I Wear Pants;1298499 wrote: Edit: Also every court disagrees with your interpretation.

Do they? I am not aware of any days the courts have declared "national early voting period".

And you do realize that anyone can cry disenfranchisement because one of - how many? TWENTY - days for early voting aren't "convenient"?

It's nothing more than Dems playing the race card that they play at every opportunity, real or imagined.

gut;1298505 wrote:Do they? I am not aware of any days the courts have declared "national early voting period".

And you do realize that anyone can cry disenfranchisement because one of - how many? TWENTY - days for early voting aren't "convenient"?

It's nothing more than Dems playing the race card that they play at every opportunity, real or imagined.

You still haven't given a reason for eliminating the days.

And yes the courts disagree with you. The initial ruling was against Husted, and all the appeals went against Husted. The Supreme Court has said it won't hear it.

Why did they want to eliminate the days? You'll notice I've said nothing about racism and wasn't ever going to. It's not about that.

I Wear Pants;1298502 wrote:There's also mountains of data that show that austerity is a really bad way to go about things which is essentially what the GOP want to do (and Obama has and is doing but to a lesser degree). Austerity as an economic measure is really stupid to use in a struggling economy. We're seeing exactly that in Greece and other countries now and have seen exactly that in the past.

LMAO. Here we go with the faux "austerity" argument again. First off, NO ONE, not Mitt Romney not anyone on this board or virtually anywhere else I've seen, is calling for austerity, and certainly not immediately.

Second, if you call 20% of GDP - which is Romney's sustained target all the way out in 2015 or something - austerity, you need to educate yourself. That is on the very upper-end of historical normative spending levels. That is almost 2pts (11%) higher than normative revenues as a % of GDP. That isn't remotely close to austerity.

Calling a balanced budget austerity is moronic.

gut;1298509 wrote:LMAO. Here we go with the faux "austerity" argument again. First off, NO ONE, not Mitt Romney not anyone on this board or virtually anywhere else I've seen, is calling for austerity, and certainly not immediately.

Second, if you call 20% of GDP - which is Romney's sustained target all the way out in 2015 or something - austerity, you need to educate yourself. That is on the upper-end of spending historically. That is almost 2pts (11%) higher than normative revenues as a % of GDP. That isn't remotely close to austerity.

Calling a balanced budget austerity is moronic.

Well for one we disagree that Romney has a balanced budget plan.

Ty Webb;1298456 wrote:You're clueless dude

Coming from the guy who posted every possible poll in 2010 that showed the Dems easily retaining the House and gaining seats in the Senate only to have your clock cleaned. I'm fairly certain you're the clueless dude.

I Wear Pants;1298507 wrote:You still haven't given a reason for eliminating the days.

And yes the courts disagree with you. The initial ruling was against Husted, and all the appeals went against Husted. The Supreme Court has said it won't hear it.

Why did they want to eliminate the days? You'll notice I've said nothing about racism and wasn't ever going to. It's not about that.

You've got 20 or 25 days or whatever your budget allows. You want to talk convenience and disenfranchisement, yet you clearly are favoring one group over another because whether it's 5 or 10 days it's irrelevant. The state has no obligation to provide early voting. The state has no obligation to make special efforts to accomodate any one person or group that is perfectly capable of voting one of a number of other days.

It's not like it's a black-and-white issue (no pun intended), nor are courts infallible. Nor would the make-up or likely verdict of a politicized Supreme Court in any way, shape or form ever influence the decision at an appellate court.

By your logic, states that do not have early voting are disenfranchising people and preventing them for voting. Why has the Supreme Court not ordered them to do otherwise?

I Wear Pants;1298512 wrote:Well for one we disagree that Romney has a balanced budget plan.

Ummm, where did I say Romney has a plan for a balanced budget? Did you not understand my point about his sustainable spending being 11% higher than normative revenue levels?

gut;1298517 wrote:Ummm, where did I say Romney has a plan for a balanced budget? Did you not understand my point about his sustainable spending being 11% higher than normative revenue levels?

I thought "Calling a balanced budget austerity is moronic." placed directly after talking about Romney was implying a balanced Romney budget. My bad if I was wrong but I don't think I took too large of a cognitive leap there.

ou've got 20 or 25 days or whatever your budget allows. You want to talk convenience and disenfranchisement, yet you clearly are favoring one group over another because whether it's 5 or 10 days it's irrelevant. The state has no obligation to provide early voting. The state has no obligation to make special efforts to accomodate any one person or group that is perfectly capable of voting one of a number of other days.

