2012 US Election -- Round 2

[Kristie]

"God absent from Democrats' Party Platform"
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... -platform/

(CNN) – Democrats omitted the word "God" from their 2012 platform, a change from the party's 2008 document and a noticeable split from Republicans, who mention God ten times in their official party stance.

In 2008, Democrats wrote, "We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential."

The paragraph extolling the value of hard work in 2012 reads, "We gather to reclaim the basic bargain that built the largest middle class and the most prosperous nation on Earth-the simple principle that in America, hard work should pay off, responsibility should be rewarded, and each one of us should be able to go as far as our talent and drive take us."

David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network first reported on the exclusion of the word "God" in the Democrats' platform.

Democrats did include a section in their 2012 platform specifically devoted to faith, writing faith "has always been a central part of the American story, and it has been a driving force of progress and justice throughout our history."

"There is no conflict between supporting faith-based institutions and respecting our Constitution, and a full commitment to both principles is essential for the continued flourishing of both faith and country," the document reads.

A Democratic official pointed out that 2008's reference to God was not specifically about faith, but rather about growing the middle class, and that the 2012 language specifically referring to faith was identical to 2008's document. The official also noted that the word "faith" appears 11 times in the document, "religion" or "religious" 9 times, "church" 2 times (one time appearing within a quote), and "clergy" 1 time.

The lack of references to God in the 2012 platform is a change both from the 2008 document, with one reference to God, and the 2004 platform, which mentioned God seven times, as noted by The Blaze.

In 2000 the Democrats' official party platform mentioned God four times.

David Silverman, president of American Atheists, said the exclusion of "God" in the Democrats' document was a step forward in including non-religious Americans in the official party stance.

"We are obviously happy that the Democrats are taking these positive steps," Silverman wrote. "We are looking for the inclusion of everyone and we are hopeful that that inclusion will continue to the point that we can depend on Mr. Obama to repeal the faith based initiatives and reinforce the separation of church and state."

"It comes as a pleasant surprise," he added. "It is something that we have been pushing for and is certainly a positive step. But it is only one step and I would like to see action more than words."

"God" is the second conspicuous omission from the Democrats' 2012 platform. The party also removed a 2008 reference to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, a diplomatic flashpoint that Republicans decried as a slight to the Jewish state.

In the Republicans' official 2012 party platform, God is mentioned ten times in various forms, including seven cases of the phrase "God-given."

[Warren Dew]

Democrats restore Jerusalem and God to platform

http://www.startribune.com/politics/nat ... ml?refer=y

[Warren Dew]

Today is the last day of the Republican convention.

There have been 3 arrests, only one of which was a violent encounter. Two protesters got in a fight with each other.

At least 13 arrests at the Democratic convention so far.

http://www.wcnc.com/news/dnc-charlotte- ... 81426.html

[Coito ergo sum]

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/23/unive ... omney-win/

In 2012, “What is striking about our state-level economic indicator forecast is the expectation that Obama will lose almost all of the states currently considered as swing states, including North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida,” Bickers said.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2 ... study-says



This model has been correct over the last 8 Presidential elections....

[Gerald McGrew]

Still clinging to a model rather than the actual data, eh?

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Obama's now at a 80.8% chance of winning.

Romney got little to no bounce from his convention, and Obama is in the midst of his (Obama's numbers actually went up during the RNC). What remains to be seen is if once Obama's convention bounce goes away (if it does), the numbers go back to where they were pre-conventions (where Obama was still highly favored to win) or somewhere else. Romney's fuck up over the Libya incident isn't going to help him, so that leaves the debates as likely his last chance to flip the numbers. The problem there is, he has low likability numbers, so if he tries to "go on the attack" in the debates, there's a good chance he will be perceived even more as a bit of a dick.

And as I pointed out earlier in this thread, the polls regularly indicate that there are very few truly undecided voters in this electorate, thus making the hill Romney has to climb that much steeper.

[Randydeluxe]

It was fascinating to see Romney on Meet The Press on Sunday. He pulled a beautiful flip-flop. He said that he'd keep the part of healthcare reform that requires insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions.

As he knows full well from Massachusetts healthcare reform, the only way to make that happen without making premiums unaffordable for everyone is to require everyone to buy insurance. In other words, Romney came out in favor of an insurance mandate. And why not? He signed one into law a few years ago, and it has been working well.

For a few hours that day, I pondered whether Romney is going to actually attend the three debates he's agreed to. I mean, this particular gaffe (note: it's a gaffe to people like the Koch brothers and all of Romney's anonymous bundlers. In reality, embracing the one great thing he ever did as a public servant would be good for Mitt Romney. But the right wing hates reality.) ... it would make him a sitting duck in debates. In the same interview, he refused to name any loopholes he'd close in the tax code. Just imagine Barack Obama being the interviewer.

But it would be a PR nightmare for Romney to pull out of the debates. No way he does that, short of some unexpected event that gives him the ability to "set politics aside" for a few days (terror attack, Israel bombs Iran), and even then that would only get him out of one of the three debates.

Still, imagine facing Barack Obama leading with this: "Governor, you know full well, since you went through this in your own state seven years ago, that there is absolutely no way to pay for covering pre-existing conditions for everyone without a mandate. You know it, because you studied it, and that's the conclusion you came to, and that's why you instituted the mandate. You can pretend otherwise, but the American people know when they are being bamboozled."

And here's the crazy thing -- Mitt Romney *wants* to debate. He's behind, and in some places far behind, and debates are win-win for Romney. They're opportunities for Obama to stumble. Romney thinks he's a better executive than Obama, and that he would figure out what to do if elected. He doesn't really care what goes on during the campaign. It's a very cynical view of democracy.

Within a few hours of Meet The Press, Romney flipped back to the Karl Rove position.

As President, Romney is counting on doing nothing beyond extending the Bush tax cuts and expecting the economy to recover on its own. He tipped his hand when he promised 12 million jobs, which is the baseline prediction for the next four years under Obama's policies.

If Romney loses, his legacy will be running for office five times and losing four times. His legacy will also likely be the end of carried interest, and the end of all of the special tax treatments for private funds. Every private fund manager in the United States is going to curse Romney's name if he loses. Until then, they're going to pour every last million into getting him elected. He is misreading that as support from the voters.

[Coito ergo sum]

Still clinging to a model rather than the actual data, eh?

Errr.... you were the one claiming X million jobs "saved or created" when there is no data backing that up, only a predictive model. I pointed that out to you, and you conveniently didn't bother to address it, or acknowledge you tout a factual opinion of "saved or created" jobs based on nothing.

Moreover, both the Colorado model and the 538 model are based on evidence. The models are based on their underlying assumptions and data, with 538 being kind of a meta analyzer of lots of other polls. The 538 method is not something "based on data" while the Colorado method is something made up. What in the world are you even babbling about?

Both have very good track records. The Colorado predictor has been correct in 8 straight Presidential elections. 538 didn't exist before 2008, I think. So, I think it's very young, but it's accuracy has been very good in terms of the outcome of 2008, and the 2010 midterms.

[Gerald McGrew]

Except as I pointed out earlier, the Colorado model isn't based on...you know...any actual voting data. Instead it's based on correlation between economic conditions and the success of incumbents. Given the choice between that and a model that is based on a suite of polling data, I know which one I'd favor.

[Coito ergo sum]

Except as I pointed out earlier, the Colorado model isn't based on...you know...any actual voting data.

Neither is 538 -- not actual voting data.

Instead it's based on correlation between economic conditions and the success of incumbents. Given the choice between that and a model that is based on a suite of polling data, I know which one I'd favor.

You'd be in favor of whichever one picks Obama the winner.

We've already seen the 538 polling on this thread. The Colorado one was from a result that just came out today. Both are interesting predictors.

[Ian]

In less than two months somebody here is going to look pretty foolish. My opinion on who that is going to be should be obvious enough.

