• 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!

NY Times/538 Projections of GOP Candidates vs. Obama

Bloomberg is the one GOP name I, generally a liberal, would absolutely support against Obama. No way can I blame Bloomberg for not entering a race littered with pigs, shitheads, and charlatans but I really wish he had run this year.
 
This makes no damn sense. If Huntsman can't get GOP leaners' votes and he certainly won't get liberal votes, he can't win. The end.

Independents can be important, but you can't ONLY get them and win.

Same's true for Bloomberg.
 
94Deac said:
Bloomberg is the one GOP name I, generally a liberal, would absolutely support against Obama. No way can I blame Bloomberg for not entering a race littered with pigs, shitheads, and charlatans but I really wish he had run this year.
Click to expand...

You'll be happier sticking with Obama.
 
So can somebody tell me why diehard Republicans in the private sector would have any motivation to hire instead of just letting their money stay on the sidelines?
 
PhDeac said:
So can somebody tell me why diehard Republicans in the private sector would have any motivation to hire instead of just letting their money stay on the sidelines?
Click to expand...

That's why the economy is going nowhere until the 2012 election.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
What? Please tell me you're not this dense.
Click to expand...

Huntsman's not going to be president, he's not even going to come close to winning the nomination. He wouldn't win liberal votes, and conservatives aren't going to vote for him. No, they aren't...tea party types are not just going to vote for the party.

Obama would win in a walk, which is why Huntsman is running somewhere between dead last and write-in votes for Mickey Mouse.

A few independents are not going to change that.

Perhaps you are the one that's dense. Actually, that would seem likely. Anyone that is wrong but yet is so sure they're right that they will cast insults and aspersions at others is likely pretty dumb.

So kindly fuck off.
 
bobknightfan said:
Any candidate who would seriously call for a flat 9% income tax & a 9% sales tax is a f*cking loon.
Click to expand...

What about this makes him a loon, bkf? We are headed for some form of flat tax with the elimination of deductions and loopholes. The 9% sales tax replaces a portion of the embedded corporate taxes that will be reduced in this plan. Give lower income folks a certain amount tax-free to cover basic necessities (to avoid being regressive) and you have a simple transparent plan that will encourage businesses to grow and bring some manufacturing jobs back home.
 
84Deac said:
What about this makes him a loon, bkf? We are headed for some form of flat tax with the elimination of deductions and loopholes. The 9% sales tax replaces a portion of the embedded corporate taxes that will be reduced in this plan. Give lower income folks a certain amount tax-free to cover basic necessities (to avoid being regressive) and you have a simple transparent plan that will encourage businesses to grow and bring some manufacturing jobs back home.
Click to expand...

Because this would majorly increase taxes on the poor and decrease taxes on the rich and bring in way less revenue to the fed government which already has a huge deficit. And by giving lower income peeps some amount of tax-free you are creating an even more complicated system. A 9% sales tax is ridiculous and highly regressive, there wouldnt be any way to prevent that.
 
rjequalsmj said:
Because this would majorly increase taxes on the poor and decrease taxes on the rich and bring in way less revenue to the fed government which already has a huge deficit. And by giving lower income peeps some amount of tax-free you are creating an even more complicated system. A 9% sales tax is ridiculous and highly regressive, there wouldnt be any way to prevent that.
Click to expand...

The theory is that since the 9% replaces hidden costs is that the basic price of things would actually go down, essentially making it the same price you're paying right now.

If a loaf of bread is 3 bucks now, it would be around 3 bucks including the 9% tax.

Its a stretch, the real problem is that economists base all figures on a national sales tax on our current system, its a shame we couldn't try a pilot program.

The 3 taxes in the 9 9 9 plan replace like 17 separate taxes, which all figure into prices of goods and services in America.
 
deacz said:
Get a clue, GOP. Moderates hold the keys to the coming election (at least according to this guy). Go Huntsman.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/11/03/magazine/538-gdp-election-calculator.html
Click to expand...

Actually was talking about this with the Old Man the other day. We used to have pretty spirited GOP V Dem debates, but I'm having a difficult time liking any Republicans these days. I liked the old moderate Mitt, but the current Mitt is just terrible....

Are the Rockefeller Republicans officially extinct? The fact that Gingrich thinks Mitt is a Rockefeller Republican leads me to believe the socially moderate, fiscally conservative Pub is dead.....
 
