RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
CbusMittFan said:
No one looked at my previous link?
You mean your link to a Breitbart.com article in the post where you used Barack Kardashian (the first time)?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure no one looked at that.
Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion » Politics
Paul Ryan - Romney's Running Mate
[414 posts] [55 contributors]
Topic Rating:
(Total Ratings: 2)
Rate this topic:
Rate this topic:
-
prettywhipsmart
Login to Send PM
Posted 9 months ago # -
CbusMittFan
Login to Send PM
Kit444, you are correct on that, there will probably be no comparing the Palin bump to Ryan, it was the only time in the polls McCain was actually ahead of Obama. McCain, like "Jack" Ryan was no competition for Obama. I attended several McCain rallies, the one @ Nationwide Arena right before the election lacked the energy of a Palin only rally. McCain wouldn't go after Obama, that was a horribly boring campaign on his end, without Palin it would have been worse.
I personally would of rather had Herman Cain or Bobby Jindal as our VP candidate but the south is already voting for Romney.
" Prettywhipsmart", this one is from the HUFFPOST:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/06/mitt-romney-july-fundraising_n_1745641.html
All "Barack Kardashian" means is that he better call up his celebrity pals for some $$$.Posted 9 months ago # -
jbcmh81
Login to Send PM
-
jbcmh81
Login to Send PM
rus said:
One would hope. Also, given the overwhelming popularity of AR15s and similar gear public acceptance of gun control outside of some here seems to be on the wane.I haven't seen any real polling for this, so I can't agree or disagree, but I wonder if that perception is a result of falling crime rates. The less crime there is, the less sense of urgency there is regarding legislation, including on guns.
Posted 9 months ago # -
jbcmh81
Login to Send PM
CbusMittFan said:
No one looked at my previous link ? $3.5 million raised in 24 hrs after the Ryan pick. Article below says 10,000 people showed up at a Ryan / Romney event today in WI, doesn't mention that over 10,000 more showed up at another event today in N.C.,
not sure how many showed up at their VA event.
I mean so far no one has pretended to faint at one of these events or needed medical assistance but what type of crowds has "Barack Kardashian" pulled in lately?
So far hard to show Ryan is a bad pick.If number of viewers equals quality support, then clearly Jersey Shore beats anything on History or NatGeo. Honestly, who cares. Unless these people show up at the polls and exist in far greater numbers, it won't change the election. Most people aren't partisan enough to show up at campaign rallies. What you saw is the base.
Posted 9 months ago # -
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
ColumbusTime said:
Independents are going to love Paul Ryan. When he gets into a debate with Vice President Joe Literally Biden, and comes across as reasoned and reasonable, people are going to like what they see. All of the fear and smear from the panicked Obama team won't work. The Obama campaign is delaying and waivering as much stuff as they possibly can until after the election to hide the disastrous results of ObamaCare and sequestration. Romney/Ryan should put forth their vision and act reasonable in the face of the immaturity and lies from the other side.Have you actually watched Paul Ryan speak? He's much better on paper than in person. In person, he is wooden and awkward. Biden often puts his foot in his mouth when he speaks, but that's partly because what he says is natural and unscripted.
Posted 9 months ago # -
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
jbcmh81 said:
Has Obama pushed the envelope over some issues, probably. Has he broken any laws or really done anything unconstitutional? No. Perhaps some people are just upset he pushed more on certain issues than others.Actually, I think there is very likely at least one unconstitutional act which he has committed, but neither Romney, Ryan, or any Republican legislator are likely to call him on it because they'd like to be able to do the same on their own, so they'll let it slide and thereby establish the precedent. I'm speaking of the intervention in Libya in support of the rebellion against Ghaddafi.
More recently, I think it is very likely unconstitutional (though of course it's too early for a court ruling on it yet) for him to unilaterally have HHS ignore the workfare rules put in place by the welfare reform act in 1996. This is one that I'm guessing will work its way further into both the political and legal arenas. His decision to effectively rewrite our immigration laws under the guise of prosecutorial discretion is likewise discomfiting and potentially unconstitutional, but his evisceration of welfare reform doesn't even rely on prosecutorial discretion because it involves the affirmative decision to hand out checks, not just a decision that the government's prosecuting attorneys will concentrate more on X than Y (even to the exclusion of Y, which is generally within a prosecutor's discretion).
