2012 US Presidential Race Catch All

DSGamer wrote:

2016: Hillary vs. Jeb
2020: Hillary (incumbent) vs. Jeb 2
2024: Jeb vs Michelle Obama
2028: Jeb (incumbent) vs. Michelle Obama 2
2032: Michelle Obama (incumbent) vs. Elizabeth Cheney
2036: Elizabeth Cheney vs. Chelsea Clinton
2040: Chelsea Clinton (incumbent) vs. ....

We can get another 30 years out of this. Why wouldn't you want that?

Don't forget George P Bush!

Farscry wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

What a steaming, repulsive, self-righteous, epic-level douchebag.

No sh*t. This guy deserves some serious karmic comeuppance.

He is just bitter as hell that natural gas has kicked his industry right in the teabags.

Demosthenes wrote:

Not even waiting to see what the economy does, just fires them immediately.

I've actually heard this kind of sentiment from several people I work with and from several opinion pieces. They seem to be convinced that because Obama was re-elected the economy is immediately going to tank and we're in for "the worst economic disaster in history" and that we'll all look back and beg for the days of only having 8% national unemployment.

While the bulk of these people seem to be basing their opinions on "Obama wants to take all of our money and hates job creators", the more informed among them seem to be betting on the consequences of the fiscal cliff and that there's no way Obama can get a deal out of Congress before everything hits the fan while they feel that Romney could have because the Republicans would have backed his play.

Here is a bit about demographics.

Let's get something straight. Romney didn't win white males. He won poorly-educated, older white males. Nate Cohn's New Republic piece is indispensable for us now. Obama actually won, albeit narrowly, among highly educated white males, and won handily among younger highly educated white males. Oh, and his whites have to be Christian. Jews--who are white but typically highly educated--went for Obama 70-30%, though pro-Bibi Jewish plutocrats, who endow Jewish organizations, sent a strong pro-Romney message.

The point is, the more voters were accustomed to processing complex arguments about how the economy works, how we got into trouble, how history might be made, and how political institutions share power, the more they embraced Obama. The more they were motivated by fears and flocking, the more they went for Romney's witless syllogisms: the president is responsible for everything, things are bad, therefore Obama is to blame; recovery requires business investment, I am a businessman, therefore I should be president. (Incidentally, my daughter Ellie just sent me this: for what its worth, biological research into the fear centers that are typically activated in the brains of "conservatives." Intriguing.)

BAWW! It's only God's will when it aligns with my personal political beliefs!

Pew's preliminary analysis of exit polls covering religious views and race.

It's interesting to see the actual numbers behind the trends in the GOP we've been talking about and how they're increasingly relying on the white Protestant vote even while that chunk of the electorate is getting smaller.

If I was a GOP strategist I would get physically ill just looking at the Hispanic Catholic numbers...

IMAGE(http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedImages/Topics/Issues/Politics_and_Elections/exitpoll-1.png)
IMAGE(http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedImages/Topics/Issues/Politics_and_Elections/exitpoll-2.png)
IMAGE(http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedImages/Topics/Issues/Politics_and_Elections/exitpoll-3.png)

Think the YouTube rant may have drowned out my earlier post.

Short version was that while the > 90% marginal tax rate figure often bandied about did indeed start at a higher threshold (> $2M in inflation-adjusted dollars, instead of the ~$379k our top marginal tax starts at today), folks earning the equivalent of our $379k modern threshold would have been in the 65% marginal tax bracket.

Puts the complaints that our "job creators" are being taxed too heavily into perspective, given that the most aggressive plan on the table would be a return to the Clinton-era top marginal rate of 39.6%, up from 35%.

Amusingly, Bush '04 got more of the Mormon vote than Romney....

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

BAWW! It's only God's will when it aligns with my personal political beliefs!

Honestly though, it is easy for folks in the coal industry to blame Obama or the EPA or whoever for their plight, but the reality is that a number of MARKET driven developments are responsible for the decline of their industry. As I alluded above, the explosion of natural gas exploration has resulted in wider adoption of NG for electrical power generation. Also, the modernization of grids and the gradual adoption of micro power generation has obviated the need for massive, dirty coal fired plants. And since cleaner power plants can be placed closer to areas of power consumption, they do not lose as much megawattage due to the inverse square law.

