Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts

and very attractive as well

The Real Clint was awesome last night. Made me feel like it was '96 again. Some really good one liners in there. My favorite: when asked how to balance the budget and reduce the deficit, one word: arithmetic!

Some good red meat in there too, like comparing jobs created in democratic vs republican administrations since 1960.

Another good night for the Democrats, overall a very successful convention. Obama gave a presidential speech.

For me the highlight of the convention was the Big Dog, that was one of the best political speeches I've ever seen. I also thought Michelle acquitted herself very well. I was also touched by John Lewis's speech today, very powerful.

JimHow wrote:Yeah, yeah, Claudius, we want to be just like YOU, because you guys are so perfect on that side of the world, a real beacon.

Jim
I really don't think that was a reasonable response.
Politics all over the world is more about short term media relations than anythng else.
Australia has the same problem. It's all about media headlines and spins.
Yet I watched some of the US stuff on news channels and interviews in Time et al, and just shake my head.
by the way, there is a debate now in Aust about the poor quality of politics - from people actually in politics!
And recognition that politics should not be a media circus.

Singapore is a totally different animal.
It is an effective dictatorship and it is a double edged sword.
The media is largely uncritical which in itself is a shame.
It is also a tiny place and has only 5.2M people and is relatively easy to manage with a traditionally compliant populaiton.

Hmmm. I think Romney probably exceeded expectations with his speech, in no small part because the expectations were so modest. Fair or no, Obama does not have that luxury, having set his own bar fairly high. This was not one of his better speeches, short of expectations, in my view. Barrack may have been outperformed by his wife and running mate for that matter. A little flat, and despite all the criticism about lack of specificity from Romney, there was perhaps even less in this speech. He also clearly suffered following Clinton, who is still undeniably the towering giant of the party. This was always the risk of having him precede Barrack; you certainly don't want to turn Bill away from your program if he's willing to contribute, but he's a tough act to follow. For Clinton's part, he was absolutely in every way a loyal and complete soldier. He bowed and deferred, made every effort toward the the cause, couldn't ask for more from him. In fact, I was left thinking if Hillary decided to challenge right now, or even run third party, with Bill in her corner (or on her ticket!), she still wins. There was also the unforced error with the platform language, which was a boneheaded and unnecessary distraction, a gift. Despite all that, this convention probably grades out as well as the GOP's. Post polling will be interesting.

That said, does any of it matter? Probably not. Ratings were down even more for the Dems than the GOP, primarily because they were so strong last cycle. Not too many people were tuning into either convention this year. Also, starting today, Romney opens the war chest with a shock and awe campaign that Obama may struggle to match financially. The strategy, as I understand, is a page out of the Reagan Cold War playbook: force Obama to blow whatever funds he has early on trying to keep up, so at the end Romney will have the last word to himself.

Paul is still out there making noise about a third party run. If that happens Obama coasts to a second term.

It's all about Ohio!

I agree, it was a great speech by Obama, not transcendent. He looked a little tired to me.

Hold on to our seats, here comes shock and awe!

Hmmmmm . . . as long as we're talking politics, I have a little different perspective.

To trot out Bill Clinton as some sort of nostalgic hero is really dishonest in my opinion. In fact dot-com Bill and his financial deregulation is nearly single handedly responsible for the economic plight that still grips the West, and with his welfare reform, Bill began the job of gutting the social safety net that Barack Obama now welcomes. It is quite a myth that the Clinton era economic boom was the result of fiscal discipline. The dot-com and housing bubbles and bank deregulation were largely the cause -- but there was a high price to pay for us all.

And as for "ending the war," don't forget that Obama tried unsuccessfully to gain agreement from the Iraqi government to continue the U.S. military presence in Iraq and failed. And Obama ratcheted up the war in Afghanistan toward what end?

Yes, of course "W's unfunded wars, tax cuts for the 1% and big pharma handouts helped sink us, but Clinton started us down the cliff, and Obama continues in keeping the insurance and bank industries, Wall Street, the oil
and gas industry and the military well-fed.