[Coito ergo sum]

Why would anybody look foolish? Has someone gone on record as declaring victory? Who?

Well, I guess you think that just posting a study, poll or prediction that shows a Romney victory means that if Romney doesn't win then the people posting that information will look foolish.

What is wrong with posting the "other side?" Here on these threads, the pro-Obama position is well-represented. Why is it "foolish" to examine the pro-Romney data and information too?

And, if Obama loses -- are you then foolish, Ian?

[Ian]

No, it could happen. And I'm saying as much now.

But if you're putting any stock in that Colorado model, you really should step back and consider your objectivity. They're saying that not only will Romney win every single battleground state, but he'll also take away some very blue states like Minnesota that Romney isn't even wasting his time trying to win.

There's nothing unrealistic about me saying that Obama is likely to win. THAT map you posted, however, looks pretty darn dumb. If it turns out to be even close to accurate, then look this post up in two months and tell me how foolish I was. Unless something really significant happens between now and then, I don't think it'll happen.

Anyway, 538 is definitely not pro-Obama - it's thoroughly objective and has a very good track record to date. So does Electoral-Vote.com.
For that matter, check out what Intrade is saying - does that make them pro-Obama too?

[Gerald McGrew]

Neither is 538 -- not actual voting data.

Jesus Christ but you love to quibble.

538 is based on polling data that includes "likely voters" and "registered voters", which I include in the category of "voting data". IOW, if someone asks me, "Who are you going to vote for" and "How likely are you to vote", I consider the results to be "voting data".

You'd be in favor of whichever one picks Obama the winner.

Not at all. I favor the one that's based on actual relevant data rather than a correlation that ignores things like the above.

We've already seen the 538 polling on this thread. The Colorado one was from a result that just came out today. Both are interesting predictors.

The 538 was also updated, so by your own standard it is just as relevant.

[Gerald McGrew]

But if you're putting any stock in that Colorado model, you really should step back and consider your objectivity. They're saying that not only will Romney win every single battleground state, but he'll also take away some very blue states like Minnesota that Romney isn't even wasting his time trying to win.

There's nothing unrealistic about me saying that Obama is likely to win. THAT map you posted, however, looks pretty darn dumb. If it turns out to be even close to accurate, then look this post up in two months and tell me how foolish I was. Unless something really significant happens between now and then, I don't think it'll happen.

What stood out to me is they have Romney winning Pennsylvania, where Obama has been ahead by 6-9 points pretty much all year, and as you pointed out with Minnesota, Romney isn't even trying to win.

But that's what you get when you base your predictions on non-voting related correlations.

[Coito ergo sum]

No, it could happen. And I'm saying as much now.

I've never declared that Romney will win. He has an uphill battle.

But if you're putting any stock in that Colorado model, you really should step back and consider your objectivity.

I do, with all of these predictors and the "fact checks" that we see. We have to be very skeptical these days. I only stated the fact that they have been correct 8 elections in a row.

They're saying that not only will Romney win every single battleground state, but he'll also take away some very blue states like Minnesota that Romney isn't even wasting his time trying to win.

There's nothing unrealistic about me saying that Obama is likely to win. THAT map you posted, however, looks pretty darn dumb. If it turns out to be even close to accurate, then look this post up in two months and tell me how foolish I was. Unless something really significant happens between now and then, I don't think it'll happen.

Maybe. Maybe not. But, the Colorado study is basing it on the same methodology they've used for over 30 years.

Anyway, 538 is definitely not pro-Obama - it's thoroughly objective and has a very good track record to date. So does Electoral-Vote.com.
For that matter, check out what Intrade is saying - does that make them pro-Obama too?

I haven't said that either of them are pro-anybody. They have different methodologies, so they are different and both interesting. It has to be considered pretty impressive to get it right 8 elections in a row. Based purely on a coin toss, the odds of getting it right 8 times in a row would be .003906 chance. Whatever their methodology is, it can't be complete bollocks.