Go said:
The theory is that since the 9% replaces hidden costs is that the basic price of things would actually go down, essentially making it the same price you're paying right now.

If a loaf of bread is 3 bucks now, it would be around 3 bucks including the 9% tax.

Its a stretch, the real problem is that economists base all figures on a national sales tax on our current system, its a shame we couldn't try a pilot program.

The 3 taxes in the 9 9 9 plan replace like 17 separate taxes, which all figure into prices of goods and services in America.
Click to expand...

Hard to argue companies are going to reduce prices that people are willing to pay.
 
PhDeac said:
Hard to argue companies are going to reduce prices that people are willing to pay.
Click to expand...

I mean gas companies don't do it, but you don't think at some point the free market takes hold and Wonder Bread tries to one up Arnold Bread by cutting its price since it won't be paying as much in taxes?

People won't pay more, we'll figure out a way as a society to drive down price if we have to start eating bread-less sandwiches, etc.
 
DiegoTiger said:
Actually was talking about this with the Old Man the other day. We used to have pretty spirited GOP V Dem debates, but I'm having a difficult time liking any Republicans these days. I liked the old moderate Mitt, but the current Mitt is just terrible....

Are the Rockefeller Republicans officially extinct? The fact that Gingrich thinks Mitt is a Rockefeller Republican leads me to believe the socially moderate, fiscally conservative Pub is dead.....
Click to expand...

I think that's the silent 40% of voters (30% are extreme right or left), they are fiscally conservative but neutral to liberal on social views.

Technically speaking, there really isn't a party for them. In 2000, they split. In 2004, they were still worried about security and enough went for Bush. In 2008, they had serious Bush/R fatigue and voted for the exciting new hope of Obama.

In 2012 they are regretting their vote, some will stay at home, some are mad enough at the President to vote R and some might swing back to Obama if the economy slightly improves next year. I personally think the economy will improve and Obama will win, ala Bush in 2004.

This is an interesting group of people, at times I feel frustrated with them. I know they are turned off by politics, but if they would rise up and let their voices be heard, they could take back both political parties because they have the numbers. The extremists are willing to caucus, campaign, go door to door for their causes. This silent majority of moderates prefer to stay quiet and its not helping them at all.
 
Go said:
I mean gas companies don't do it, but you don't think at some point the free market takes hold and Wonder Bread tries to one up Arnold Bread by cutting its price since it won't be paying as much in taxes?

People won't pay more, we'll figure out a way as a society to drive down price if we have to start eating bread-less sandwiches, etc.
Click to expand...

GO, it WON't drive down the cost of your loaf of bread or gallon of gas.

If the comnpany that owns Wonder Bread makes as much as a pretax profit of 10% of sales, they are doing REMARKABLY well. Thus is you cut their taxes from 35% to 9% you are only saving 2.1% off the cost of the product.

It you don't thing that 2.1% goes diectly to the senior management and the bottom line, you are being delusional.

Even if it did go to the consumer, they would still be almost 7% short of the tax in the amount they would save.

The GOP has successfully brainwashed peopel into thinking whatever percentage is saved in corporate taxes would come off of product pricing, when the reality is a very minor part of it would.

As are most of the GOPP bumpper sticker policies, this is a total scam.
 
I posted this the last time some crazy implied that Huntsman could win. It seems it has been forgotten.

-----

Barack Obama, getting pretty much every Dem vote he ever had a chance at in 2008, got about 30% of the eligible voting populace. McCain got about 26%. About 1% voted for someone else. 43% didn't vote at all.

In 2004, it was only slightly different. Bush got about 28.7% of those eligible to vote. Kerry got 27.4%.

So the difference between a "close GOP win" and a "historic Democratic landslide" was that a 1.3% share switched sides (turnout rate was pretty similar).

2000 -- Gore got 24.8%. Bush got 24.6%.
1996 was even worse. One might call this the absolute baseline for the two parties. Clinton got 23.9%. Dole got 19.9%. Perot got 4.1%

1992 -- Clinton 23.3%. Bush 20.6%. Perot 10.4%. Quelle interessante that the biggest difference between the turnout in 1992 and 1996 was the decreased support for Perot. Safe to say that only the partisans voted in '96.

So let's call the Dem baseline 23% and the GOP baseline 20% of the total eligible populace. Almost no matter what, each party is going to get that amount to show up and vote. Dems have a slightly higher registration rate than GOP, so I think this is reasonable.

That leaves 57% of the population that is open to persuasion. Oh but wait, since 1992 between 49-57% of the population has even voted! And we've already accounted for 43% above! So in the highest turnout election we've had since 1968, only about 14% of the voters would have been truly outside the two parties' bases.

The reality is most of those "independents" are really "disinterested" and are unlikely to vote. So, unless there's a candidate that can bring an atypical amount of non-voters out of the woodwork, the two parties' bases are going to constitute at least 75% of the voters in the election, and up to 88%, based on turnout rates since 1992.

It appears also that with Bush, the GOP had more support among those "independents", or else they wouldn't have been able to win in 2000 or 2004. Perhaps the folksiness of Bush going against the stodgy liberals Gore and Kerry made the difference.

I guess it's somewhat encouraging that the last two elections have seen that rate of independent voters rise. But will it stay that way in 2012? I don't think we'll see 57% turnout.

By the way, this information should blow out of the water the myth that depressed turnout favors the GOP. Depressed Democrat turnout favors the GOP, of course, but they need to win the middle to win.

-----
Huntsman cannot win without strong support in his party, which he does not have. Almost no candidate can. 75-88% of the voters in the election are going to be party devotees.

The article linked in the original post is FOS.
 
KanhojiAngre said:
I posted this the last time some crazy implied that Huntsman could win. It seems it has been forgotten.

-----

Barack Obama, getting pretty much every Dem vote he ever had a chance at in 2008, got about 30% of the eligible voting populace. McCain got about 26%. About 1% voted for someone else. 43% didn't vote at all.

In 2004, it was only slightly different. Bush got about 28.7% of those eligible to vote. Kerry got 27.4%.

So the difference between a "close GOP win" and a "historic Democratic landslide" was that a 1.3% share switched sides (turnout rate was pretty similar).

2000 -- Gore got 24.8%. Bush got 24.6%.
1996 was even worse. One might call this the absolute baseline for the two parties. Clinton got 23.9%. Dole got 19.9%. Perot got 4.1%

1992 -- Clinton 23.3%. Bush 20.6%. Perot 10.4%. Quelle interessante that the biggest difference between the turnout in 1992 and 1996 was the decreased support for Perot. Safe to say that only the partisans voted in '96.

So let's call the Dem baseline 23% and the GOP baseline 20% of the total eligible populace. Almost no matter what, each party is going to get that amount to show up and vote. Dems have a slightly higher registration rate than GOP, so I think this is reasonable.

That leaves 57% of the population that is open to persuasion. Oh but wait, since 1992 between 49-57% of the population has even voted! And we've already accounted for 43% above! So in the highest turnout election we've had since 1968, only about 14% of the voters would have been truly outside the two parties' bases.

The reality is most of those "independents" are really "disinterested" and are unlikely to vote. So, unless there's a candidate that can bring an atypical amount of non-voters out of the woodwork, the two parties' bases are going to constitute at least 75% of the voters in the election, and up to 88%, based on turnout rates since 1992.

It appears also that with Bush, the GOP had more support among those "independents", or else they wouldn't have been able to win in 2000 or 2004. Perhaps the folksiness of Bush going against the stodgy liberals Gore and Kerry made the difference.

I guess it's somewhat encouraging that the last two elections have seen that rate of independent voters rise. But will it stay that way in 2012? I don't think we'll see 57% turnout.

By the way, this information should blow out of the water the myth that depressed turnout favors the GOP. Depressed Democrat turnout favors the GOP, of course, but they need to win the middle to win.

-----
Huntsman cannot win without strong support in his party, which he does not have. Almost no candidate can. 75-88% of the voters in the election are going to be party devotees.

The article linked in the original post is FOS.
Click to expand...

Good post.
 
RJ, I think you're mixing numbers up in that analysis, but I see what you're saying and basically the answer is that you and I have no idea what would happen.

I do know what is happening today. We have corporations with billions of dollars sitting in overseas accounts, waiting to be spent in the United States or elsewhere. Right now our tax system is so messed up, that money will never make it here. Something's got to give.
 
And I didn't even go into the whole problem w/ the current loopholes in the tax code issue...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top