peterstorey
Specialist In Failure
Bit more QE and other stimuli to get a dead-cat bounce out of the economy and Obama's home and hosed.
He would struggle to get an stimuli through now. Apart from it being very transparent the Reps wouldn't pass it.Bit more QE and other stimuli to get a dead-cat bounce out of the economy and Obama's home and hosed.
According to Krugman, what would do it more than QE would be to talk down inflation targets for a bit.Bit more QE and other stimuli to get a dead-cat bounce out of the economy and Obama's home and hosed.
I always feel sorry for Bernanke. He knows perfectly well that the economy is not really controllable by the tools he has at his disposal. He's like a driver on a ruunaway train who hopes it'll slow down by hitting an upslope.Everyone should want to fire Bernanke.
Gets the feeling you are a right wingerActually,
Mitt went more positive when Obama went negative. Doesn't surprise me that the approval ratings of both candidates have been in reverse, they are doing the EXACT opposite of people's general impressions of them both.
Romney needs to come across as competent, and a nice guy. The Super-PACs will probably do enough heavy-hitting on Obama without Romney getting involved. Long way to go yet.
Not a big fan of Krugman, but he's correct here.According to Krugman, what would do it more than QE would be to talk down inflation targets for a bit.
But Bernanke seems to be totally paralysed by fear of looking partisan. Even though the GOP will try to sack him anyway if they get in.
I highly doubt that unless they were unemployed republicans. I would hate to go back to the UK to pay higher taxes for inferior health and dental care. You can make a good case for socialized everything but the American model also suits a large percentage of the population.I bet that if most republican voters lived for a couple of years in a western/central european country with access to all the services their party demonizes then when they went back to the US they would demand equal services, or they are too stupid to fight for their own well being.
I would wait until about a week after the DNC finishes for a more accurate readout. Obama will probably win the debates, so if he's ahead ten days from now, Silver's stats will probably end up correct.Nate Silver has Obama at almost 308. The highest I have seen this in the last couple of months. He shows Obama having a 59% chance of winning Florida.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
agree.I would wait until about a week after the DNC finishes for a more accurate readout. Obama will probably win the debates, so if he's ahead ten days from now, Silver's stats will probably end up correct.
True. I'm sure a lot of money will be spent there in the next 8 weeks or so.Florida is definitely crucial for Romney. There is no model that has him losing Florida and becoming President.
This is a rare occasion though where 538's not all that reliable. They build in expectations of a 4-point convention bounce into the model. So all that's really happened over the last week is that Romney hasn't got that big a bounce, and the model's penalised him for it. The same will probably happen to Obama after this week, bringing the gap back to where we've grown used to it being.Nate Silver has Obama at almost 308. The highest I have seen this in the last couple of months. He shows Obama having a 59% chance of winning Florida.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
Because that's what usually has happened. The fact that it's not happened is suggestive of something different, but it's not immediately clear what that is. If Obama's numbers similarly show little or no bounce after the Democrats' convention, then it just means that people aren't tuning into the conventions to size up the candidates' the way they have in the past. If Obama's numbers do get the traditional convention bounce, then it probably means the Republican convention didn't get the job done, in which case the model is right to presume a diminution of Romney's chances.This is a rare occasion though where 538's not all that reliable. They build in expectations of a 4-point convention bounce into the model. So all that's really happened over the last week is that Romney hasn't got that big a bounce, and the model's penalised him for it. The same will probably happen to Obama after this week, bringing the gap back to where we've grown used to it being.
He says himself to take the model's predictions with a pinch of salt during the conventions. Not really sure why he's chosen to set it up that way.
That must be why he's pandering to medicaid recipients and immigrants.....Florida is definitely crucial for Romney. There is no model that has him losing Florida and becoming President.
Oh Chuck... you lost me at "freedom"..Chuck Norris asks you to stand with god and country and not vote for Obama...
Edit: This must be a "Funny or Die" video, right?
Its Texas -- Ted Nugent, I love catscratch fever but....That Chuck Norris bit is completely looney bin material. Holy shit. Batshit crazy!
I love when Nugent goes on about things that never happened, and follows it up with "let's just pretend that never happened".Its Texas -- Ted Nugent, I love catscratch fever but....
I think Ted's looking more like a victim of catscratch fever!
Well today Nate says:Because that's what usually has happened. The fact that it's not happened is suggestive of something different, but it's not immediately clear what that is. If Obama's numbers similarly show little or no bounce after the Democrats' convention, then it just means that people aren't tuning into the conventions to size up the candidates' the way they have in the past. If Obama's numbers do get the traditional convention bounce, then it probably means the Republican convention didn't get the job done, in which case the model is right to presume a diminution of Romney's chances.
But do you notice a pattern here? The three smallest bounces for the challenging candidates came in the last three elections. Bounces aren’t what they used to be, perhaps because voters are saturated with information months in advance of an election, increased partisanship and sterilized conventions that may have become too polished for their own good.
The catch is that each of these things is a structural factor, and therefore might predict that Mr. Obama won’t get much of a bounce either. Maybe this is just the new normal; the assumption that our forecast model had made in advance of the convention was that Mr. Romney would get only a four-point bounce.
Easy there, I'm Texan and not all of us are batshit crazy.Its Texas -- Ted Nugent, I love catscratch fever but....
I think Ted's looking more like a victim of catscratch fever!
Hank Williams Jr. is running him close...I think Ted Nugent just might be one of the most despicable people ever. I hope he gets raped by a bear.
"We’ve got a Muslim for a President who hates cowboys, hates cowgirls, hates fishing, hates farming, loves gays, and we hate him," Williams Jr. bellowed. As the Dallas Sun reported, the crowd responded with a loud cheer.
good point. Texas is fast becoming a 'progressive' state.Easy there, I'm Texan and not all of us are batshit crazy.
So basically he's agreeing with me.Well today Nate says:
I don't think he can, though. The point of his model is relying on the data from past elections to provide a norm for the present cycle's data to be compared to. Just deciding "nope, conventions don't give bounces any more" between the two conventions in this cycle would be to discard a major and established data point due to a lessening trend.Wouldn't it have made more sense to leave the model without a bounce assumption, and if the bounce came simply comment that it might well be temporary.
I visited Dallas a couple years back, folks seemed really nice and very progressive actually. Could have just been Dallas though.good point. Texas is fast becoming a 'progressive' state.
Also Silver's model built in a 4 point bounce. Given that he's estimating that Romney got between a 2 to 3 point bounce from the convention, it isn't far off.So basically he's agreeing with me.
I don't think he can, though. The point of his model is relying on the data from past elections to provide a norm for the present cycle's data to be compared to. Just deciding "nope, conventions don't give bounces any more" between the two conventions in this cycle would be to discard a major and established data point due to a lessening trend.
If there is a new norm with regard to convention bounces, he's got to wait until the data comes in confirming that, before he alters his model.
"Our country could go down the path of socialism or something much worse"Chuck Norris asks you to stand with god and country and not vote for Obama...
Edit: This must be a "Funny or Die" video, right?
A lot of the Florida vote would shit if you told them that Ben-Gurion and Golda Meir were social democrats. The repubs love to talk about Israel and how they support them without ever acknowledging the Israeli form of democracy. Admittedly the current Likud is more like the current repubs, but Israel has a strong history of social welfare that would make teapartiers reach for their M-16s and angrily marching behind Chuck and the Nuge.Americas continued wilful misunderstanding of what socialism is never fails to annoy me.