge that the incumbent has a huge advantage, and from your point of view, Romney is a weak candidate, yet the polls show a practically dead even race. What does that say about Obama?

No it's not, it's a factual observation. The media attention regarding money and politics is 100 times more intense than before the 2010 election cycle. To dispute that is ridiculous.

No, what I'm saying is that after the unprecedented $100 M attempt to define Romney with the help of the media, that it has largely been ineffective relative to the effort provided. Did you not read the original post of the thread? Where do you come up with this? Are you hearing voices in your head?

How do you expect to get through, when he makes his claims based on emotion rather than data? I mean, in his world, it's ok to say, "Nate silver is acceptable but not Jay Cost because, well, Jay cost is a neo conservative for a rightwing publication" yet, makes no mention of Nate Silver who is a self-described progressive who rights for a left-wing publication. But it's ok, because he's a "statistician" and he is heralded from the left, even though he has been wrong many times. Hold on a second, he's a statistician right? So are you saying his stats don't apply to primaries and that there is a magical formula that only works in the general elections? okaay

That just goes to show you how hopelessly biased you are. You accept a self-described Progressives analysis, but not a conservative's. Here are the facts, I kept up with Silver's predictions through out the GOP primaries, he whiffed more times than a little league player. He was horrible, he even had Romney with a 92% chance of winning the S.C primaries and we saw how that turned out. Dude, step away from the progressive kool-aid , the point is that you have your left-wing statistician that supports your odds and views and I have actual non partisan polling data supporting mine.. See the difference? The best evidence we have is on the most recent polling, and the only way you can combat my arguments, which I've supported based on data (and you on "well since I say it's so, it's so") is say, hey, if Nate (Self-described progressive NY times blogger) Silver says it, than THERE, take that!

Yes, and Jay Cost says 50%

This was Obama's race to lose, hell even John Kerry would of defeated McCain by 5+ % . This was as bad of a year as you could of scripted for a conservative to run. I already listed the reasons, if you don't recognize that, then we can't really go any further regarding this point. And to your second point, again, this is something that you believe that is not supported by empirical data. From Today: Two-thirds of likely voters say the weak economy is Washington’s fault, and more blame President Obama than anybody else, according to a new poll for The Hill. It found that 66 percent believe paltry job growth and slow economic recovery is the result of bad policy. Thirty-four percent say Obama is the most to blame, followed by 23 percent who say Congress is the culprit. Twenty percent point the finger at Wall Street, and 18 percent cite former President George W. Bush. So while I understand that you may actually believe what you said, it's simply not backed up by data.

Getting the first black man voted as president is an accomplishment, but I don't see that so much as an accomplishment from the Obama camp as much as I do our society. In regards to "other factors at play" ummmmm, yeah! How about a sitting president who was tremendously unpopular? And what about an even more unpopular war? What about an economy that was falling precipitously, and it's a no brainer that the blame goes towards the incumbent in those cirumstances. "There is no reason to think they aren't two steps ahead of Romneys camp" mmmmm, actually there are quite a few reasons to think that. How about the polling numbers which show a tight race. Or how about the point that I just made, they've spent $100M worth of attack ads, and have a friendly press on their side during this latest onslaught and their strategy hasn't moved the needle at all. You are basing your confidence off of past results, I'm basing mine off of empirical data. So while you say you have no stake in this game, it would appear your conclusion is derived more through emotion than anything else. However, I will agree with you that they do have the advantage of incumbency, and that is a large advantage to have. You would have to be a very weak president to lose as incumbent.

I edited my post up above, but this is an errr, interesting take on things. I addressed this point to a certain degree in my previous post.

On the margin? yes But you are missing the broader point, which is that no matter how insignificant you may think advertising dollars can have an impact on elections, the Obama campaign and their super pac allies have spent close to $100M over the past few months attempting to define Romney, and they are burning through more money than they are raising, which means that a large part of their electoral strategy is occurring right now, which is the "Defining of Romney" stage. The fact that the national polls, and now this poll shows that their strategy has been largely ineffective, has to be causing lots of heartburn right now at the Chicago HQ. So you can compare this to shooting and missing. Now the Romney campaign will have more money to spend on ads throughout the rest of the campaign and we'll see if they shoot and miss or hit.

From what I've been reading, the Romney camp is going to begin a strong campaign highlighting all the positives stories that came as a result of Bain Capital, the net jobs created, the steel mills that they saved from shuttering, pension/retirement and endowment funds that it has helped etc. once we get closer to the convention, when most people begin to pay attention.

Little impact. "It may be the political question of the summer: are Team Obama's attacks on Mitt Romney's business background working? Priorities USA polling says yes. Other independent polls -- including from Gallup and NBC/WSJ -- show at least some impact. But Gallup's out with a round of data for USA Today that suggests, whatever the marginal impact of the Bain assault, Romney's businessman brand is more of an asset than anything else, and that in the big picture he's well positioned on the economy: By more than 2-1, 63%-29%, those surveyed say Romney's background in business, including his tenure at the private equity firm Bain Capital, would cause him to make good decisions, not bad ones, in dealing with the nation's economic problems over the next four years. … The Democratic attacks on Romney seem to have had limited effect on voters' assessments of him. In February, 53% said the former Massachusetts governor had the personality and leadership qualities a president should have; now 54% do. Then, 42% said they agreed with Romney on the issues that mattered most to them; now 45% do. " So they've spent records amount of negative Advertising, the mainstream media shilling for their cause, and this is what they have to show for it? Ouch! But yeah, keep talking about Mitt's tax returns, that's what a majority of voters care about.

Just let it go bro...

Here's the difference, as articulated in this column: Now it's true, as the MaddowBlog quickly pointed out, that Mitt Romney himself made much the same point when he said "a lot of people help you in a business. Perhaps the banks, the investors. There's no question your mom and dad. Your school teachers. The people that provide roads, the fire, and the police. A lot of people help." What Romney did not say, though, was "you didn't build" your business — and even if he had, there are two big differences between Romney saying it and the president. First, we know Romney believes in an entrepreneurial culture. He's lived it. And he extols free enterprise all the time as the foundation of prosperity. By contrast, Obama's background is bereft of any significant first-hand experience that might foster respect or sympathy for business owners. To the contrary, he hails from occupational niches — community activism, academia and politics — in which disdain for commerce is quite widespread. Of course, you can be a law professor or a politician who bucks the ideological tide. Far more telling is that Obama for years has been making similar statements that suggest a decidedly low regard for commerce and the motives of those who flourish within the private sector. One of these revealing moments occurred four years ago during his commencement address at Wesleyan University, when he exhorted graduates to take up community service. That's a worthy theme, of course, but consider how he did it. "There's no community service requirement in the real world; no one forcing you to care," he said. "You can take your diploma, walk off this stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should buy. You can choose to narrow your concerns and live your life in a way that tries to keep your story separate from America's. But I hope you don't." Several times elsewhere in his speech, Obama cited public sector jobs as examples of meaningful work. The candidate basically offered graduates the following choice: meaningful work in the non-profit and public sectors, on the one hand, or money-grubbing that chases big houses and nice suits. To call this a caricature would be kind. Read more: Carroll: Who did build that business, then, Mr. President? - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/carroll/ci_21114290/who-did-build-that-business-then-mr-president#ixzz21TTsKYPh Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse For these "gaffes" to take hold, they have to fit a larger narrative. As the columnist notes, the difference lie between the core beliefs of these two men, one is a proponent of the free market system and the other one less so. That's the difference. By the way, this has gained lots of traction, I see that Scott Brown is using it against Elizabeth Brown in a web ad, and that this quote has been used in lots of Editorials, and not just from conservative outlets, but in local newspaper ones as well. This is going to have much more lasting impact than the "The private sector is doing fine" gaffe.

Cracks me up, with all the unlimited spending that was still legal even before Citizens United, not a peep from the liberals. Why could that be? It's simple, the unlimited spending benefited their candidates, their causes, and now when the tables have turned, there is shock and outrage of all the corruption between money and politicians. lol

He took shots from alot of people initially, now he has support from nearly all conservatives. I edited my previous post, read how Geithner responded to Paul Ryan's question regarding their long-term solution.

Paul Ryan has the balls to not only talk about it, but put up his own bill, at the risk of being demonized as a heartless bastard. That's a true profile in courage. So how do the liberals respond? Demonization tactics and when Paul Ryan asked Geithner what their long-term answer is, he responded with " "We Don't Have A Definitive Solution To Our Long-Term Problem...We Just Don't Like Yours"