It's not like it's a black-and-white issue (no pun intended), nor are courts infallible. Nor would the make-up or likely verdict of a politicized Supreme Court in any way, shape or form ever influence the decision at an appellate court.

By your logic, states that do not have early voting are disenfranchising people and preventing them for voting. Why has the Supreme Court not ordered them to do otherwise?

I don't understand your point on the Supreme Court, I never claimed they did or would influence the decision of lower courts but rather that the appellate courts had made their decisions and the Sup. Court isn't going to hear the case.

And perhaps the state has no obligation to provide early voting. But Ohio has early voting. I want to know why it was all the sudden deemed that those 3 days before the election needed to go. A reason for why that benefits the people. I can't think of any.

As for the austerity thing. I may have entered that argument without much reason (in this thread). I've been reading hundreds of pages of research on austerity for a paper/presentation so hopefully you can understand/excuse the misstep.That shit is invading my thoughts.

I Wear Pants;1298521 wrote:I thought "Calling a balanced budget austerity is moronic." placed directly after talking about Romney was implying a balanced Romney budget. My bad if I was wrong but I don't think I took too large of a cognitive leap there.

Fair enough. But I was talking generally and not referring specifically to Romney, kind of like Obama's "act of terror".

I Wear Pants;1298521 wrote: And perhaps the state has no obligation to provide early voting. But Ohio has early voting. I want to know why it was all the sudden deemed that those 3 days before the election needed to go. A reason for why that benefits the people. I can't think of any.

I don't know. I don't know how they choose their days. But I also don't agree the other side is any more in the right or wrong DEMANDING they be accommodated for a specific day.

And to be fair, let's not pretend like the Dems hands are clean in this. I think Holder was going around at one point meeting with preachers about what they can and can't say. Not sure of the veracity of that claim, but there is clearly going to be some manipulation - not fraud, but not 100% on the up-and-up, either - when you have a preacher given an impassioned speech and then go as a group voting on stoked emotion and driven by group-think.

Anyway, that's another thread. I don't think voting should be a group activity, and if the roles were reversed so would the arguments from BOTH the Dems and Repubs. I do not believe these people are 100% voting willfully and voluntarily (no other group votes anywhere near as uniformly), and so while it's shady to hinder it it's equally shady to promote it.

It's been proven many times, on both sides, that Dems and Repubs only care about protecting THEIR votes. But for the life of me I can't see how, with 20some days of early voting PLUS election day, a person would be inconvenienced or "disenfranchised". Voter-ID laws can potentially disenfranchise someone, but this absolutely not.

gut;1298531 wrote:Fair enough. But I was talking generally and not referring specifically to Romney, kind of like Obama's "act of terror".



I don't know. I don't know how they choose their days. But I also don't agree the other side is any more in the right or wrong DEMANDING they be accommodated for a specific day.

And to be fair, let's not pretend like the Dems hands are clean in this. I think Holder was going around at one point meeting with preachers about what they can and can't say. Not sure of the veracity of that claim, but there is clearly going to be some manipulation - not fraud, but not 100% on the up-and-up, either - when you have a preacher given an impassioned speech and then go as a group voting on stoked emotion and driven by group-think.

Anyway, that's another thread. I don't think voting should be a group activity, and if the roles were reversed so would the arguments from BOTH the Dems and Repubs. I do not believe these people are 100% voting willfully and voluntarily (no other group votes anywhere near as uniformly), and so while it's shady to hinder it it's equally shady to promote it.

It's been proven many times, on both sides, that Dems and Repubs only care about protecting THEIR votes.

We agree here. I don't like when churches do that sort of thing (this happens for both sides too) nor do I like when companies talk that way (lately there have been executives coming out saying "if x is elected/reelected then I'll have to fire a bunch of people...I'm not telling you how to vote but....." Obviously paraphrased there).

I don't know how they choose their days either. But I know we've been able to vote on those 3 days in the past and a significant amount of people did in fact use those days to vote (wasn't it like 100,000?) so I can't see why we would get rid of them. Again I ask, where is the benefit for the electorate? Which is really what needs to justify any action.

