j44

Romney is going to have to get on message (or be better at it) with the extra time he gets during the convention and CLEARLY beat Obama in the debates for that to happen. He has to somehow become more likable too. I kinda like Romney but I find him a little awkward and robotic at times.

Predicting anything this far out is silly. And saying the polls are like that because most people are left leaning is an oversimplification. And you could say that more left wingers voted in the last election. Look how that turned out.

He might be referring to the social spending that conservatives are sometimes just as guilty of promising.

Whatever the polls say I believe if the election was held today it would be a re-election. Romney needs to convince a lot of people that he is the better man for the job and from what I see (and for a variety of reasons) he hast been doing a good job of that.

When you add up the electoral votes that lean Obama (237) and Romney (191) and give Obama Florida (and yes that is a big if) the President is just 4 votes away from being re-elected. If Obama can win NH (4 votes), Romney can sweep all the seven remaining swing states and he is still short of the magic number. Obviously just a hypothetical but interesting nonetheless.

I meant instead of the Ferguson story. It was a reference to Zakaria's suspension.

Thanks for the link. I don't consider myself a conservative but I always enjoy Ferguson's writing and speeches. Some of his books are great. I didn't know he worked on McCain's campaign. I wonder if Newsweek was going to run a pro-Obama piece by Zakaria but....you know.

Nope, but I expected more of a swing in Wisconsin. I'd guess a lot of others did too. And you know that Wisconsin and Massachusettes are dIfferent, right?

Yeah, losing it could mean other states would be in play but that hardly means he is screwed. Same goes for my point about the number of votes. It could mean something but with those numbers it is doubtful he would be screwed. Blue or red, it doesn't look good that it didnt swing for them after the nom. Even a temp. boost would be a good sign. It is a small state. As goes Wisconsin so goes the United States? I'm pretty sure that isn't an axiom.

Saying he's screwed if he loses the state the opposing VP is from is pushing it. A lot. What does it have? 10-12 electoral votes? Losing other mid western states would be a symptom of a larger problem. Losing Illinois would mean he's screwed. As mentioned, i would say that if the GOP can't win the state of their VP then Romney is screwed.

http://www.economist.com/node/21560552?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/pe/ahealthydifference 'From 2022, firms would present plans at least as generous as Medicare; the voucher would be set at the price of the second-cheapest private plan or of traditional Medicare, whichever is lower. Firms would compete on a new exchange, vying to give the best services at the lowest price. If a plan cost less than the voucher, a beneficiary could pocket the extra cash. If a chosen plan cost more, beneficiaries would pay the difference. And if competition among plans didn’t contain costs, a cap would. Under the plan, Medicare spending may not rise by more than the growth of nominal GDP plus one percent Democrats gleefully declare that Messrs Romney and Ryan would “end Medicare as we know it”. To meet the cap, the Ryan-Wyden plan says that “Congress would be required to intervene”, for example, by cutting hospital payments. But Congress cannot be compelled to act, as it proves yearly. Instead, critics say, the proposal would merely cap vouchers, shifting costs to patients. (Mr Ryan’s budget for 2013 suggests as much.) Others contend that private plans, which often limit the choice of doctors, would attract healthier patients. Traditional Medicare would have a sicker population, so would have to raise its fees, which would in turn drive more healthy people to private plans. Mr Obama offers a different approach. His health law includes an array of experiments—for example, rewarding hospitals that keep patients well. But Mr Obama uses two main tools to cut costs. First, his law slashes payments to hospitals and doctors. Second, it creates the controversial, Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to keep Medicare growth below that of nominal GDP plus one percent (the same as in the Ryan-Wyden plan). IPAB’s cuts would automatically become law unless Congress agreed to similar cuts by other means. Notably, IPAB may not raise beneficiaries’ fees or reduce benefits. In these diametrically-opposed visions, the Republicans trust firms to curb costs and improve services. Mr Obama makes top-down cuts, while testing new ways to deliver and pay for care. The comparison is inevitably muddier than this. Democrats, citing a defunct analysis, say Mr Ryan would force 65-year-olds to pay an extra $6,000 a year. Republicans say that Mr Obama is taking $716 billion from Medicare and that they will restore it. Most confusing, Messrs Romney and Ryan detest exchanges for those younger than 65, as set out in Mr Obama’s law, while Mr Obama scowls at exchanges for those over 65, as in Mr Ryan’s proposal. Beneath this rhetoric, however, lies a political anomaly: a substantive debate.

