Ryan VP?

[krill]

*Never has there been firm data that a veep choice brought a single state to the table.

 

 

*Only four times was it even statistically possible-to-likely

 

To me that means:

 

If that data is correct, then the argument becomes that the VP moment is merely a

"Confirming" push on the electorate about the main assets at the top

of the ticket (think Bush picking Cheney).

 

Not giving much, if any of an electorate boost may be the case, but it's possible for the VP pick to have a statistically significant negative effect.

 

Let's look at it graphically. First, with every undecided and leaning Obama state up for grabs.

 

 

Now we fill in states that are leaning Obama and have been trending higher for him (FL, PA, MI, NM)..some statisticians already put FL firmly in the Obama column.

 

 

And you begin to see how dire the situation is for Romoney. Obama wins one state on top of states that are trending towards solid, and it's over. Personally I wonder if AZ also comes into play with the Ryan pick, and you can bet it gives no hope for turning FL around. If Rubio could have helped at all in FL, Romney's outlook would be much better...

[AR Husker Fan]

Ryan was an odd choice. Conservatives may not like uniformily like Romney, but come election day, they would hold their noses and vote for him. As in all recent elections, the key is the moderate/independent voter. Ryan not only doesn't play to that demographic, his budget positions actually alienate a large part of it. His plans for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security pretty much alienates every sub-demographic in the moderate/independent group.

 

Having said that, I'm not sure who Romney could have selected. Huntsman, perhaps, but that selection would have possibly erroded the Republican base, and certainly the fringe groups such as the Tea Party. Still, it seems counter-productive to select someone who is perceived as being opposed to the interests of the moderate/independent bloc when that's precisely the demographic Romney needs.

 

Just...very odd.

[Excel]

Ryan was an odd choice. Conservatives may not like uniformily like Romney, but come election day, they would hold their noses and vote for him. As in all recent elections, the key is the moderate/independent voter. Ryan not only doesn't play to that demographic, his budget positions actually alienate a large part of it. His plans for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security pretty much alienates every sub-demographic in the moderate/independent group.

 

Having said that, I'm not sure who Romney could have selected. Huntsman, perhaps, but that selection would have possibly erroded the Republican base, and certainly the fringe groups such as the Tea Party. Still, it seems counter-productive to select someone who is perceived as being opposed to the interests of the moderate/independent bloc when that's precisely the demographic Romney needs.

 

Just...very odd.

 

Petraeus would've been nice. I was not and am not contemplating voting for Mitt but I'd have given him a second look for it. That's not to say the old General would've done it or that it would've helped him in the election...I just really like Petraeus.

[strigori]

Have you seen his budget proposal? Vouchers, vouchers and more vouchers. And he is a big fan of Ayn Rand. That alone is some scary stuff.

 

Only Medicare vouches for people under 55...those of us (well) under 55 would get to pay for baby boomer's full medicare our whole lives and then get a coupon when we retire, if it's even possible for the non-super wealthy to retire in 40 years if Republicans have their way. What a deal!

Add in they want to repeal ACA and let 'preexisting conditions' return it wont even be useful to buy, it wouldn't cover anything you have by the time you are 67 years old. the plan more or less amounts to those who are ot rich by retirement age are just encouraged (by not being able to afford care) to hurry up and die.

[carlfense]

<snip>

Huntsman, perhaps, but that selection would have possibly erroded the Republican base, and certainly the fringe groups such as the Tea Party.

<snip>

AR, do you think that the Republican base is distinguishable from the Tea Party? They seem nearly synonymous to me.

[AR Husker Fan]

They are nearly snynonymous - in appearance. But the base actually isn't as crazy as the Tea Party, which would sacrifice just about anything for so-called smaller government and lower taxes (ironic, as the Republican plans would negatively impact most Tea Party members, whose demograpic tends to be middle class). The Republican base isn't committed to an ideal - they are committed to getting their candidate into the White House. To do that, why are willing to embrace (in speech if not in actuality) the Tea Party talking points. But as we saw after the initial Tea Party members were elected, while they could force the Republican base into some posititons that they espouse, the Republican base (of which Boehner is representative) resisted some positions.

 

Now, wait until this election cycle ends, and let's see how many Tea Party members are elected at the state and local level from which Congress draws. If that happens - and we are seeing Republican base members losing primaries to Tea Party members for not being "conservative enough" - then the Republican party will eventually be co-oped by the Tea Party. Irony again, as the opposite was the Republican plan...

[Whistlebritches]

If Kansas is any kind of indicator then be ready for more Tea Party folks in government. In the most recent primaries a week ago nearly every Tea Partier beat out the more moderate Republican.

[Malth]

All I have to say is:

 

 

 

 

LOL

[strigori]

If Kansas is any kind of indicator then be ready for more Tea Party folks in government. In the most recent primaries a week ago nearly every Tea Partier beat out the more moderate Republican.

Which says two things.

 

1 - Don't expect to see a "Republican" or Tea Party President for awhile.

2 - Don't expect anything positive to get done in Congress for the foreseeable future. Politics at its core is about compromise. And Zealots are incapable.

[sd'sker]

[lo country]

If Kansas is any kind of indicator then be ready for more Tea Party folks in government. In the most recent primaries a week ago nearly every Tea Partier beat out the more moderate Republican.

Which says two things.

 

1 - Don't expect to see a "Republican" or Tea Party President for awhile.

2 - Don't expect anything positive to get done in Congress for the foreseeable future. Politics at its core is about compromise. And Zealots are incapable.

 

Unsure if the Zealot part is aimed at the Tea Party or the liberals currently serving or both.

 

I think that it is funny that those who appear to be dems on this board are demonizing the Tea Party yet speaking so highly of their current candidate in BO. That guy is about as far left as the media portrays the Tea Party to be on the far right. You have to be crazy to think that Obama is even remotely a moderate or centralist. Wow. Here is a nice link about Obama and his views that he shares with much of the new "European Socialists". Readers beware it it from a Conservative view, but makes a very logical argument.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/22/is-president-obama-truly-a-socialist/3/

[carlfense]

I think that it is funny that those who appear to be dems on this board are demonizing the Tea Party yet speaking so highly of their current candidate in BO. That guy is about as far left as the media portrays the Tea Party to be on the far right. You have to be crazy to think that Obama is even remotely a moderate or centralist.

Are you being serious?

[lo country]

I think that it is funny that those who appear to be dems on this board are demonizing the Tea Party yet speaking so highly of their current candidate in BO. That guy is about as far left as the media portrays the Tea Party to be on the far right. You have to be crazy to think that Obama is even remotely a moderate or centralist.

Are you being serious?

 

Yes. The guy has avery left lean IMO. Think what you want, but that seems to be a central theme. Increase the welfare state, centralize the banking industry, govt control of businesses, centralized health care etc..... I do not think he nor his supporters would agree, but it sure seems that he is in line with a socialist agenda.

 

I also do not think that the Tea Party is a bunch of right wing nut jobs that the media portrays them to be. Every party needs a bogeyman and the Tea Party is it for Dems.

[carlfense]

Increase the welfare state

If this is your standard then W. Bush is far left. (Medicare Part D)

 

centralize the banking industry

What?

 

govt control of businesses

What?

 

centralized health care

What? Surely you're not talking about the private market friendly ACA that was invented by the Heritage Foundation and first enacted at the state level by the Republican presidential candidate.

[strigori]

I think that it is funny that those who appear to be dems on this board are demonizing the Tea Party yet speaking so highly of their current candidate in BO. That guy is about as far left as the media portrays the Tea Party to be on the far right. You have to be crazy to think that Obama is even remotely a moderate or centralist.

Are you being serious?

 

Yes. The guy has avery left lean IMO. Think what you want, but that seems to be a central theme. Increase the welfare state, centralize the banking industry, govt control of businesses, centralized health care etc..... I do not think he nor his supporters would agree, but it sure seems that he is in line with a socialist agenda.

 

I also do not think that the Tea Party is a bunch of right wing nut jobs that the media portrays them to be. Every party needs a bogeyman and the Tea Party is it for Dems.

Centralize the banking industry? That has been done by deregulation, by allowing commercial banks and investment banks to be one. Yeah, the FDIC closed some, because their stupid mistakes and unfettered greed made them insolvent. There men are at central fault for the near complete collapse of the world economy.

 

Regulations are not 'government control.' Stop falling for the Koch propaganda. Every regulation is there because some company was screwing someone for a buck.

 

The guy in that article is simply pushing the agenda of the mega corps. No attachment to reality. A history book would prove that without regulations businesses run amok. US Steel. The Railroads (there IS a reason we use the term "railroaded") Standard Oil. Or terms like Lateral Integration.

 

Businesses could, overnight literally, end debates about tax rates and class warfare. Very, very simply without gov interfering, but they won't. Because of greed. Its as simple as this to right the economy. Pay cuts all around at the tops of companies. No more multimillion dollar execs, or board members. And take that money and give the actual workers raises. You know, the people we pretty much all are. The ones that actually make a company run. And because this won't happen, Unions are an answer. Take a look at the NFL, it works out pretty good.

 

Do you actually pay attention to what the Tea Party talks about? We are talking borderline anarcho-capitalism, and mixing it with theocracy. That classifies as crazy.