It's very obvious that both the Republican and Democratic conventions exist largely to feign the HUGE differences between the political parties, but what we don't see is the very narrow set of interests that both parties continue to serve.

--Gary Rust

Those are all good points, Gary, but I don't subscribe to the Naderian view that there are no differences between the parties. The Pelosi-Reed Democratic Party is weak, but the Republican Party has been taken over by Dick Cheney neocon radicals.

I disagree with you, Scott, that the conventions were a wash. In Gallup, at least, there seems to be a significant Obama bounce, he's up 49-45% in today's poll. I thought the Democratic speakers were much more effective in general than the Republicans. I thought the Democrats came out fighting, like Ron Reagan said, its about time the Democrats "put the wood" to the Republicans for a change. Romney actually lost two points during the Republican convention. Of course, by this time next week the numbers will be back to even. We'll see what impact the Romney shock and awe campaign produces. The next major events are the debates, which makes me nervous, because Obama is not a great debater.

I'm going to put the Jim How election probability index at 75% for Obama coming out if the conventions. I fully expect that to narrow back down in these final two weeks, and won't be surprised if Romney pulls ahead. But on this date following the conventions, Obama has jumped out to a clear lead, however temporary it may be.

Gary, agree with most of the points you make regarding policy. The reason they trot Clinton out as a nostalgic hero is because he is one. Whether his policies were helpful is a different discussion; he polls with tremendous favorables (more than when he was actually in office, which proves the point). He is and always has been a fabulous orator and communicator, maybe the best living pol at the moment, whether you agree with his policies or not. I wasn't advocating for or against him or Hillary, just saying they would be a formidable campaign team. As I said somewhere above, it isn't just about policy - it's a cult of personality. The fact that Obama is even in this race proves that point as well. By all historical measures, with the economy performing as it is, he should be dead and buried in this race.

Jim, regarding the conventions, maybe. I just don't think either side scored big enough for it to matter. As you said, any bumps will likely evaporate quickly any way. I still think on a straight likely voter poll it's as tight as can be. Obama has a huge advantage with the electoral map, though, so I'm going to agree with the JHEPI at 75 for now. Hard to imagine he can keep defying economic numbers like this, though. These are devastating.

Regarding the two parties, we've had this discussion before. In my view, neither remotely resembles what is still supposedly their traditional touchstones. The GOP was supposed to be fiscally conservative, but hasn't been anything like that for 25 years, either congressionally or in the WH (they seem to have found that fervor in the past two years). The Dems at one point were supposed to be about individual liberty and free speech, but I don't see an iota of that any more. In the '60's they distrusted the government but just spent most of the convention making the case that government is the solution ("it's the only thing we all belong to"). I find it fascinating that both parties still pretend nothing's changed. Both are dysfunctional as hell.

Scott, I'm in general agreement with your points. But I'm not sure that an increase in popularity after retirement has any relationship to whether a politician's policies while in office were sound or effective. There are multiple reasons why favorables go up or down, many of which are related to perception rather than effectiveness. And perception of their effectiveness can change through the lens of passing time or changing circumstances. Policies that seems stupid (or brilliant) while in office may seem just the opposite 5-10 years later.

DavidG wrote:Scott, I'm in general agreement with your points. But I'm not sure that an increase in popularity after retirement has any relationship to whether a politician's policies while in office were sound or effective. There are multiple reasons why favorables go up or down, many of which are related to perception rather than effectiveness. And perception of their effectiveness can change through the lens of passing time or changing circumstances. Policies that seems stupid (or brilliant) while in office may seem just the opposite 5-10 years later.

David, I agree completely. That was actually my point, evidently poorly communicated. I was saying Bill is popular now. It has little to do with his policies, their success or failure. Those who didn't like him or want him running the show while he was in office like him better as past-President, apparently. Maybe that's because they've changed their mind about his policies in retrospect, or maybe they're just relieved he's gone! There is some evidence, as a corollary, that Hillary's popularity is inversely proportional to her exposure. The more she speaks, the worse she polls. She doesn't have Bill's charisma, but then few do.

I was going to reduce my JHEPI to 65 when I heard the prez is only up by 7 in CT, but he's up by 5 in today's Gallup, 49-44%, so I'll leave it at 75 for now. That number will unquestionably narrow down!

Is there a way to post a graph on the BB? We need one plotting time vs the JHEPI. Hmm...

Just update your prediction every Sunday until the election, Jim, and I'll plot it here.

Nice, DavidG!

One of my colleagues here today asked the rhetorical question: should I vote for the candidate I despise or the candidate who despises me?

It's been a while since I've signed on and posted a few poll results in this thread. Summer's been really nice here and wine hasn't exactly been at the top of the list of priorities! At the moment we're preparing for tropical storm Leslie, which should hit sometime during the night. I guess it's a sign summer is coming to an end, fall is on the way, and corks will soon be popping. In the meantime, here's a few pre-shock-and-awe poll results:

General Election: Romney vs. Obama CNN/Opinion Research Obama 52, Romney 46 Obama +6
General Election: Romney vs. Obama IBD/CSM/TIPP Obama 46, Romney 44 Obama +2
General Election: Romney vs. Obama Gallup Obama 49, Romney 44 Obama +5
General Election: Romney vs. Obama Rasmussen Reports Obama 50, Romney 45 Obama +5
North Carolina: Romney vs. Obama PPP (D) Romney 48, Obama 49 Obama +1
New Mexico: Romney vs. Obama Albuquerque Journal* Obama 45, Romney 40 Obama +5
Ohio: Romney vs. Obama PPP (D) Obama 50, Romney 45 Obama +5
Generic Congressional Vote Rasmussen Reports Democrats 44, Republicans 42 Democrats +2
President Obama Job Approval Gallup Approve 50, Disapprove 44 Approve +6
President Obama Job Approval Rasmussen Reports Approve 52, Disapprove 47 Approve +5

Is it over for Romney now?

No, but Romney looks worse all the time. Perhaps the pressure is getting to him.

I have to say I am surprised at Romney's struggles to rise above his "foot in mouth" moments. One would think his handlers would break him of that habit. I actually think that none of his foibles by itself is fatal, but the cumulative effect may be taking a toll.

I totally disagree. Romney has had a disastrous two weeks... the Democratic convention was far superior to the Republican convention, the devastating Romney misspeaks, etc... and yet, Romney has gained six points in Gallup in the past six days. He was down by 7 points a week ago, he was only down by a point today. The Obama convention bounce is clearly over. I give Obama a 50% chance of winning... at best. What's going to happen when Romney has 2-3 weeks with no gaffes? Or when, as the better debater, he beats Obama in the first debate? And unleashes shock/awe completely? The only reason why I'm giving Obama at least an even shot is because he keeps showing resiliency in Ohio, Virginia, and Florida, a bit of a (pleasant) surprise.

The debates will be critical.
I like elements from both platforms.
What happened to the American art of compromise to determine pratical solutions to move forward.
I've never lived in an America so divided.
Although during the 60's the generation gap was pretty big.

you remember the 60s?

I flashback occasionally..............

that works

I think Romney is toast, and here's why:

First, I don't think anything Romney said in the sneaked video should be at all surprising. The remarks may have been "off-the-cuff" but completely unremarkable. Sure, Romney managed to slur everyone as a parasite who believe there is a human right to food, health care and housing, but how else did we think the elite speak about the working class? The comments were not surprising, but they will hurt him because in the U.S. two-party system political campaigns are nothing more than a marketing campaign creating illusions, whether it's the Obama illusion of "Hope and Change" or the Romney Illusion of "restoring America," but the "truth" which Romney was caught speaking on that video destroys illusions. And that was Romney's greatest sin -- to be caught speaking the sordid truth in a campaign based on perfecting the art of deceit.

The reason political campaigns are based on marketing -- the practice of trying to get people to buy what they neither need nor really want -- is because both parties share the same agenda and are selling the same product -- just colored slightly differently. The real political battle in this two-party system is fought out among the power elite over which candidate is more likely to be able to sell this agenda, and the power elite have already begun circling back to Obama, and with good reason. Somebody said that Obama is not so much the lesser evil, but the "more effective evil." He's looking like the best face for American capitalism. He's articulate, black, charming, and has demonstrated in four years to be the best man to lead the coming assault on Social Security, Medicare and public education. And Obama has demonstrated in four years of indefinite detention and expanded drone warfare to be a most adept administrator of the U.S. military.

Romney, on the other hand, has demonstrated time and again much the opposite. He's a rich guy who belittles half the country as parasites. He would have a hell of a time selling “entitlement reform” to a public still cherishing the remnants of a social safety net. Likewise, a man who alienates allied nations on trips abroad and bungles an international crisis (as was seen in Romney’s initial response to the Benghazi attack) is not likely to serve as an effective administrator of the American imperial project. In short, Romney’s ineptitude has proven to be a potential liability for the power elite. Hence, Mitt is toast.

Crown Obama. It’s over

--Gary Rust

Now they have Obama saying he believes in wealth redistribution.

We'll see how that plays.

And Romney can be quoted as saying today: "People want to pay taxes." You can take anything out of context. And the PACs probably will! Gotta get to my laptop at home to update the JHEPI graphic.

johnz wrote:I think Romney is toast, and here's why:

First, I don't think anything Romney said in the sneaked video should be at all surprising. The remarks may have been "off-the-cuff" but completely unremarkable. Sure, Romney managed to slur everyone as a parasite who believe there is a human right to food, health care and housing, but how else did we think the elite speak about the working class? The comments were not surprising, but they will hurt him because in the U.S. two-party system political campaigns are nothing more than a marketing campaign creating illusions, whether it's the Obama illusion of "Hope and Change" or the Romney Illusion of "restoring America," but the "truth" which Romney was caught speaking on that video destroys illusions. And that was Romney's greatest sin -- to be caught speaking the sordid truth in a campaign based on perfecting the art of deceit.

The reason political campaigns are based on marketing -- the practice of trying to get people to buy what they neither need nor really want -- is because both parties share the same agenda and are selling the same product -- just colored slightly differently. The real political battle in this two-party system is fought out among the power elite over which candidate is more likely to be able to sell this agenda, and the power elite have already begun circling back to Obama, and with good reason. Somebody said that Obama is not so much the lesser evil, but the "more effective evil." He's looking like the best face for American capitalism. He's articulate, black, charming, and has demonstrated in four years to be the best man to lead the coming assault on Social Security, Medicare and public education. And Obama has demonstrated in four years of indefinite detention and expanded drone warfare to be a most adept administrator of the U.S. military.

Romney, on the other hand, has demonstrated time and again much the opposite. He's a rich guy who belittles half the country as parasites. He would have a hell of a time selling “entitlement reform” to a public still cherishing the remnants of a social safety net. Likewise, a man who alienates allied nations on trips abroad and bungles an international crisis (as was seen in Romney’s initial response to the Benghazi attack) is not likely to serve as an effective administrator of the American imperial project. In short, Romney’s ineptitude has proven to be a potential liability for the power elite. Hence, Mitt is toast.

Crown Obama. It’s over

--Gary Rust

In Gary Rust we trust...

Brilliant erudite post John beautifully laced with overtones of conspiracy theory.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that Mitt the Twit is toast, but he is certainly on a spit.

We haven't seen the full fall out yet from this latest devastating debacle for MR and I can't imagine him winning the debates against Obama who has the superior intellect and better judgement. Romney will have to play offence allowing Obama to pick him off at will Ali style. And of course Obama has a solid advantage in the key swing states.

I'm maintaining my stated views.

The "wealth distribution" remarks were prominently aired during Obama's first presidential campaign and they did nothing for McCain. Romney's bringing it up again it makes him look like he's out of ideas or just plain desperate, or both.

For the record, my calm, judicious view all along has been that Obama is reelected provided 1) the economy continues to mend and 2) there is no exogenous shock such as a third world war.

World War III would seal victory for Obama surely?

Am I missing something?

Other than changing Medicare, cutting taxes for the rich, banning abortion and approving the oil pipeline, what is Mitt's master plan for saving the country?

All Mitch has to do to get my vote is to promise to pay the same percentage of his income in income taxes as I pay on mine. However, he is looking so bad that my offer may not be extended for much longer.

OK, gimme a minute here...

"...human right to food, health care and housing..."

So we all can just sit back and these things will be delivered to us, since they are human rights? Or did I miss something? Doesn't somebody have to grow the food, provide the health care and build the housing?

A lot of folks in the world are waiting for their human rights to be honored.

Tom In DC wrote:OK, gimme a minute here...

"...human right to food, health care and housing..."

So we all can just sit back and these things will be delivered to us, since they are human rights? Or did I miss something? Doesn't somebody have to grow the food, provide the health care and build the housing?

A lot of folks in the world are waiting for their human rights to be honored.

Agreed. I think we sometimes are a little too casual tossing around the word "right." It sounds noble but conferring a right on one person necessarily confers an obligation on another; claiming that one person has a right to housing means that someone else is obligated to build them shelter. What about the "rights" of the home builder? Furthermore, if we are going to say that every individual has the right to food, clothing, shelter and healthcare, a significant proportion of the population will rightly conclude they have very little additional reason to work or contribute anything. Which swerves into Romney comments a little......

Factually, what Romney said is accurate, at least regarding the percentage of people receiving benefits. It was the way he said it that was an issue. It has come to light that the tape was apparently selectively edited, though, which may give him an out. Still, it has done some damage. Not enough in my view to call it over. Obama has his own hot mess with the Libyan embassy issue that seems to be hurting him in polling as well.

Stefan, I know we had the debate about capital gains tax earlier and I don't want to re-hash that, but let me take a different angle. If Romney chose to sit on his wealth, invest nothing and therefore had no income from any source, would you be satisfied with him (and people like him) paying zero income tax while you pay your current rate?

JScott wrote:

Tom In DC wrote:OK, gimme a minute here...

"...human right to food, health care and housing..."

So we all can just sit back and these things will be delivered to us, since they are human rights? Or did I miss something? Doesn't somebody have to grow the food, provide the health care and build the housing?

A lot of folks in the world are waiting for their human rights to be honored.

Agreed. I think we sometimes are a little too casual tossing around the word "right." It sounds noble but conferring a right on one person necessarily confers an obligation on another; claiming that one person has a right to housing means that someone else is obligated to build them shelter. What about the "rights" of the home builder? Furthermore, if we are going to say that every individual has the right to food, clothing, shelter and healthcare, a significant proportion of the population will rightly conclude they have very little additional reason to work or contribute anything. Which swerves into Romney comments a little......

Factually, what Romney said is accurate, at least regarding the percentage of people receiving benefits. It was the way he said it that was an issue. It has come to light that the tape was apparently selectively edited, though, which may give him an out. Still, it has done some damage. Not enough in my view to call it over. Obama has his own hot mess with the Libyan embassy issue that seems to be hurting him in polling as well.

Stefan, I know we had the debate about capital gains tax earlier and I don't want to re-hash that, but let me take a different angle. If Romney chose to sit on his wealth, invest nothing and therefore had no income from any source, would you be satisfied with him (and people like him) paying zero income tax while you pay your current rate?

If Romney had no income what would he do for food, health care and housing ?

And for the record I'm not too keen on our current political process or government in general.

I think the $250M he's already earned would cover those things decently well......

I'm fascinated how you're debating about politic. I will never understand too much thing about that topic as I'm a nerd scientist...

But the real questions: Can we consider anybody not thinking like the BWE BD, is a parasite?

By the way, we just has election in Quebec in early september, and for the first time, we have elected a women as prime minister. The night she has been elected, a man tried to get to her with a gun... and killed one man and hurt another before his gun (fortunately) blocked mechanically... Like Louis Armstrong sang : ''What a wonderful World''. Geez the World is so sad today.

Nic

JScott wrote:I think the $250M he's already earned would cover those things decently well......

Yes he's made a lot of money. He certainly doesn't need to worry about anything.
Maybe he'll get elected.

Nicklasss wrote: I will never understand too much thing about that topic as I'm a nerd scientist...


Nic

Me too. 1's and 0's rule.