So coal barons like the Murray or Massey folks can whine all they want about the big bad gubmint, but the fact of the matter is that the market knocked their nuts into their throat and they need to blame someone else for their failure to adapt.

Farscry wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

What a steaming, repulsive, self-righteous, epic-level douchebag.

No sh*t. This guy deserves some serious karmic comeuppance.

I mean this in all seriousness when I say I don't believe MilkmanDanimals words went far enough.

Seth wrote:
Farscry wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

What a steaming, repulsive, self-righteous, epic-level douchebag.

No sh*t. This guy deserves some serious karmic comeuppance.

I mean this in all seriousness when I say I don't believe MilkmanDanimals words went far enough.

So a super steaming, repulsive, self-righteous, epic-level douchebag?

But seriously, yes. This guy really needs a kick right to the checkbook... but I guess based on other posts, natural gas has been doing that for a while now.

Follow up to my last maps post.

IMAGE(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jBeieVub6yw/UJu3XhiV_kI/AAAAAAAABRI/JnEryNNyb7o/s1600/Capture.PNG)

Lots more analysis in the link.

Paleocon wrote:

Here is a bit about demographics.

Let's get something straight. Romney didn't win white males. He won poorly-educated, older white males. Nate Cohn's New Republic piece is indispensable for us now. Obama actually won, albeit narrowly, among highly educated white males, and won handily among younger highly educated white males. Oh, and his whites have to be Christian. Jews--who are white but typically highly educated--went for Obama 70-30%, though pro-Bibi Jewish plutocrats, who endow Jewish organizations, sent a strong pro-Romney message.

The point is, the more voters were accustomed to processing complex arguments about how the economy works, how we got into trouble, how history might be made, and how political institutions share power, the more they embraced Obama. The more they were motivated by fears and flocking, the more they went for Romney's witless syllogisms: the president is responsible for everything, things are bad, therefore Obama is to blame; recovery requires business investment, I am a businessman, therefore I should be president. (Incidentally, my daughter Ellie just sent me this: for what its worth, biological research into the fear centers that are typically activated in the brains of "conservatives." Intriguing.)

The first paragraph is about demographics, correct.

The second is self-indulgent tripe.

Seth wrote:

I mean this in all seriousness when I say I don't believe MilkmanDanimals words went far enough.

I agree.

What angers me most of all is how certain self-righteous "job creators" like this one spend their lives fighting against workers' rights, firing perfectly good employees and moving the jobs overseas, and trying to weasel out of paying any benefits, but then rail against all the "takers" who end up in need of unemployment benefits, government health care, or welfare.

Don't lay off perfectly good employees and then, the next day, whine about how now they're jobless layabouts who are a drag on the system.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Here is a bit about demographics.

Let's get something straight. Romney didn't win white males. He won poorly-educated, older white males. Nate Cohn's New Republic piece is indispensable for us now. Obama actually won, albeit narrowly, among highly educated white males, and won handily among younger highly educated white males. Oh, and his whites have to be Christian. Jews--who are white but typically highly educated--went for Obama 70-30%, though pro-Bibi Jewish plutocrats, who endow Jewish organizations, sent a strong pro-Romney message.

The point is, the more voters were accustomed to processing complex arguments about how the economy works, how we got into trouble, how history might be made, and how political institutions share power, the more they embraced Obama. The more they were motivated by fears and flocking, the more they went for Romney's witless syllogisms: the president is responsible for everything, things are bad, therefore Obama is to blame; recovery requires business investment, I am a businessman, therefore I should be president. (Incidentally, my daughter Ellie just sent me this: for what its worth, biological research into the fear centers that are typically activated in the brains of "conservatives." Intriguing.)

The first paragraph is about demographics, correct.

The second is self-indulgent tripe.

Anecdotally, I knew people leading up to the election who fit into both categories that leaned on both sides of the spectrum. I knew fear-driven nutjobs on both sides, though more of them on the right (mainly because the majority of my personal acquaintances and family lean right).

Thing is in the history of regulation and progressivism, any time (EPA, Clean Air Act, FTC Act, Sherman Anti-trust, Rico, the FDA, etc) the rally from private business was that these agencies and laws would spell the end of their business, the end of America, rioting in the streets, etc.

None of that has EVER happened following such regulations, and the economy actually improves. Contrary to what some vocal people might say. A well regulated economy favors the nation as a whole and favors top performers in industry. Unregulated industries favor corruption, dangerous practices, cartels, and public harm.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Here is a bit about demographics.

Let's get something straight. Romney didn't win white males. He won poorly-educated, older white males. Nate Cohn's New Republic piece is indispensable for us now. Obama actually won, albeit narrowly, among highly educated white males, and won handily among younger highly educated white males. Oh, and his whites have to be Christian. Jews--who are white but typically highly educated--went for Obama 70-30%, though pro-Bibi Jewish plutocrats, who endow Jewish organizations, sent a strong pro-Romney message.

The point is, the more voters were accustomed to processing complex arguments about how the economy works, how we got into trouble, how history might be made, and how political institutions share power, the more they embraced Obama. The more they were motivated by fears and flocking, the more they went for Romney's witless syllogisms: the president is responsible for everything, things are bad, therefore Obama is to blame; recovery requires business investment, I am a businessman, therefore I should be president. (Incidentally, my daughter Ellie just sent me this: for what its worth, biological research into the fear centers that are typically activated in the brains of "conservatives." Intriguing.)

The first paragraph is about demographics, correct.

The second is self-indulgent tripe.

I don't agree with Norm often, but I agree with him here.

Looks like Romney did run his campaign like Bain Capital...

NBC[/url]]From the moment Mitt Romney stepped off stage Tuesday night, having just delivered a brief concession speech he wrote only that evening, the massive infrastructure surrounding his campaign quickly began to disassemble itself.

Aides taking cabs home late that night got rude awakenings when they found the credit cards linked to the campaign no longer worked.

"Fiscally conservative," sighed one aide the next day.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Have never been a fan of Cuomo since he essentially gave the MTA a pass for keeping two sets of books.

He's just helping out the job creators!

Wow, shocked! An angry old white dude needs a scapegoat for Murray Energy's business struggles. Anyone want to be that 10% of his income would be enough to pay the salaries of the 150 workers he "HAS" to let go?

OG_slinger wrote:

Looks like Romney did run his campaign like Bain Capital...

NBC[/url]]From the moment Mitt Romney stepped off stage Tuesday night, having just delivered a brief concession speech he wrote only that evening, the massive infrastructure surrounding his campaign quickly began to disassemble itself.

Aides taking cabs home late that night got rude awakenings when they found the credit cards linked to the campaign no longer worked.

"Fiscally conservative," sighed one aide the next day.

The presidency was a failed investment for Romney.

DSGamer wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

Looks like Romney did run his campaign like Bain Capital...

NBC[/url]]From the moment Mitt Romney stepped off stage Tuesday night, having just delivered a brief concession speech he wrote only that evening, the massive infrastructure surrounding his campaign quickly began to disassemble itself.

Aides taking cabs home late that night got rude awakenings when they found the credit cards linked to the campaign no longer worked.

"Fiscally conservative," sighed one aide the next day.

The presidency was a failed investment for Romney.

Based on his business record, I guess we should expect Romney to run for Premier in China soon.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Based on his business record, I guess we should expect Romney to run for Premier in China soon.

Not his style.

Romney strikes me as more of a "outsource the voting" kind of guy.

Demyx wrote:

What, no Bristol Palin?

Secretary of defense, methinks.

Frum gets it right again.

Those who would urge the GOP to double down on ideology post-2012 should ask themselves: would Republicans have done better if we had promised a bigger tax cut for the rich and proposed to push more people off food stamps and Medi­caid? Would we have done better if we had promised to do more to ban abortion and stop same-sex marriage? If we had committed ourselves to fight more wars? To put the country on the gold standard? Almost half of those surveyed on voting day said they wanted to see taxes raised on Americans earning more than $250,000. Exit polls do tend to oversample Democrats, but the tax result is consistent with other polling that has found that even Republicans would prefer to raise taxes on the rich than see cuts in Medicare.
NormanTheIntern wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Here is a bit about demographics.

Let's get something straight. Romney didn't win white males. He won poorly-educated, older white males. Nate Cohn's New Republic piece is indispensable for us now. Obama actually won, albeit narrowly, among highly educated white males, and won handily among younger highly educated white males. Oh, and his whites have to be Christian. Jews--who are white but typically highly educated--went for Obama 70-30%, though pro-Bibi Jewish plutocrats, who endow Jewish organizations, sent a strong pro-Romney message.

