• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

DNC Live Commentary

also if he's this big policy wonk, how come his speech was so devoid of details? is that part of the whole fact-checkers thing? don't want to put substance in there? as Jon Stewart said, Clinton's speech offered more details and numbers than all of the RNC speeches combined.
 
RJKarl said:
You'd better start working for that gay marriage law in GA. NTTAWWT
Click to expand...

Meh, my gay friends who are married are married, don't matter what Georgia says about it.
 
b
bobknightfan said:
I don't get all the fascination with Paul Ryan....but maybe I'm missing something somewhere. I hear all this talk about how he is this courageous person willing to make the hard decisions to solve these budget problems we have. Well, it doesn't take any courage to make a decision to cut things that you & your supporters want to see cut in the first place. What takes courage is the willingness to take a position that your supporters oppose where you make some kind of a scarifice as well in order to solve a problem. Has Paul Ryan done this somewhere and I missed it? Rolling back the unnecessary Bush tax cuts would be a good example. Has Ryan indicated that he would support doing this in order to form a bipartisan coalition to lower the budget deficit.....or has he simply proposed to solve the problem by doing everything that he & his supporters want to do....and to hell with everyone else?
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/opinion/06krugman.html

Note the date.
 
Go said:
Good lord you guys take yourselves way too seriously
Click to expand...

I was kidding. But yeah, I agree looks are important in elections. Helps explain our last gubernatorial election in VA. Bob McDonnell kept trotting out his very good looking aryan family in many of his TV ads and he was running against my nice but often slightly disheveled state senator. And I do think looks took what was a close race a few months previously to a pretty easy win for McDonnell. And no, I wouldn't eff Elizabeth Warren with your dick. So looks could mean the difference of a couple of points here. But with the Senate on the line, I just think that a very blue state at the end of the day will vote blue.
 
Someone eloquently described why Clinton is becoming so trusted and beloved. He said, "Bill Clinton has never had a day when he didn't think tomorrow would be better."

This is the essence of America. This is why his respect and popularity continues to grow.
 
c'ville, I still don't get you math.......

"Pub edges:
WI - Thompson should win it easily (Net 1 GOP)
MT - close but I see Tester losing (Net 2 GOP)
ND - Heitkamp is making this closer than it should be (Net 3 GOP)
NV - not a strong Dem candidate
AZ - Pub edge but not much data yet
IN - would have been a breeze with Lugar but not it's very tight with the tea partier

Dem edges:
FL - Nelson been a few points up in most of the polls
MO - I finally agree that Akin ain't winning this
VA - slight edge to Kaine
OH - Brown has been leading
MA - at the end of the day, with the balance on the line, I just can't see MA throwing control of the Senate to the Pubs (Net 2 GOP)
CT - see above

ME -King wins (Net 1 GOP)"
 
bobknightfan said:
I don't get all the fascination with Paul Ryan....but maybe I'm missing something somewhere. I hear all this talk about how he is this courageous person willing to make the hard decisions to solve these budget problems we have. Well, it doesn't take any courage to make a decision to cut things that you & your supporters want to see cut in the first place. What takes courage is the willingness to take a position that your supporters oppose where you make some kind of a scarifice as well in order to solve a problem. Has Paul Ryan done this somewhere and I missed it? Rolling back the unnecessary Bush tax cuts would be a good example. Has Ryan indicated that he would support doing this in order to form a bipartisan coalition to lower the budget deficit.....or has he simply proposed to solve the problem by doing everything that he & his supporters want to do....and to hell with everyone else?
Click to expand...

Totally agree. A Republican who was willing to raise taxes and cut military spending would be interesting.
 
bobknightfan said:
Assuming that Stabenow wins in Michigan...which wasn't on his list....those results would be Democrats 51, Republicans 49
Click to expand...

Right now we have:

"112th Congress (2011-2013)
Majority Party: Democrat (51 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (47 seats)
Other Parties: 1 Independent; 1 Independent Democrat
Total Seats: 100"

If the net is GOP +1 it would be

Dem 51
GOP 48
Ind 1 (Bernie Sanders)

The Ind Dem (Lieberman) becomes full Dem. Bernie is a Dem- 52-48
 
Mark Halperin is saying Romney is making a huge ad buy in fifteen states. The surprising part is no ads were bought in MI or PA. The biggest surprise is they made no buys in Ryan's home state of Wisconsin.
 
RJKarl said:
c'ville, I still don't get you math.......

"Pub edges:
WI - Thompson should win it easily (Net 1 GOP)
MT - close but I see Tester losing (Net 2 GOP)
ND - Heitkamp is making this closer than it should be (Net 3 GOP)
NV - not a strong Dem candidate
AZ - Pub edge but not much data yet
IN - would have been a breeze with Lugar but not it's very tight with the tea partier

Dem edges:
FL - Nelson been a few points up in most of the polls
MO - I finally agree that Akin ain't winning this
VA - slight edge to Kaine
OH - Brown has been leading
MA - at the end of the day, with the balance on the line, I just can't see MA throwing control of the Senate to the Pubs (Net 2 GOP)
CT - see above

ME -King wins (Net 1 GOP)"
Click to expand...

I said in my 2nd post that the Dems will certainly lose NE - Kerry is way behind there.
 
I don't understand why you guys want to raise taxes during a recession. You took Economics right?
 
Go said:
I don't understand why you guys want to raise taxes during a recession. You took Economics right?
Click to expand...

Raising taxes on income over $250,000 will have ZERO impact on slowing the economy.
 
RJKarl said:
Raising taxes on income over $250,000 will have ZERO impact on slowing the economy.
Click to expand...

You have little history to support your side's economic ideas:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-1993-clinton-tax-increase-did-not-lead-to-the-budget-surpluses-of-the-late-1990s/

Now granted, last time the GOP had a President, we spent like drunken sailors. So before the snarks show up, CATO makes a great point. Not only do you have to lower taxes, you must cut spending. And yes that includes cuts in every department if you're intellectually honest...
 
Go said:
I don't understand why you guys want to raise taxes during a recession. You took Economics right?
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you guys want to cut spending during a recession. You took Economics right?
 
Go said:
You have little history to support your side's economic ideas:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-...ad-to-the-budget-surpluses-of-the-late-1990s/

Now granted, last time the GOP had a President, we spent like drunken sailors. So before the snarks show up, CATO makes a great point. Not only do you have to lower taxes, you must cut spending. And yes that includes cuts in every department if you're intellectually honest...
Click to expand...

The conclusions reached in that article don't match the evidence provided. He claims that tax increases had no impact on the surpluses, and then ignores the increases in tax revenues and/or credits them all to a tax cut that occurred after the tax increases to GDP. And when your bio says "expert in supply side policy" is there any doubt as to your bias.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top