I Wear Pants;1298524 wrote:As for the austerity thing. I may have entered that argument without much reason (in this thread). I've been reading hundreds of pages of research on austerity for a paper/presentation so hopefully you can understand/excuse the misstep.That **** is invading my thoughts.

Cool. I wouldn't mind reading when you are done. My perspective is there are budget cuts, and then there is austerity. And there are many degrees of austerity. And austerity has never remotely been put on the table (here) by anyone, much less Romney.

I think - I can't pretend to speak for them - but I think that's why many here don't like Romney. He's not remotely a fiscal hawk, but I favor slowing spending as an alternative to exploding it.

I Wear Pants;1298495 wrote:Because so much of your interpretation of Romney is either debatable or complete bull****.

Ok, go with proven failure, and absolutely no hope. Highly rational.

I Wear Pants;1298535 wrote: I don't know how they choose their days either. But I know we've been able to vote on those 3 days in the past and a significant amount of people did in fact use those days to vote (wasn't it like 100,000?) so I can't see why we would get rid of them. Again I ask, where is the benefit for the electorate? Which is really what needs to justify any action.

Makes sense. And perhaps that was the test the court applied.

But if we are going to justify early voting availability, I would do it based on economic value (long lines on Tuesday have small impact on the economy). Clearly some weekend days have to be on the table. If you have to pay polling workers, if it applies I'd have to favor a time-and-half Saturday over double-time Sunday. And I'm not saying that's the case, just speculating.

Although I wouldn't presume numbers on a given day indicate much. Convenience means flexibility, so for example if you have a large factory with 3rd shift people you need to be open several morning during the week and maybe early evening. The main thing being to provide multiple opportunities to vote without pigeonholing groups unintentionally into very limited options.

Probably had more to do with precedent. Always gotta be careful with that one. Perhaps if they just drew 20 days randomly out of a hat they could have defended it.

gut;1298537 wrote:Cool. I wouldn't mind reading when you are done. My perspective is there are budget cuts, and then there is austerity. And there are many degrees of austerity. And austerity has never remotely been put on the table (here) by anyone, much less Romney.

I think - I can't pretend to speak for them - but I think that's why many here don't like Romney. He's not remotely a fiscal hawk, but I favor slowing spending as an alternative to exploding it.

The thing with austerity is pretty much the same debate that you see a lot amongst different schools of economic thought.

On the Chicago School of thought side you have people who say austerity is necessary because deficits are unsustainable in the long run.

The other hand you have economists who say that if cut like wild men to reduce the debt that you're going to do massive damage to demand which will only further problems. One of the articles I read argued it similarly to this: "you wouldn't prescribe a fitness program and diet when the patient is dying of a heart attack" which I thought was amusing.

gut;1298544 wrote:Makes sense. And perhaps that was the test the court applied.

But if we are going to justify early voting availability, I would do it based on economic value (long lines on Tuesday have small impact on the economy). Clearly some weekend days have to be on the table. If you have to pay polling workers, if it applies I'd have to favor a time-and-half Saturday over double-time Sunday. And I'm not saying that's the case, just speculating.

Although I wouldn't presume numbers on a given day indicate much. Convenience means flexibility, so for example if you have a large factory with 3rd shift people you need to be open several morning during the week and maybe early evening. The main thing being to provide multiple opportunities to vote without pigeonholing groups unintentionally into very limited options.

Probably had more to do with precedent. Always gotta be careful with that one. Perhaps if they just drew 20 days randomly out of a hat they could have defended it.

Husted eliminated flexibility by standardizing polling hours across the state. Not really a bad thing, just saying if you see flexibility of polls to determine their own hours as a good thing then you have a gripe with Husted even if it isn't the same one I have.

Do we have a thread on the state ballot issues? Because perhaps we should. Especially interesting to me is the voting district issue (don't remember which number it is). I don't see why the district drawing lines are controlled by whoever controls the house at the time. That seems particularly unintuitive if you mean districts to be drawn without partisanship.

I Wear Pants;1298549 wrote: Do we have a thread on the state ballot issues? Because perhaps we should. Especially interesting to me is the voting district issue (don't remember which number it is). I don't see why the district drawing lines are controlled by whoever controls the house at the time. That seems particularly unintuitive if you mean districts to be drawn without partisanship.

There was a thread some time ago, I think.

Interesting about uniformity, because you can't allow it not to be (even though there's clear reasons why it wouldn't be).

I didn't read the ruling. I suspect mandating days won't withstand scrutiny unless you can demonstrate an unbiased and objective selection process. And anything short of drawing from a hat could probably have someone punch a hole in it.

Soooooooooooo......I guess we're done posting everyone's EC guesses, huh?:laugh:

Can everyone just use this: http://graphics.wsj.com/MAPMAKER/# and post a screenshot like I did? I think it'll be nicer/more fun that way.

I Wear Pants;1298547 wrote: On the Chicago School of thought side you have people who say austerity is necessary because deficits are unsustainable in the long run.

Well, you have the widely accepted classical theory that says deficit spending is offset as people anticipate higher future taxes. Then along comes Reagan to validate Keynes, and no one can say for sure why but the empirical evidence is contradicting theory. It's an anomaly, but then for some 20 years or more - in the US and globally - the anomaly continues to be repeated.

But Keynes never said that was sustainable. However, no one is practicing the surplus side of the theory. So Keynes is not correct, he just not nearly as wrong as the classical proponents.

Then, sometime in the 2000's, arguably even Bush's first term, the effect dissipates dramatically. Is it just masked by a dominant global deflationary force? I don't know. But in the past 4 years, stimulus/deficit spending, globally, virtually a nil impact. So classical theory is again winning.

No, you cannot sustain growing deficits. You can shrink them with inflation or organic growth, so I don't think you need to make a massive push to pay it down.

Now, my own theory is that goverments are taking advantage of global deflationary forces to collect an invisible tax. The US, at least, prints money and writes ITSELF an IOU. Historically that's inflationary and unsustainable. But I can't see where inflation is ever going to take off (because of global deflation) such that the money supply needs to be shrunk and, therefore, the debt repaid. So approx. half the debt the US govt owes itself will eventually be canceled, written-down, or most likely "restructured" via some sort of accounting gimmickry.

If we assume the real interest rate (deflation) is -2%, then 2% of GDP is something like $300-$400B. That's the free money or govt windfall and is theoretically sustainable until the dynamic changes. But $1T+ deficits are still a problem. If and when the dynamic changes it's a real problem.

Officially I think the fed targets 2-3%. Unofficially I think they'd prefer 4-6% for a lot of reasons. No matter how hard they try, they just can't get it to budge. And when you print that kind of money, it has to go somewhere.

obama: "the killing of 4 Americans is not optimal" Are you kidding me?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219867/Barack-Obama-Benghazi-If-Americans-killed-OPTIMAL-Obamas-extraordinary-response-security-fiasco-Benghazi-massacre.html?openGraphAuthor=%2Fhome%2Fsearch.html%3Fs%3D%26authornamef%3DToby%2BHarnden%2BIn%2BWashington


This jerk should be resigning immediately!

NBC News has Obama up 8 in Iowa and 6 in Wisconsin...

PPP is saying their Iowa poll tomorrow will look much better for Romney than NBC News's(guessing him down 3?)

http://washingtonexaminer.com/poll-shows-romney-leading-in-blue-pennsylvania/article/2511153#.UICHI-xPE1o


Romney up 4 in Pennsylvania.

Landslide building.

QuakerOats;1298577 wrote:http://washingtonexaminer.com/poll-shows-romney-leading-in-blue-pennsylvania/article/2511153#.UICHI-xPE1o


Romney up 4 in Pennsylvania.

Landslide building.

You cannot be serious believing that can you?

Be Careful With the Gallup Poll

Nate Silver comments on the Gallup tracking poll which shows Mitt Romney leading President Obama by seven points today -- results which "are deeply inconsistent with the results that other polling firms are showing in the presidential race, and the Gallup poll has a history of performing very poorly when that is the case."

"In 2000, for example, Gallup had George W. Bush 16 points ahead among likely voters in polling it conducted in early August. By Sept. 20, about six weeks later, they had Al Gore up by 10 points instead: a 26-point swing toward Mr. Gore over the course of a month and a half. No other polling firm showed a swing remotely that large. Then in October 2000, Gallup showed a 14-point swing toward Mr. Bush over the course of a few days, and had him ahead by 13 points on Oct. 27 -- just 10 days before an election that ended in a virtual tie."