This is a joke, right?

I think what the author's opinion is that this is exactly the impression that these moves were meant to give. But like you said we have no idea. I just thought it was an interesting theory. It should also be noted that since the Sinai attacks on Egypt's forces Morsi has sent troops into Sinai in violation of the agreement with Israel. Under the agreement Israel must give its permission for Morsi to move those troops there. Israel may have given the wink and the nod in a secret agreement but they may not have and these domestic moves by Morsi could be a way to shore up support so he could act militarily.

Yeah, 'dwarfed' is a bit much, Shady. I'm pretty sure everything to do with nukes (development, storage, maintenance) is in the Energy Department's budget.

I think I may be missing your point.

This would be a huge sign of weakness and toss up attack after attack from the GOP. The fact that the press are even suggesting this shows how desperate they are for 'news.' Why change the narrative that has been working for Obama to something that puts him back on his heels? Plus, like him or not, Biden is popular with white working class voters and is an excellent campaigner.

The crippled economy and the corresponding downturn in revenue is what happened with Obama. I'm obviously not saying he didn't spend and spend but..... And there have been proposals in the middle. But the GOP didn't want compromise after shellacking Obama and Democrats wanted to run on 'we will keep your social programs.' Both sides are clearly to blame. And I know I'm alone in this but I think both sides (or one side) will work something out before all goes to hell (more).

With regard to human rights pretty much every country compares favorably to 'Islamic' countries. That is setting the bar pretty low. Back on topic. This is about Israel's deteriorating security position (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/israeli-crisis?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20120814&utm_term=gweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=24704e4312d04731bc0dcccd7712912f) but it contains this There are two theories on what has happened. In the first, Morsi -- who until his election was a senior leader of the country's mainstream Islamist movement, the Muslim Brotherhood -- is actually much more powerful than the military and is acting decisively to transform the Egyptian political system. In the second, this is all part of an agreement between the military and the Muslim Brotherhood that gives Morsi the appearance of greater power while actually leaving power with the military. On the whole, I tend to think that the second is the case. Still, it is not clear how this will evolve: The appearance of power can turn into the reality of power. Despite any sub rosa agreements between the military and Morsi, how these might play out in a year or two as the public increasingly perceives Morsi as being in charge -- limiting the military's options and cementing Morsi's power -- is unknown. In the same sense, Morsi has been supportive of security measures taken by the military against militant Islamists, as was seen in the past week's operations in the Sinai Peninsula.

While Erdogan is an improvement I wouldn't say he is governing fairly.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec12/policy_08-13.html I agree that it will get people more involved and enthusiastic about the ticket and for local elections but are you saying that you think Romney picked Ryan to help other races as much as he did to help himself? IMO Romney made this pick to help himself first and foremost. I think most of the time people make too much of religion's influence on Presidential elections.

I still can't tell if Romney is a moderate I could like or....something else. He's doing a good job of being a shape shifter. Problem is that Im not so sure he is doing it purposely. Ryan may be his way to show the Tea Partiers that is a true fiscal hawk while still trying to appeal to independents (since they might not put much thought on who his VP is). Will it work?

More and more this seems like a way to get the base/Tea Party excited.

Can't say I agre with everything here but interesting perspective http://m.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137823/steven-a-cook/morsi-makes-his-move

I know there is a lot of talk of this being a bold choice and it changing this election into a clear choice between two ideas of what government should do and how big it should be but from what I see Romney hasn't come out in favor of Ryan's plan (at least not fairly recently). If Romney comes out with a big plan regarding Medicare or starts pushing detailed overall spending numbers this will contrast sharply and make this a stark choice election. But what if he doesn't? If he doesnt come out with his own plan or come out strongly in favor of The Ryan plan does this VP choice really change anything? Will we be talking about Ryan and his plan in a month? Couldn't the Ryan pick open them open to attacks in the short term (which could stick and add to the overall picture Chicago has successfully painted of Romney) and not really change the overall choice to a clear decision between two visions for the country? Thoughts?

Hasnt he been appointing technocrats? Where are the Islamic fundamentalists?