mozartpc27 wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:Knowing why the poll numbers are the way they are is way beyond my expertise. But I will venture this: America has re-elected a President during times of economic distress only once (FDR in '36). One could make the argument that Romney should be leading Obama in the polls by a double-digit margin. Most pundits attribute Obama's bucking the trend to his likability factor. But likability is relative. It may well be that Romney's relative un-likability -- reinforced by his gaffes and mistakes -- is the reason his campaign is floundering in spite of conditions which suggest he should have a comfortable lead in the polls.

I think the "economic distress" argument, and the idea that Obama should be losing heavily, have been overplayed. Nate Silver has a fine post about this: what counts isn't so much whether voters feel they were better off than they were FOUR years ago, as much as it is that in the year-or-so run up to the election things have been improving. The charts in this post are very instructive. Note especially the trend in jobs numbers in the run-up to the 2004 election, and the 2012 election (hint: despite poor jobs numbers during the first half of the Bush and Obama first terms, the numbers got steadily if slowly better in the year-and-a-half or so in the run up to their re-election days). These are why Nate says, and has really always said, the "fundamentals," despite the CW that the economy is bad and Obama "should" be losing, actually favor a narrow victory for the incumbent.

TenuredVulture wrote:Is it a sign of anything that Pawlenty has quit as Romney's co-chair and appears to be quitting politics all together?

mozartpc27 wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Is it a sign of anything that Pawlenty has quit as Romney's co-chair and appears to be quitting politics all together?

I think it's a sign that Pawlenty is tired of the political game.

TenuredVulture wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Is it a sign of anything that Pawlenty has quit as Romney's co-chair and appears to be quitting politics all together?

I think it's a sign that Pawlenty is tired of the political game.

Well, he's quitting to go lobby for Wall Street. I don't think anyone who lobbies for Wall Street is a viable candidate for anything at this point though.

TenuredVulture wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Is it a sign of anything that Pawlenty has quit as Romney's co-chair and appears to be quitting politics all together?

I think it's a sign that Pawlenty is tired of the political game.

Well, he's quitting to go lobby for Wall Street. I don't think anyone who lobbies for Wall Street is a viable candidate for anything at this point though.

traderdave wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Is it a sign of anything that Pawlenty has quit as Romney's co-chair and appears to be quitting politics all together?

I think it's a sign that Pawlenty is tired of the political game.

Well, he's quitting to go lobby for Wall Street. I don't think anyone who lobbies for Wall Street is a viable candidate for anything at this point though.

That was supposed to be sarcastic, right? Because there happens to be a Wall Street lobbyist running for the Presidency on the GOP ticket.

TenuredVulture wrote:Is it a sign of anything that Pawlenty has quit as Romney's co-chair and appears to be quitting politics all together?

But to put it in market lingo, the Financial Service Roundtable, observers say, is pricing that in. The past four years have made it clear that Democrats aren’t likely to sympathize with the Financial Services Roundtable, regardless of what happens on Election Day. But Congressional Republicans might.

By bringing on Pawlenty, who’s stepping down as co-chair of the Romney campaign, the Roundtable is fortifying its relationship with the current Republican establishment and making it clear that its priority moving forward will be on legislative action in Congress, according to Hill aides and outside analysts. There’s little expectation that Dodd-Frank will be completely repealed, even if Mitt Romney were elected. Instead, the hope is that Congressional Republicans will be able to push through more incremental reforms to alter and roll-back parts of the Wall Street reform law. “We’re trying to reform the reform,” the Roundtable’s retiring head, Steve Barlett, told The New York Times in 2011.

“The industry has depended heavily upon the Republican establishment to go to bat for them and try to slow down and water down all the reforms” in Dodd-Frank, says one senior Democratic aide. The expectation is that Pawlenty would help increase its influence over Congressional Republicans who are already sympathetic to the interests of the Roundtable, which represents many of the nation’s biggest banks and insurance companies, including JPMorgan and Allstate.

"It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack," White House spokesman Jay Carney said aboard Air Force One, according to Reuters. "Our embassy was attacked violently and the result was four deaths of American officials. So, again, that's self-evident."

TenuredVulture wrote:There is an important caveat--the issues that matter probably change as you age.

mozartpc27 wrote:No serious person can claim that Obama has been in any way "soft" on terrorism

traderdave wrote:That was supposed to be sarcastic, right? Because there happens to be a Wall Street lobbyist running for the Presidency on the GOP ticket.

swishnicholson wrote:

traderdave wrote:That was supposed to be sarcastic, right? Because there happens to be a Wall Street lobbyist running for the Presidency on the GOP ticket.

When was Romney a Wall Street lobbyist? Unless this also sarcastic.

traderdave wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:

traderdave wrote:That was supposed to be sarcastic, right? Because there happens to be a Wall Street lobbyist running for the Presidency on the GOP ticket.

When was Romney a Wall Street lobbyist? Unless this also sarcastic.

It was indeed, Swish.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Wait... did Obama or his admin actually say the Benghazi breach was the result of anti-American protests? I recall the shitfest over "the apology by the embasy in Egypt with regards to the protests there over that lame-ass movie of student-projectesque production, and people muddling things between the two because Benghazi happened only a few hours later. I know it's easy to confuse things because all arabs and/or muslims are alike and all...

jerseyhoya wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Wait... did Obama or his admin actually say the Benghazi breach was the result of anti-American protests? I recall the shitfest over "the apology by the embasy in Egypt with regards to the protests there over that lame-ass movie of student-projectesque production, and people muddling things between the two because Benghazi happened only a few hours later. I know it's easy to confuse things because all arabs and/or muslims are alike and all...

Carney: "We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we've seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of, or to U.S. policy. ... The unrest around the region has been in response to this video. We do not, at this moment, have information to suggest or to tell you that would indicate that any of this unrest was preplanned." - Tapper grilling Carney on this was pretty fantastic

Susan Rice, UN Ambassador, on "Fox News Sunday" last week: "The best information and the best assessment we have today is that this was not a pre-planned, pre-meditated attack. What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent. And those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya, and that then spun out of control."

More:
TAPPER: My last question, it was said that what happened at 9/11 was a failure of imagination, failure of American policymakers and counterterrorism officials to anticipate the kind of attack that could have taken place. This would seem to be the exact opposite. Was this a failure by the Obama administration? Did the president and his administration mess up in any way?

CARNEY: Jake, again, what we have seen is unrest around the region in response to a video that Muslims find offensive, many Muslims find offensive. We have seen incidents like this in the past in reaction to other actions, cartoons, and other actions that have been taken that have been — have led to protests and violence in the region.

And we have managed those situations, and we are working to ensure that our diplomatic personnel and our diplomatic facilities are secure as we deal with the response to this video, which we believe is offensive and disgusting….I think you have to understand what is happening currently in the region and what it is a response to. This is not — this has been in –

TAPPER: No, I don’t need to understand that, I think the people who protect the embassies need to understand it.

MR. CARNEY: The cause of the unrest was a video, and that continues today, as you know, as we anticipated. And it may continue for sometime. We are working with governments around the region to remind them of their responsibilities to provide security to diplomatic personnel and facilities, and we are ensuring that more resources are put in place to protect our embassies and consulates and our personnel in these parts of the world where unrest is occurring.