The point is, the more voters were accustomed to processing complex arguments about how the economy works, how we got into trouble, how history might be made, and how political institutions share power, the more they embraced Obama. The more they were motivated by fears and flocking, the more they went for Romney's witless syllogisms: the president is responsible for everything, things are bad, therefore Obama is to blame; recovery requires business investment, I am a businessman, therefore I should be president. (Incidentally, my daughter Ellie just sent me this: for what its worth, biological research into the fear centers that are typically activated in the brains of "conservatives." Intriguing.)

The first paragraph is about demographics, correct.

The second is self-indulgent tripe.

What he also omits in paragraph one is that Obama won big in no small part due to a healthy turnout of low SES non-whites. The GOP doesn't have a monopoly on uneducated voters, theirs just happen to look more alike.

The issue, though, is that the message of winner-take-all free market fundamentalism being sold by the current GOP matches up very poorly with the demographic they have chosen as their base.

Frum wrote:

These realities do not dictate any particular political choice. But they do shape the menu of choices that will be available to political actors, as well as the range of outcomes that are achievable.

For example: it’s certainly possible for Republicans to choose to be a white person’s party. If we do so choose, however, we are also choosing to be an old person’s party. Since the elderly receive by far the largest portion of government’s benefits, an old person’s party will be drawn by almost inescapable necessity to become a big-government party. Indeed, that is just what happened in the George W. Bush years: Medicare Part D and all that.

Another example: the GOP’s social conservatism has increasingly repelled college-educated voters. In 1988, college-educated whites voted for George H.W. Bush over Michael Dukakis by a margin of more than 20 points. In 2008, John McCain bested Barack Obama among college-educated whites by only 2 points. As the GOP relies more heavily on less-educated voters, it finds itself relying on a class of people who have lost ground economically. Those voters understandably tend to mistrust business. It’s an odd predicament for the party of free enterprise to base itself on the most business-skeptical voters—a predicament that cost Romney dearly in the industrial Midwest.

Demosthenes wrote:
Lord, please forgive me and anyone with me in Murray Energy Corp. for the decisions that we are now forced to make to preserve the very existence of any of the enterprises that you have helped us build. We ask for your guidance in this drastic time with the drastic decisions that will be made to have any hope of our survival as an American business enterprise.

You didn't build that. God did apparently. *rolls eyes* This guy is a tool. Not even waiting to see what the economy does, just fires them immediately. Hopefully next on the chopping block for this PR nightmare is him.

Yeah, what kills me is when people drink their own political fantasy land kool-aid. And, hilariously in this case, become the cause of the problems they're convinced the other guy is causing right this minute. He'll fire those people today and no matter what happens to the economy down the line, he'll blame Obama for it. Hope those blinders are worth the cost of the impact on all those families.

It's the business-world equivalent of "b*tch wouldn't of gotten herself slapped if she'd just gotten me that beer sooner."

My guess, assuming he isn't a horrible businessman, was that he was doing the layoffs regardless. Either way he was probably going to blame it on Obama. I doubt he woke up and decided to alter his business based on dogma. More likely is that he needed to make wrenching layoffs and decided to wait after the election because he could do one of the following.

A) Claim Obama caused it and that it probably wouldn't get better fast enough because of the "devastation" caused by Obama's policies or....

B) Say a prayer and blame it on the reelection.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
Lord, please forgive me and anyone with me in Murray Energy Corp. for the decisions that we are now forced to make to preserve the very existence of any of the enterprises that you have helped us build. We ask for your guidance in this drastic time with the drastic decisions that will be made to have any hope of our survival as an American business enterprise.

You didn't build that. God did apparently. *rolls eyes* This guy is a tool. Not even waiting to see what the economy does, just fires them immediately. Hopefully next on the chopping block for this PR nightmare is him.

Yeah, what kills me is when people drink their own political fantasy land kool-aid. And, hilariously in this case, become the cause of the problems they're convinced the other guy is causing right this minute. He'll fire those people today and no matter what happens to the economy down the line, he'll blame Obama for it. Hope those blinders are worth the cost of the impact on all those families.

Yeah, I wish those people the very best, as they are being made to suffer so one man (or an executive board, or whatever) can make a political point.

He's really making it very badly and doing it in the same way I would expect a 6-year-old to do so too. "You say I can't play with this toy right now? Then I'm going to throw it against the wall."