jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I like how far you all have come over the past four years

From hope and change to sure he can't seem do the job well but he's way better than the Republicans

I know you're upset because your party nominated a lousy politician who's blowing a winnable election. But if you're going to bash the president, you probably aren't well advised to base it on "he failed to totally fix the complete disaster that his Republican predecessor left him."

Come to think, this also holds for the economy. The Democratic Party slogan could be "we walk behind the elephants, cleaning up their #$!&@."

Obama walked into the job with the Status of Forces agreement in place, and if he did nothing at all the outcome would have been the same as it ended up being. Both sides seemed to recognize that we should try and hammer out an additional agreement, so a small remnant could stay behind to train the Iraqi army to protect the still fragile government. Through a combination of indecision and procrastination within the Obama administration on what forces we wanted to leave in country and how was best to go about coming to the agreement with Iraq, the opportunity evaporated. It was always going to be difficult to get anything done because of problems within Iraq, but the Obama administration's approach didn't give them a chance to succeed.

Umm, no. The Iraqis want their full sovereignty back. They were never going to agree legal immunity for American servicement in Iraqi courts, which was the Pentagon condition for keeping troops there. The Iraq government has no interest in its police and soldiers being trained by the US and other Western nations to be loyal to the law, constitution, and rights of civilians. They want to train them themselves to be loyal to the government. The have also shown that they have no interest in having Sunnis in the military or police in any significant numbers. To the extent that the military needs technical training, the government would prefer to get this training from Iran.

So where did all the quotes in the NYT article come from?

Monkeyboy wrote:So I believe Romney's strategy for the primaries was to be behind early and not worry too much about it and then pour on the money towards the end and make a push as the voting neared. I suspect the same thing in the general. It also worked for Scott Brown in MA a few years ago. So I look for a bunch of money to come in from Romney and his friends over the last 4-6 weeks. I hope Obama is ready for it. This isn't over.

They're about even on the money side and Obama probably has the better ground game. And there's no amount of money that improves Mitt as a candidate.

Silver runs two projections, a Nov 6 one and a "Now-cast." The president has something like a 77 percent chance in the November and a 95 percent if the vote were held today. I think the gap refers to the possibility of major changes between now and 11/6--it's a hedge against the unknowable, plus things like the erosion of the convention bounce (which was now almost three weeks ago). But as the days dwindle, the reality seems to be that absent an event or events that disqualifies Obama--a massive scandal or multiple revelations of incompetence--he will win a second term.

The whole 47% hubbub reminded me today of the story of the guy named Joe who sits down at a table with a Union Guy and a One-Percenter to divide up 13 cookies amongst them. The One-Percenter takes 12 of the cookies, then says to Joe: "You better be careful. That Union Guy wants to steal your cookie."

I finally figured out how Romney could've spun this--he could've said something like "all our party offers is income tax cuts, mostly for the wealthy. Why should people who don't benefit from those cuts vote for us? That's probably like 47% of the people. All we're offering to those people is more war, cuts in social security and medicare, less job security, lower wages, making it harder to send their kids to college, and fiscal policies that are going to increase the current deficit exponentially. And we're also going to take away their porn and birth control. We probably should stop treating these people like morons."

their party was the one that provided the EITC and childcare credits to get that number to 47%. you'd think he'd be proud of it.

dajafi wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:So I believe Romney's strategy for the primaries was to be behind early and not worry too much about it and then pour on the money towards the end and make a push as the voting neared. I suspect the same thing in the general. It also worked for Scott Brown in MA a few years ago. So I look for a bunch of money to come in from Romney and his friends over the last 4-6 weeks. I hope Obama is ready for it. This isn't over.

They're about even on the money side and Obama probably has the better ground game. And there's no amount of money that improves Mitt as a candidate.

Silver runs two projections, a Nov 6 one and a "Now-cast." The president has something like a 77 percent chance in the November and a 95 percent if the vote were held today. I think the gap refers to the possibility of major changes between now and 11/6--it's a hedge against the unknowable, plus things like the erosion of the convention bounce (which was now almost three weeks ago). But as the days dwindle, the reality seems to be that absent an event or events that disqualifies Obama--a massive scandal or multiple revelations of incompetence--he will win a second term.