Posted 9 months ago # -
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
jbcmh81 said:
I haven't seen any real polling for this, so I can't agree or disagree, but I wonder if that perception is a result of falling crime rates. The less crime there is, the less sense of urgency there is regarding legislation, including on guns.You're operating under the assumption that fewer guns leads to less crime. I question your evidence for that assumption.
Posted 9 months ago # -
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
Bear said:
It strikes me as a Hail Mary pass. You want the independents (which, let's face it, is what wins elections), you go moderate; if you don't think you can win over the moderates, you try to increase turnout with the base and the fringe. I would have thought Portman would have been a good call, but what this tells me is the Romney camp's assessment of their own chances is worse than I would have anticipated.There is some truth to this, but in this case, Romney himself was the guy picked because of his ostensibly moderate appeal (which is one reason he's had trouble locking down the base). This is the way it should generally work, too. The base on both sides is likely to be more engaged and therefore more likely to be cognizant of the vice presidential picks. Many moderates are less politically interested and will therefore really only concentrate on the top of the ticket.
People are really analyzing the VP pick deeply, but I suggest the following simple explanation behind the strategy: Picking Ryan to talk to the base frees Romney to talk to the center (where he seems to be more comfortable anyway), and hopefully together address both of the demographics that the ticket will need to win the election. I saw NEOBuckeye a few pages back say "Romney has likely just sealed the fate of the moderate-corporate wing of the GOP" ... that doesn't ring true to me, since while the #2 guy on the ticket may be a hardline conservative (if a bit more wonkish and less fiery than most), the #1 guy on the ticket remains the GOP's leading moderate, corporate-friendly guy.
Posted 9 months ago # -
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM
gramarye said:
More recently, I think it is very likely unconstitutional (though of course it's too early for a court ruling on it yet) for him to unilaterally have HHS ignore the workfare rules put in place by the welfare reform act in 1996.Uh... you might want to ease up on the belief in ads.
The truth of this is conservative governors asked for leniency in attempting alternate methods to putting more people into the workforce. The HHS say they would grant this, so long as the states could prove more people entered the workforce through their new methods. So, either many of the favorite conservative governors are a bunch of lying, money-sucking, handout queens, or Obama just conceded to their States Right's request so long as they stay true to the rules of the law.
Only in conservo-bizarro world does that attack make sense.
Posted 9 months ago # -
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM
gramarye said:
There is some truth to this, but in this case, Romney himself was the guy picked because of his ostensibly moderate appeal (which is one reason he's had trouble locking down the base). This is the way it should generally work, too. The base on both sides is likely to be more engaged and therefore more likely to be cognizant of the vice presidential picks. Many moderates are less politically interested and will therefore really only concentrate on the top of the ticket.Or, by another version, Romney simply carpet-bombed the rest of the weak field out of existence and won by default.
If you didn't learn anything from the last go round, Palin proved the VP could be tied like a boat anchor around the neck of the ticket. The Dems were already pushing this line of attack to tie Romney to Ryan, and now Romney just made it easier for them with his recent "welcome aboard".
It's true that moderates aren't really paying attention, but it's also true that good negative campaigning works to move them. Obama's team has shown an ability to move the needle on Romney's numbers over and over (and they haven't/won't even pushed the obvious flip-flopper line), whereas Romney's having a lot harder time gaining traction on Obama with his attacks (not least because Obama, despite the economy, has a very narrow profile to attack). And there's not much undecided electorate left, if the polls to that effect are anywhere near accurate.
Santorum wasn't wrong when he said Romney was one of the worst people to take on Obama.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Twixlen
The Weston District
Login to Send PM
-
ChrisSunami
King-Lincoln District
Login to Send PM
Re: Guns
I do think that a second term Obama would be considerably bolder, freed of the need for reelection. And I'd personally be very happy to see gun laws considerably strengthened --I'm pretty radically anti-gun.
