jerseyhoya wrote:It means 9% more respondents are self identifying Democrats than Republicans (34-25-36). Three possible explanations are Democrats are going to turn out in much higher numbers than Republicans, more members of both parties (but disproportionately Republicans) are now identifying as independents rather than members of parties (that 36% number his pretty high), or it's a #$!&@ sample. The first two explanations aren't impossible, but it's not what the other polls are finding.

In 2004 the partisan breakdown was even, in 2008 Dems were +7. So it's happened before. It's just this doesn't much feel like 2008.

dajafi wrote:I read over the weekend that Ron Paul refused to endorse Romney. Was a bit surprised as they were all bromantic during the primaries.

I'd still love to see Johnson, the Green Party woman, and some Christianist freak in one of the debates. Never gonna happen, I suppose.

Meanwhile, Feldstein, a Romney adviser, used 2009 data from the IRS to demonstrate that Romney can meet all his goals and not increase taxes on the middle class.

"Mitt Romney's plan to cut taxes and offset the resulting revenue loss by limiting tax breaks has been attacked as ‘mathematically impossible,’" Feldstein wrote. Romney’s plan, "say critics, would require a large tax increase on the middle-class to avoid raising the deficit. Careful analysis shows this is not the case."

In an interview with PolitiFact, Feldstein noted that his analysis didn’t separate out data for earners between $100,000 and $200,000. That means the Obama campaign is incorrect to say Feldstein argues that "large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000" would be needed. Feldstein’s data doesn’t address that income range.

"I did the analysis treating the middle-class families as those below the top 20 percent -- those below $100,000," Feldstein said. "I didn't calculate the average tax increase for those in the $100,000 to $200,000. So I cannot say that (the Obama campaign is) right or wrong about the $100,000 to $200,000 families. But I think it is fair to say that those with incomes in the top 20 percent of the distribution are relatively affluent and should not be counted as the middle class."

td11 wrote:i've discussed this before, but look at politifact's factcheckof the feldstein study that Romney and co have been citing:

Meanwhile, Feldstein, a Romney adviser, used 2009 data from the IRS to demonstrate that Romney can meet all his goals and not increase taxes on the middle class.

"Mitt Romney's plan to cut taxes and offset the resulting revenue loss by limiting tax breaks has been attacked as ‘mathematically impossible,’" Feldstein wrote. Romney’s plan, "say critics, would require a large tax increase on the middle-class to avoid raising the deficit. Careful analysis shows this is not the case."

In an interview with PolitiFact, Feldstein noted that his analysis didn’t separate out data for earners between $100,000 and $200,000. That means the Obama campaign is incorrect to say Feldstein argues that "large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000" would be needed. Feldstein’s data doesn’t address that income range.

"I did the analysis treating the middle-class families as those below the top 20 percent -- those below $100,000," Feldstein said. "I didn't calculate the average tax increase for those in the $100,000 to $200,000. So I cannot say that (the Obama campaign is) right or wrong about the $100,000 to $200,000 families. But I think it is fair to say that those with incomes in the top 20 percent of the distribution are relatively affluent and should not be counted as the middle class."

so in his analysis, he only counts under $100,000 as "middle class," then says taxes won't go up on the middle class. then romney touts that study but himself defines middle class as incomes up to 250K. how come they are not on the same page on this? and when feldstein is called on it his defense is simply, "well i defined middle class as under 100K so who know what would happen to people making 100-200K"

dicks

Roger Dorn wrote:would he be willing to send his own sons to go fight overseas if the result of his policy causes military confrontation?

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Romney did much better than I thought he would last debate, but I can't imagine that strategy being very effective.

That is if course unless Obama's balls are still tucked safely away in Michelle's purse like the last debate. Romney can call him Carter and Obama can just smile and nod politely.

The head of a northeast Ohio charity says that the Romney campaign last week “ramrodded their way” into the group’s Youngstown soup kitchen so that GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan could get his picture taken washing dishes in the dining hall.

Brian J. Antal, president of the Mahoning County St. Vincent De Paul Society, said that he was not contacted by the Romney campaign ahead of the Saturday morning visit by Ryan, who stopped by the soup kitchen after a town hall at Youngstown State University.

“We’re a faith-based organization; we are apolitical because the majority of our funding is from private donations,” Antal said in a phone interview Monday afternoon. “It’s strictly in our bylaws not to do it. They showed up there, and they did not have permission. They got one of the volunteers to open up the doors.”

He added: “The photo-op they did wasn’t even accurate. He did nothing. He just came in here to get his picture taken at the dining hall.”

Ryan had stopped by the soup kitchen for about 15 minutes on his way to the airport after his Saturday morning town hall in Youngstown. By the time he arrived, the food had already been served, the patrons had left, and the hall had been cleaned.

Upon entering the soup kitchen, Ryan, his wife and three young children greeted and thanked several volunteers, then donned white aprons and offered to clean some dishes. Photographers snapped photos and TV cameras shot footage of Ryan and his family washing pots and pans that did not appear to be dirty.