I'm hoping you're right and it makes sense, but I know Romney was behind repeatedly during the primaries and he always came on at the end by buying tons of ads or having 3rd parties do it. It may not work because he may be too far gone, but I bet that's what he's trying to do here. Hang around within 3-4 points and then make a push. The candidate with momentum gets the positive press and the one without the momentum gets asked questions. I just think they need to be ready for the push. I know Obama has been spending pretty equal, as it was mentioned by others in this thread, I believe, I just don't think the spending is nearly done yet.

Obama is up by 8 points in PA. Just file this under the rather large "Things That Don't Make Sense to Nightman" file.

Monkeyboy wrote:

dajafi wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:So I believe Romney's strategy for the primaries was to be behind early and not worry too much about it and then pour on the money towards the end and make a push as the voting neared. I suspect the same thing in the general. It also worked for Scott Brown in MA a few years ago. So I look for a bunch of money to come in from Romney and his friends over the last 4-6 weeks. I hope Obama is ready for it. This isn't over.

They're about even on the money side and Obama probably has the better ground game. And there's no amount of money that improves Mitt as a candidate.

Silver runs two projections, a Nov 6 one and a "Now-cast." The president has something like a 77 percent chance in the November and a 95 percent if the vote were held today. I think the gap refers to the possibility of major changes between now and 11/6--it's a hedge against the unknowable, plus things like the erosion of the convention bounce (which was now almost three weeks ago). But as the days dwindle, the reality seems to be that absent an event or events that disqualifies Obama--a massive scandal or multiple revelations of incompetence--he will win a second term.

I'm hoping you're right and it makes sense, but I know Romney was behind repeatedly during the primaries and he always came on at the end by buying tons of ads or having 3rd parties do it. It may not work because he may be too far gone, but I bet that's what he's trying to do here. Hang around within 3-4 points and then make a push. The candidate with momentum gets the positive press and the one without the momentum gets asked questions. I just think they need to be ready for the push. I know Obama has been spending pretty equal, as it was mentioned by others in this thread, I believe, I just don't think the spending is nearly done yet.

I can't imagine any competent campaign has ever had being behind by 3 or 4 points with 40 days to go as part of their strategy.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Obama is up by 8 points in PA. Just file this under the rather large "Things That Don't Make Sense to Nightman" file.

Why doesn't it make sense? President Obama won PA by 10% in 2008 and PA has more registered Democrats.

Read this:

What’s Wrong With Pennsylvania?

jerseyhoya wrote:So where did all the quotes in the NYT article come from?

The NYT has been hawkish on Iraq since day 1. It's not hard to get quotes. The military and national security/foreign affairs leadership can be relied on to never admit that our objectives were wrong or not accomplishable -- the excuse is always that they just weren't given enough time. Same old, same old since Viet Nam. A decade and more, with all the blood and $trillions commited just isn't enough. If they can cow the presidents into continuing the struggle, so they don't have to admit their failure, then two decades won't be enough. We never lose-lose while we're there in force, we simply fail to change the country we're occupying in any fundamental sort of way so that things are changed for the better after we leave. The Iranian slant was there from the start among the many fairly radical Shia leaders and it would still be there if we stayed another decade. Our chosen Iraqi leader is helping Iran help Syria's Assad. What else would you expect? They're the Shia leaders in a sea of Sunni that is the Middle East, and they don't think of themselves as one big happy family.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

dajafi wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:So I believe Romney's strategy for the primaries was to be behind early and not worry too much about it and then pour on the money towards the end and make a push as the voting neared. I suspect the same thing in the general. It also worked for Scott Brown in MA a few years ago. So I look for a bunch of money to come in from Romney and his friends over the last 4-6 weeks. I hope Obama is ready for it. This isn't over.

They're about even on the money side and Obama probably has the better ground game. And there's no amount of money that improves Mitt as a candidate.

Silver runs two projections, a Nov 6 one and a "Now-cast." The president has something like a 77 percent chance in the November and a 95 percent if the vote were held today. I think the gap refers to the possibility of major changes between now and 11/6--it's a hedge against the unknowable, plus things like the erosion of the convention bounce (which was now almost three weeks ago). But as the days dwindle, the reality seems to be that absent an event or events that disqualifies Obama--a massive scandal or multiple revelations of incompetence--he will win a second term.