But I find it hard to believe that Obama would squander his political capital that way when there are so many much more pressing things to worry about. Personally I hope/believe a second Obama term will be all about the environment. Anyway, Obama is way hawkish for a liberal. Nothing about him suggests that he wants the latter half of his legacy to be a bruising fight over guns.
Re: Ryan
I'm starting to think Romney's pick was largely a function of having a good personal relationship with Ryan --which is a decent enough reason, I think. And shoring up the base was probably a good idea for him.
BUT when it takes a popular VP just to shore up your own base, AND said VP is more popular than you are, I think you're already in big trouble.
Posted 9 months ago # -
SusanB
Hungarian Village, Columbus' fastest growing Gayborhood!
Login to Send PM
Re: Guns
Obama is way too smart to take on gun control. It's the new third rail of American politics. I also think he just doesn't care enough about gun control to take it on. He has bigger fish to fry IMHO.
Posted 9 months ago # -
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM
SusanB said:
Re: GunsObama is way too smart to take on gun control. It's the new third rail of American politics. I also think he just doesn't care enough about gun control to take it on. He has bigger fish to fry IMHO.
Exactly. I don't think he's ever thought GC would be his legacy. He's gone much bigger than that with Healthcare.
My guess is he'll either tackle entitlements in his fashion (not the GOPs fashion), or he'll tackle the drug war. GC is small peanuts in comparison anymore.
Posted 9 months ago # -
DavidF
Elysium Fields
Login to Send PM
myliftkk said:
Uh... you might want to ease up on the belief in ads.The truth of this is conservative governors asked for leniency in attempting alternate methods to putting more people into the workforce. The HHS say they would grant this, so long as the states could prove more people entered the workforce through their new methods. So, either many of the favorite conservative governors are a bunch of lying, money-sucking, handout queens, or Obama just conceded to their States Right's request so long as they stay true to the rules of the law.
Only in conservo-bizarro world does that attack make sense.
Facts? We don't need no stinkin facts! The whole birther issue should have told you how unimportant facts are.
Posted 9 months ago # -
News
Columbus Underground
Login to Send PM
Monday, August 13, 20121 Comment
On Transport, Romney-Ryan Ticket Presents Extreme Contrast to Obama
by Angie Schmitt
Well, the election is less than three months away yet there remains a fair amount of mystery about where Mitt Romney stands on various policy issues, from trade agreements to transit. As governor of Massachusetts, he had a mixed record but did initiate some innovative smart growth programs. If there’s one thing that’s become clear this election season, however, it’s that Romney’s past performance has little bearing on his current positions.
READ MORE: http://streetsblog.net/2012/08/13/on-transport-romney-ryan-ticket-presents-extreme-contrast-to-obama/Posted 9 months ago # -
rus
Login to Send PM
Twixlen said:
Actually, Bear covered this pretty extensively (with maths & numbers & evidence) in the Colorado shooter thread --Ahem.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=878132
Abstract:
The positive correlation between gun prevalence and homicide rates has been widely documented. But does this correlation reflect a causal relationship? This study seeks to answer the question of whether more guns cause more crime, and unlike nearly all previous such studies, we properly account for the endogeneity of gun ownership levels. We discuss the three main sources of endogeneity bias - reverse causality (higher crime rates lead people to acquire guns for self-protection), mismeasurement of gun levels, and omitted/confounding variables - and show how the Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) can provide an empirical researcher with both a clear modeling framework and a set of estimation and specification testing procedures that can address these problems. A county level cross-sectional analysis was performed using data on every US county with a population of at least 25,000 in 1990; the sample covers over 90% of the US population in that year. Gun ownership levels were measured using the percent of suicides committed with guns, which recent research indicates is the best measure of gun levels for cross-sectional research. We apply our procedures to these data, and find strong evidence of the existence of endogeneity problems. When the problem is ignored, gun levels are associated with higher rates of gun homicide; when the problem is addressed, this association disappears or reverses. Our results indicate that gun prevalence has no significant net positive effect on homicide rates: ceteris paribus, more guns do not mean more crime.Bear's numbers were interesting, no doubt, but hardly the end of the story.
Posted 9 months ago #
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus.