By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Is Romney actually leading in the polls or are some people delusional?

spaceguy on 02 October 2012
noname2200 said:
famousringo said:
noname2200 said:
I've always thought holding a president responsible for an economy's failure or success is largely akin to older cultures lynching the village leader for a poor harvest or worshiping him for a great one.

But maybe that's just me.


Economies are really big and really complex, but the state, through law, policy and expenditure, exerts more control over it than other single entity. A single bill can create or destroy a monopoly, or shift a trillion dollars worth of supply or demand around.

In the 19th century, economies were as capricious as the weather, but we learned a lot about controlling and stabilizing economies in the first half of the twentieth century. Look at this list of banking crises and note how over the course of the 19th century, every ten years either the US or the UK or both would have a meltdown. Since the second world war, economic crises have become less frequent and less severe. That's thanks to central banks, welfare states, Keynes, and other lessons learned.

Managing an economy is far from easy, but it isn't impossible either, so leaders need to be held responsible for their performance. Not just the head of state, but a lot of other public officials and influential private actors. The argument that "Well, nobody can really be expected to manage the economy" is an argument for the laissez-faire boom and bust economics of the 19th century.

I understand that argument, which is why I think it's fine to say (hypothethically) "Obama's stimulus package alleviated/worsened the economic crisis," or "the new regulations Obama pushed through the Congress are a hindrance/help to America's economy." That's dandy.

What causes me to raise an eyebrow is holding a single man responsible for how the entire economy pans out, which is precisely what some folks try to do. We're in a republic, after all, a system that by design prevents any individual from gaining excess political power. "Is the economy better for you today than it was four years ago?", and then holding one political figure responsible for the answer either way, is a fallacious argument at best. This goes double when the opposition has a majority in one of the legislative houses, and when the actions of previous administrations (good and bad) continue to play out during the current one.

Someone wants to break down how the current president's actions affected the economy, be my guest. But few do that, because it's a sisyphean task.

With out stimulas we would be in bread lines bro. The stock market was at 6.5 is now 13.5. We have stopped from losing 800,000 jobs a month to  

Oh yea republican congress has blocked all jobs bills and doesn't want to raise tax's. So there you go.



Around the Network
JOKA_ on 02 October 2012

The only "poll" that actually counts is the one that is taken on November 6th. Until then they are both in the race.



Platinums: Red Dead Redemption, Killzone 2, LittleBigPlanet, Terminator Salvation, Uncharted 1, inFamous Second Son, Rocket League

spaceguy on 02 October 2012
JOKA_ said:
The only "poll" that actually counts is the one that is taken on November 6th. Until then they are both in the race.



Very true but swing state polls usually are a good source to go off of but you are right. Not until Nov. 6th does it all count.



richardhutnik on 02 October 2012
dsgrue3 said:

Bush shouldn't even enter into this discussion, but as you cited his policies for the economic downturn, I will educate you on what caused the economic mess. Ready?

Clinton. Bill Clinton could have easily vetoed the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, but he did not. This not only deregulated "big banks" but offered sub-prime mortgage rates to unqualified people in order for Clinton to bloat the housing market. When people could not afford their mortgages, the bubble burst. Welcome to the present. 

In regard to Romney's job creation, as you've stated it is difficult to find accurate statistics as Bain Capital only invested in companies. That investment promoted growth and expansion (in most cases), which in turn created jobs. I've had this discussion before, and grown tired of it, but the wall street journal did a fact check on the claim that he created hundreds of thousands and concluded it was tens of thousands instead.

Look at his unemployment statistics as governor...that should suffice for why his job creation was slim in comparison.

You will not find me defending the Bush administration. Unfounded war-mongerers at best.

I cannot fathom how you can support a president that promises one thing and does the exact opposite. (Deficit, war, budget, economy, jobs)

Social issues come secondary to jobs and the economy.

As far as why I want Romney as president. He is a proven success in business, job creation, profiting. Exactly what this country needs. (Why do you think Herman Cain was leading the GOP race prior to those allegations?)

Seriously?  The way this political nonsense is going, it is going to end up with people arguing that Bush was never president.  The reality is, if you want to fault Clinton for not vetoing a bill that had huge political support (and in line with normal Republican policies),  then you give GW Bush a pass for not reversing it either?

As far as the Bain argument, investing consists on betting on winners and losers, and not actually doing management stuff in order to make money.  So, you want to say Romney's claim to fame is that he is good at betting on winners and losers?  Also, government is a different beast than the private sector.  Reality is that Romney may know how to make money for investor's, but that doesn't mean job creation.  One can make money by gutting a company and selling off parts, which is what Romney's company did.  Again, you can't run government like you do a business, because you can go and downsize and fire portions of the population you don't like.  Well, maybe getting rid of 47% of the moocher class is what you think would be a good idea.  So, do you suggest poisoning their water supply or just lining them up against a wall and shooting them?  After all, you never can teach them to take responsibility for themselves.

Thing is that, it comes down to picking A or B.  Maybe can vote third party here as an option.  I am in NY so my vote really doesn't matter anyhow, because NY is going Obama.  



Mr Khan on 02 October 2012
NintendoPie said:
Salnax said:
NintendoPie said:
Salnax said:
Republicans never had a positive view of science.


What... was Science mentioned in the OP or am I missing something?


Polling is something of a science. There's a lot of math and demographics and stuff involved. I was making a crude joke linking that fact to the stereotype that Republicans reject scientific claims.

Well then your joke makes sense. I didn't know Polling could be a science. 

Polling *has* to be a science, otherwise it's totally meaningless. If you just go around asking people questions, you can't be certain whether your sample was really random. If you go outside a church at noon on a Sunday and ask "how important is Jesus in your life" and then declare that these people represent everyone in your town or county, then you're likely to think your town or county is much more Christian than it might be.

Do you get it?



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
HappySqurriel on 02 October 2012
richardhutnik said:
dsgrue3 said:

Bush shouldn't even enter into this discussion, but as you cited his policies for the economic downturn, I will educate you on what caused the economic mess. Ready?

Clinton. Bill Clinton could have easily vetoed the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, but he did not. This not only deregulated "big banks" but offered sub-prime mortgage rates to unqualified people in order for Clinton to bloat the housing market. When people could not afford their mortgages, the bubble burst. Welcome to the present. 

In regard to Romney's job creation, as you've stated it is difficult to find accurate statistics as Bain Capital only invested in companies. That investment promoted growth and expansion (in most cases), which in turn created jobs. I've had this discussion before, and grown tired of it, but the wall street journal did a fact check on the claim that he created hundreds of thousands and concluded it was tens of thousands instead.

Look at his unemployment statistics as governor...that should suffice for why his job creation was slim in comparison.

You will not find me defending the Bush administration. Unfounded war-mongerers at best.

I cannot fathom how you can support a president that promises one thing and does the exact opposite. (Deficit, war, budget, economy, jobs)

Social issues come secondary to jobs and the economy.

As far as why I want Romney as president. He is a proven success in business, job creation, profiting. Exactly what this country needs. (Why do you think Herman Cain was leading the GOP race prior to those allegations?)

Seriously?  The way this political nonsense is going, it is going to end up with people arguing that Bush was never president.  The reality is, if you want to fault Clinton for not vetoing a bill that had huge political support (and in line with normal Republican policies),  then you give GW Bush a pass for not reversing it either?

As far as the Bain argument, investing consists on betting on winners and losers, and not actually doing management stuff in order to make money.  So, you want to say Romney's claim to fame is that he is good at betting on winners and losers?  Also, government is a different beast than the private sector.  Reality is that Romney may know how to make money for investor's, but that doesn't mean job creation.  One can make money by gutting a company and selling off parts, which is what Romney's company did.  Again, you can't run government like you do a business, because you can go and downsize and fire portions of the population you don't like.  Well, maybe getting rid of 47% of the moocher class is what you think would be a good idea.  So, do you suggest poisoning their water supply or just lining them up against a wall and shooting them?  After all, you never can teach them to take responsibility for themselves.

Thing is that, it comes down to picking A or B.  Maybe can vote third party here as an option.  I am in NY so my vote really doesn't matter anyhow, because NY is going Obama.  


The (vast) majority of the laws and conditions that changed to create the housing bubble occurred under Clinton as a way of increasing home ownership for the "poor"; and poor minorities in particular.  In 2004/2005 many Republicans (including George W. Bush) tried to reverse some of these changes due to the housing bubble and were called racists for trying.

While both Presidents are (somewhat) responsible for the crisis, it could be argued that Clinton was the president that caused the bubble while Bush was the president who failed to fix/react to the bubble in time.



richardhutnik on 03 October 2012
HappySqurriel said:
richardhutnik said:
dsgrue3 said:

Bush shouldn't even enter into this discussion, but as you cited his policies for the economic downturn, I will educate you on what caused the economic mess. Ready?

Clinton. Bill Clinton could have easily vetoed the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, but he did not. This not only deregulated "big banks" but offered sub-prime mortgage rates to unqualified people in order for Clinton to bloat the housing market. When people could not afford their mortgages, the bubble burst. Welcome to the present. 

In regard to Romney's job creation, as you've stated it is difficult to find accurate statistics as Bain Capital only invested in companies. That investment promoted growth and expansion (in most cases), which in turn created jobs. I've had this discussion before, and grown tired of it, but the wall street journal did a fact check on the claim that he created hundreds of thousands and concluded it was tens of thousands instead.

Look at his unemployment statistics as governor...that should suffice for why his job creation was slim in comparison.

You will not find me defending the Bush administration. Unfounded war-mongerers at best.

I cannot fathom how you can support a president that promises one thing and does the exact opposite. (Deficit, war, budget, economy, jobs)

Social issues come secondary to jobs and the economy.

As far as why I want Romney as president. He is a proven success in business, job creation, profiting. Exactly what this country needs. (Why do you think Herman Cain was leading the GOP race prior to those allegations?)

Seriously?  The way this political nonsense is going, it is going to end up with people arguing that Bush was never president.  The reality is, if you want to fault Clinton for not vetoing a bill that had huge political support (and in line with normal Republican policies),  then you give GW Bush a pass for not reversing it either?

As far as the Bain argument, investing consists on betting on winners and losers, and not actually doing management stuff in order to make money.  So, you want to say Romney's claim to fame is that he is good at betting on winners and losers?  Also, government is a different beast than the private sector.  Reality is that Romney may know how to make money for investor's, but that doesn't mean job creation.  One can make money by gutting a company and selling off parts, which is what Romney's company did.  Again, you can't run government like you do a business, because you can go and downsize and fire portions of the population you don't like.  Well, maybe getting rid of 47% of the moocher class is what you think would be a good idea.  So, do you suggest poisoning their water supply or just lining them up against a wall and shooting them?  After all, you never can teach them to take responsibility for themselves.

Thing is that, it comes down to picking A or B.  Maybe can vote third party here as an option.  I am in NY so my vote really doesn't matter anyhow, because NY is going Obama.  


The (vast) majority of the laws and conditions that changed to create the housing bubble occurred under Clinton as a way of increasing home ownership for the "poor"; and poor minorities in particular.  In 2004/2005 many Republicans (including George W. Bush) tried to reverse some of these changes due to the housing bubble and were called racists for trying.

While both Presidents are (somewhat) responsible for the crisis, it could be argued that Clinton was the president that caused the bubble while Bush was the president who failed to fix/react to the bubble in time.

Did the Bush administration cheerleading home ownership help to reduce the housing bubble?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?pagewanted=all

WASHINGTON — "We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."

- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002

 

 

I would say no.  To say the only thing the Bush administration is responsible for is not preventing the problem is really immensely partisan.  It goes deeper than that.  And by that measure, if you want to blame Clinton for it, and the Bush administration is less responsible, then Obama is even less responsible, because at worst he failed to prevent things.



curl-6 on 03 October 2012
Salnax said:
Republicans never had a positive view of science.





noname2200 on 03 October 2012
spaceguy said:

With out stimulas we would be in bread lines bro. The stock market was at 6.5 is now 13.5. We have stopped from losing 800,000 jobs a month to  

*jpeg*

Oh yea republican congress has blocked all jobs bills and doesn't want to raise tax's. So there you go.

It is without sarcasm that I say I take no issue with the substance of your post. I am, however, confused why you made it in reply to me.



binary solo on 03 October 2012

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/romney-vs-obama-electoral-map
"Our snapshot of where the presidential race stands is based on hundreds of state-wide and national opinion polls — filtered through a poll-tracking model — and updated throughout the day. "

Suggests Obama is a shoe-in with 270 ECV already locked up in states strongly supporting Obama. Sure Huffpost is a bastion of leftwing socialist Obama loving bloggers. But it's collating hundreds of polls on an ongoing basis. So it's not just one polling organisation's results. I don't think that poll of polls can be so badly wrong that the real pictyure is Romney with a 5 point margin over Obama. I don't see Obama winning by anything like teh ECV count this map suggests, but I think things are in Obama's favour right now.

Also the Iowa Electronic Markets are showing massive investment in Obama "shares" right now, and that's people putting actual money on the outcome.
http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_Pres12_VS.cfm
http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_Pres12_WTA.cfm

This market correctly predicted (as nearly everyone in the world did) the 2008 result, but it was incorrect about the 2004 result. It was actually correct about the 2000 result (i.e. that Gore had more votes nationally than Bush), but of course number of votes nationally doesn't choose the president, even in years when the Supreme Court stays out of it.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix