How polls are measuring voter sentiment this year.
Lots of complicated statistics here, but still an interesting look at how polls are measuring the race for President. Responses from many people who seem to have thought about what's going on.
Did the Obama campaign "Jump the Shark" with it's Bain Capital accusation?
I wonder why a confident presidential candidate would go down this road. It's one thing to say that your opponent is really not ready to be Chief Executive, or that his policies are wrong-headed and would harm the nation. That kind of thing is par for the course. But when one of your surrogates says that the other guy may have committed a felony, and without any evidence to back it up, you may be reasonably criticized for going way too far. What's next, evidence that Mitt Romney secretly sold contaminated penicillin to hospitals? I mean, really!
Romney has been accused of running Bain Capital after 1999. If that were true, Obama campaign could say that Romney was responsible for outsourcing jobs, as if that were a hanging offense. (Please see the piece by non-conservative Michael Kinsley referred to in a previous post in this thread for an explanation of why the outsourcing accusation is bogus.) The only evidence that has been brought forth to support this charge is a post-1999 federal SEC filing by Bain that includes Romney's name. It also says that he was inactive (or "passive," I can't remember the exact word at the moment but it was shown on TV). Apparently it took a while to do all the paper work following Romney's exit in 1999, following which he took over the running of the Olympics for 2002.
So, armed with this flimsy, out of context information, one of Obama's surrogates basically said that Romney had committed a felony by lying to the SEC. I can't say that this is the worst thing that any presidential candidate has ever said about his opponent, since back in the 19th Century things got pretty raw. But I think I am correct that there is no recent (i.e., the last century) case of a candidate's representative calling the other guy an out and out crook.
Was this just one spokeshole getting out of line? Perhaps, but as you will see in the following story about this whole incident, Pres. Obama seems not to think that calling Romney a felon, and a federal one at that, is a big deal. Is this careless on Obama's part? Or is it evidence that Obama and his people really believe that losing the election is a very real possibility? If that is the case, then one must conclude that instead of redoubling his positive efforts to convince the voters to re-elect him, he is starting to panic. I can't imagine why anyone confident of victory would have originated such a calumny, nor, if it somehow happened without his approval, would allow this to stand.
Did the Obama campaign "Jump the Shark" with it's Bain Capital accusation?
I wonder why a confident presidential candidate would go down this road. It's one thing to say that your opponent is really not ready to be Chief Executive, or that his policies are wrong-headed and would harm the nation. That kind of thing is par for the course. But when one of your surrogates says that the other guy may have committed a felony, and without any evidence to back it up, you may be reasonably criticized for going way too far. What's next, evidence that Mitt Romney secretly sold contaminated penicillin to hospitals? I mean, really!
Romney has been accused of running Bain Capital after 1999. If that were true, Obama campaign could say that Romney was responsible for outsourcing jobs, as if that were a hanging offense. (Please see the piece by non-conservative Michael Kinsley referred to in a previous post in this thread for an explanation of why the outsourcing accusation is bogus.) The only evidence that has been brought forth to support this charge is a post-1999 federal SEC filing by Bain that includes Romney's name. It also says that he was inactive (or "passive," I can't remember the exact word at the moment but it was shown on TV). Apparently it took a while to do all the paper work following Romney's exit in 1999, following which he took over the running of the Olympics for 2002.
So, armed with this flimsy, out of context information, one of Obama's surrogates basically said that Romney had committed a felony by lying to the SEC. I can't say that this is the worst thing that any presidential candidate has ever said about his opponent, since back in the 19th Century things got pretty raw. But I think I am correct that there is no recent (i.e., the last century) case of a candidate's representative calling the other guy an out and out crook.
Was this just one spokeshole getting out of line? Perhaps, but as you will see in the following story about this whole incident, Pres. Obama seems not to think that calling Romney a felon, and a federal one at that, is a big deal. Is this careless on Obama's part? Or is it evidence that Obama and his people really believe that losing the election is a very real possibility? If that is the case, then one must conclude that instead of redoubling his positive efforts to convince the voters to re-elect him, he is starting to panic. I can't imagine why anyone confident of victory would have originated such a calumny, nor, if it somehow happened without his approval, would allow this to stand.
Did the Obama campaign "Jump the Shark" with it's Bain Capital accusation?
I wonder why a confident presidential candidate would go down this road. It's one thing to say that your opponent is really not ready to be Chief Executive, or that his policies are wrong-headed and would harm the nation. That kind of thing is par for the course. But when one of your surrogates says that the other guy may have committed a felony, and without any evidence to back it up, you may be reasonably criticized for going way too far. What's next, evidence that Mitt Romney secretly sold contaminated penicillin to hospitals? I mean, really!
Romney has been accused of running Bain Capital after 1999. If that were true, Obama campaign could say that Romney was responsible for outsourcing jobs, as if that were a hanging offense. (Please see the piece by non-conservative Michael Kinsley referred to in a previous post in this thread for an explanation of why the outsourcing accusation is bogus.) The only evidence that has been brought forth to support this charge is a post-1999 federal SEC filing by Bain that includes Romney's name. It also says that he was inactive (or "passive," I can't remember the exact word at the moment but it was shown on TV). Apparently it took a while to do all the paper work following Romney's exit in 1999, following which he took over the running of the Olympics for 2002.
So, armed with this flimsy, out of context information, one of Obama's surrogates basically said that Romney had committed a felony by lying to the SEC. I can't say that this is the worst thing that any presidential candidate has ever said about his opponent, since back in the 19th Century things got pretty raw. But I think I am correct that there is no recent (i.e., the last century) case of a candidate's representative calling the other guy an out and out crook.
Was this just one spokeshole getting out of line? Perhaps, but as you will see in the following story about this whole incident, Pres. Obama seems not to think that calling Romney a felon, and a federal one at that, is a big deal. Is this careless on Obama's part? Or is it evidence that Obama and his people really believe that losing the election is a very real possibility? If that is the case, then one must conclude that instead of redoubling his positive efforts to convince the voters to re-elect him, he is starting to panic. I can't imagine why anyone confident of victory would have originated such a calumny, nor, if it somehow happened without his approval, would allow this to stand.
Because he's having to defend his record as a businessman and can't go on the offensive regarding Obama's economic record.
As I have posted elsewhere, Mitt has disclosure issues that will detract from and haunt his campaign. If he loses, and I think he will, it will be because he rejects transparency.
Because he's having to defend his record as a businessman and can't go on the offensive regarding Obama's economic record.
As I have posted elsewhere, Mitt has disclosure issues that will detract from and haunt his campaign. If he loses, and I think he will, it will be because he rejects transparency.
If Romney loses, which I too think he will, it'll be because he promises fewer handouts to the poor than Obama does.
If Romney loses, which I think too he will, it'll be because of what I posted, what you posted and because the constituency to which he caters is a bunch of old, white conservatives and evangelicals.
If Romney loses, this country will be in a very tough spot for the next few years. And I say that regardless of who controls the two houses of Congress.
My guess is that the GOP will retain control of the House, though they may lose a few seats. My further guess is that the GOP will at least hold their 47 Senate seats; it's a bit better than 50/50 that they will pick up at least one seat. That would make it 52-48 Democrats in the upper camber. A net gain of 4 seats would give the GOP control of Congress regardless of who is in the White House.
The point is this; with the Republicans in total or even partial control of the Congress, none of Barack Obama's proposals will become law. If the economy limps along as it has been doing for over three years, the GOP may gain overwhelming majorities in the Congressional elections of 2014. (You may reflect on what happened in 1938. Just two years after FDR won the most smashing victory ever, at least to that date, the Republicans themselves turned the tables on FDR, gaining 81 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate.)
I can hear the GOP's rallying cry if Obama is still in office in 2014. . .
Six years of failed leadership! Had enough?
If that happens, Barack Obama will become the weakest of lame ducks in calendar years 2015 and 2016. Oh, well, I won't feel too sorry for him. I'm sure that there will still be lots of golf courses open in the Washington, D.C. area.
But that's looking ahead. Regardless of who wins in November, a lot of us continue to ask the big question. . .
How long can the United States go on borrowing 40% of every dollar is spends? Perhaps the Republicans as yet do not have a good answer for that, but it's damned sure that Obama has no answer.
I'm going to assume that everyone is more or less familiar with the Obama campaign's latest attack on Mitt Romney and his Bain Capital days. I have a question; Is it reasonable to think that virtually calling Romney a criminal is a good political strategy? If the candidate were Newt Gingrich, I would say, "Very possibly yes." But Mitt Romney?
If Romney loses, which I too think he will, it'll be because he promises fewer handouts to the poor than Obama does.
If Romney loses, which I think too he will, it'll be because of what I posted, what you posted and because the constituency to which he caters is a bunch of old, white conservatives and evangelicals.
+1 The Republicans could change their narrative to gain some votes. Banging on teachers all day is a good way to lose votes. I heard a Fox discussion about teachers a few weeks ago. I forget who was on the panel except Ann Coulter and Huckabie. The discussion was mostly focused on how many bad teachers there were and how many (they made it sound like all) were making over $100,000 per year. Well my sister who has been teaching music in Arizona public schools for 25 years and has won numerous awards, including "teacher of the year" makes $43,000. My good friend who has been teaching biology in the rich Poway schools district for 35 years and has been "teacher of the year" has seen his class size almost double recently and has never sniffed $100,000. The panel had nothing but bad things to say about teachers in the public schools. I won't address what science community professionals think of today's Right.....let's just say its not good.
>>>I heard a Fox discussion about teachers a few weeks ago. I forget who was on the panel except Ann Coulter and Huckabie.<<<
uw, you're a nice guy, but if you seriously think the vast majority of the electorate watches Fox News, or any of the other idiotic talking heads on whatever cable "news" channel there is, you should get checked for the effects of nitrogen narcosis.
If Romney loses, which I think too he will, it'll be because of what I posted, what you posted and because the constituency to which he caters is a bunch of old, white conservatives and evangelicals.
+1 The Republicans could change their narrative to gain some votes. Banging on teachers all day is a good way to lose votes. I heard a Fox discussion about teachers a few weeks ago. I forget who was on the panel except Ann Coulter and Huckabie. The discussion was mostly focused on how many bad teachers there were and how many (they made it sound like all) were making over $100,000 per year. Well my sister who has been teaching music in Arizona public schools for 25 years and has won numerous awards, including "teacher of the year" makes $43,000. My good friend who has been teaching biology in the rich Poway schools district for 35 years and has been "teacher of the year" has seen his class size almost double recently and has never sniffed $100,000. The panel had nothing but bad things to say about teachers in the public schools. I won't address what science community professionals think of today's Right.....let's just say its not good.
Ann Coulter is NOT a Republican office holder. Neither is she a candidate for elective office. As for those who are GOP office holders or candidates, I don't think they have been overly harsh on teachers as a whole. What Republkicans such as Paul Ryan have been saying is that public employee unions in general are getting too much and have too great an influence on who gets elected and therefore on who will be deciding what public employees should be paid.
Are they correct?
We need to be careful here. We in San Diego know that compensation for City and County employees is a serous issue. One does not have to hate city or country or state workers to understand that there are times when economies must be made. If my expenses are $5,000 a month and I am bringing in only $4000, for instance, I am going to have to make some adjustments or go broke. Therefore, suggesting that employees, and usually it's future employees who are discussed, must be paid less and/or contribute more to their own retirement is not a wildly radical idea.
Teachers work for many different districts. Some districts, such as LA Unified, are huge and are controlled by very powerful and militant union locals. But there are thousands of smaller districts in which the political tone is much less confrontational than in the big ones. Either way, however, if this year you have only 90% of the money you got last year, something has to be trimmed. It is true that personnel receive about 85% of the money a district pays out each year. There is only so much you can cut from the paper towel and bus portions of your budget.
And I totally agree that teachers get blamed far too much these days. Those who do the most complaining should take a year off and teach in one of their local schools before they spout off. They won't do that, of course.
AzWm
« Last Edit: Jul 22, 2012, 1:51pm by AztecWilliam »
>>>I heard a Fox discussion about teachers a few weeks ago. I forget who was on the panel except Ann Coulter and Huckabie.<<<
uw, you're a nice guy, but if you seriously think the vast majority of the electorate watches Fox News, or any of the other idiotic talking heads on whatever cable "news" channel there is, you should get checked for the effects of nitrogen narcosis.
Only political junkies follow that crap.
"Effects of nitrogen narcosis".... hmm you may be on to something. It did take me 30 minutes to find the keys to my car in my house yesterday!
+1 The Republicans could change their narrative to gain some votes. Banging on teachers all day is a good way to lose votes. I heard a Fox discussion about teachers a few weeks ago. I forget who was on the panel except Ann Coulter and Huckabie. The discussion was mostly focused on how many bad teachers there were and how many (they made it sound like all) were making over $100,000 per year. Well my sister who has been teaching music in Arizona public schools for 25 years and has won numerous awards, including "teacher of the year" makes $43,000. My good friend who has been teaching biology in the rich Poway schools district for 35 years and has been "teacher of the year" has seen his class size almost double recently and has never sniffed $100,000. The panel had nothing but bad things to say about teachers in the public schools. I won't address what science community professionals think of today's Right.....let's just say its not good.
Ann Coulter is NOT a Republican office holder. Neither is she a candidate for elective office. As for those who are GOP office holders or candidates, I don't think they have been overly harsh on teachers as a whole. What Republkicans such as Paul Ryan have been saying is that public employee unions in general are getting too much and have too great an influence on who gets elected and therefore on who will be deciding what public employees should be paid.
Are they correct?
We need to be careful here. We in San Diego know that compensation for City and County employees is a serous issue. One does not have to hate city or country or state workers to understand that there are times when economies must be made. If my expenses at $5,000 a month and I am bringing in only $4000, for instance, I am going to have to make some adjustments or go broke. Therefore, suggesting that employees, and usually it's future employees who are discussed, must be paid less and/or contribute more to their own retirement is not a wildly radical idea.
Teachers work for many different districts. Some districts, such as LA Unified, are huge and are controlled by very powerful and militant union locals. But there are thousands of smaller districts in which the political tone is much less confrontational than in the big ones. Either way, however, if this year you have only 90% of the money you got last year, something has to be trimmed. It is true that personnel receive about 85% of the money a district plays out each year. There is only so much you can cut from the paper towel and bus portions of your budget.
And I totally agree that teachers get blamed far too much these days. Those who do the most complaining should take a year off and teach in one of their local schools before they spout off. They won't do that, of course.
Ann Coulter is NOT a Republican office holder. Neither is she a candidate for elective office. As for those who are GOP office holders or candidates, I don't think they have been overly harsh on teachers as a whole. What Republkicans such as Paul Ryan have been saying is that public employee unions in general are getting too much and have too great an influence on who gets elected and therefore on who will be deciding what public employees should be paid.
Are they correct?
We need to be careful here. We in San Diego know that compensation for City and County employees is a serous issue. One does not have to hate city or country or state workers to understand that there are times when economies must be made. If my expenses at $5,000 a month and I am bringing in only $4000, for instance, I am going to have to make some adjustments or go broke. Therefore, suggesting that employees, and usually it's future employees who are discussed, must be paid less and/or contribute more to their own retirement is not a wildly radical idea.
Teachers work for many different districts. Some districts, such as LA Unified, are huge and are controlled by very powerful and militant union locals. But there are thousands of smaller districts in which the political tone is much less confrontational than in the big ones. Either way, however, if this year you have only 90% of the money you got last year, something has to be trimmed. It is true that personnel receive about 85% of the money a district plays out each year. There is only so much you can cut from the paper towel and bus portions of your budget.
And I totally agree that teachers get blamed far too much these days. Those who do the most complaining should take a year off and teach in one of their local schools before they spout off. They won't do that, of course.
AzWm
Most, including me, might not last a week!
Including the nine years I have been substitute teaching, I have lasted well over thirty years. I can tell you that I have no idea how I have managed to last that long.
(That is being a bit over-melodramatic. For one thing, I took a 7 year break between '83 and '90, which gave me a different perspective. Also, it's a lot easier to be a substitute in many ways. It's those 30 full time years in the classroom that amaze me! Every so often I meet a former student or parent of same and, miraculously, no one has thrown a punch yet!)
Which party will control the House of Representatives?
Here is a detailed look at the current prospects in the House elections coming up in November. How these races turn out is really, really crucial for how the country is governed during the next four years. If the GOP can hold the House and Obama the presidency, we will likely have at least two more years similar to the last two.
I make that prediction even if the Republicans cannot take control of the Senate. The Reps. are likely to pick up a seat or two in the upper chamber at least, though perhaps not enough to be in control.They need a pickup of four or more to prevail.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/home.png "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/help.png "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/search.png "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/login.png "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/register.png "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/search2.png "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/print.png "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://i325.photobucket.com/albums/k387/aztecwin/th_Annoyer-1.jpg "[avatar]")
Logged
![[avatar]](http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h319/davdesid/red_wolf6.jpg "[avatar]")
Every so often I meet a former student or parent of same and, miraculously, no one has thrown a punch yet!)