I'm hoping you're right and it makes sense, but I know Romney was behind repeatedly during the primaries and he always came on at the end by buying tons of ads or having 3rd parties do it. It may not work because he may be too far gone, but I bet that's what he's trying to do here. Hang around within 3-4 points and then make a push. The candidate with momentum gets the positive press and the one without the momentum gets asked questions. I just think they need to be ready for the push. I know Obama has been spending pretty equal, as it was mentioned by others in this thread, I believe, I just don't think the spending is nearly done yet.

I can't imagine any competent campaign has ever had being behind by 3 or 4 points with 40 days to go as part of their strategy.

I think he'd rather be up 3-4 points, but he's saving his resources and waiting for Obama to make a mistake. Either way, he'll pour on the money at the end.

allentown wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:So where did all the quotes in the NYT article come from?

The NYT has been hawkish on Iraq since day 1. It's not hard to get quotes. The military and national security/foreign affairs leadership can be relied on to never admit that our objectives were wrong or not accomplishable -- the excuse is always that they just weren't given enough time. Same old, same old since Viet Nam. A decade and more, with all the blood and $trillions commited just isn't enough. If they can cow the presidents into continuing the struggle, so they don't have to admit their failure, then two decades won't be enough. We never lose-lose while we're there in force, we simply fail to change the country we're occupying in any fundamental sort of way so that things are changed for the better after we leave. The Iranian slant was there from the start among the many fairly radical Shia leaders and it would still be there if we stayed another decade. Our chosen Iraqi leader is helping Iran help Syria's Assad. What else would you expect? They're the Shia leaders in a sea of Sunni that is the Middle East, and they don't think of themselves as one big happy family.

But the article has more than just quotes from military/national security people. From our wise, foreign policy expert VP: “Maliki wants us to stick around because he does not see a future in Iraq otherwise,” Mr. Biden said. “I’ll bet you my vice presidency Maliki will extend the SOFA.”

I said in my post that it was always going to be difficult to get an agreement done, but the administration certainly seemed to think they would be able to come to an accord. Whether or not it was impossible, the administration handled the process so poorly we will never know.

You seem to be happy that they failed, which is fine, and who knows that might have been the best outcome. But it certainly didn't seem to be their objective.

JFLNYC wrote:Read this:

What’s Wrong With Pennsylvania?

this guy let himself be quoted in the ny times saying crap like this:

When I met Kevin Balzer, a Romney supporter who is a Mack Truck supervisor, I asked him why his state looks likely to back Obama. “People are stupid,” he said.

City and state officials, he went on,

eliminated civics from our curriculum. The students don’t know about civics, they don’t know about our history, our government, our constitution. Politicians say they are going to give people things for free to get elected. That is what’s happening in Pennsylvania, especially in Lehigh Valley.
Balzer added that “the white guys got pushed out” of Allentown and neighboring communities, in part by a wave of Hispanic immigration. Balzer, who joined the exodus to areas outside of Allentown, said he and others want to “get away from the whole erosion of the country.”

Hillary Clinton Aide Tells Reporter To “Fuck Off” And “Have A Nice Life” - An amazing (embarrassing to both) exchange between a CNN reporter and an Deputy Assistant Secretary of State.

slugsrbad wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Obama is up by 8 points in PA. Just file this under the rather large "Things That Don't Make Sense to Nightman" file.

Why doesn't it make sense? President Obama won PA by 10% in 2008 and PA has more registered Democrats.

That was with a the worse economic crisis in over 75 years.

Granted I think we knew McCain is a better politician than Romney, but it should still be closer than 8 points with the national race around 3 as well.

PA has been anywhere from +6 to +10 points for quite some time. The concern with PA is whether the voter ID law will suppress the vote enough to affect the election.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Obama is up by 8 points in PA. Just file this under the rather large "Things That Don't Make Sense to Nightman" file.

Why doesn't it make sense? President Obama won PA by 10% in 2008 and PA has more registered Democrats.

That was with a the worse economic crisis in over 75 years.

Granted I think we knew McCain is a better politician than Romney, but it should still be closer than 8 points with the national race around 3 as well.

Still, why doesn't this make sense? Because PA is old and white? Because we cling to our guns and religion?