Wednesday Forum: October 2, 2012

Posted on October 3, 2012 by Sinclair Davidson

This entry was posted in Open Forum. Bookmark the permalink.

1,059 Responses to Wednesday Forum: October 2, 2012

« Previous 1 … 3 4 5

steve from brisbane

#596696, posted on October 5, 2012 at 10:59 pm

Someone made a twitter joke about Lehrer’s eyes having no whites, I think. They were a bit freakish looking…
JamesK

#596697, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:00 pm

The Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson may be a liberal but Obumma lies are too much for him:

The $5 trillion tax-cut myth

After 47 percent, the presidential campaign’s most incendiary number is $5 trillion. That’s the tax cut planned by Mitt Romney with most benefits going to the wealthy, according to President Obama and his campaign. The president has used the figure repeatedly, as have his surrogates and ads. In Wednesday’s debate, Romney vehemently denied that there ever was a $5 trillion tax cut for the rich. He’s right. The figure is a partisan construct that, somehow, has been given a pass by most of the media as one plausible version of the truth. It isn’t.
JamesK

#596698, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:01 pm

The Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson may be a liberal lefty but Obumma’s lies are too much for him:

The $5 trillion tax-cut myth

After 47 percent, the presidential campaign’s most incendiary number is $5 trillion. That’s the tax cut planned by Mitt Romney with most benefits going to the wealthy, according to President Obama and his campaign. The president has used the figure repeatedly, as have his surrogates and ads. In Wednesday’s debate, Romney vehemently denied that there ever was a $5 trillion tax cut for the rich. He’s right. The figure is a partisan construct that, somehow, has been given a pass by most of the media as one plausible version of the truth. It isn’t.
JamesK

#596700, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:04 pm

Someone made a twitter joke about Lehrer’s eyes having no whites, I think. They were a bit freakish looking…

Why I wonder does pervert and liar leftist, liar-steve™ feel it necessary to share his drivel pronouncements with us?
JC

#596701, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:06 pm

Jones just reads American leftwing websites and goes with it. He’s like Stepford.

He’s so pathetic.

Just look at these loaded questions.

Notice how he elbows Alberici off the screen at will.

TONY JONES: Now will there be much behind-the-scenes argument about the debate rules? I know that you’ve been involved in advising on these debate rules, but they did seem to be rather flexible and I’d say the moderator was largely ineffective.

TONY JONES: Well, none of this says very much for the Obama camp’s debate prep, as they call it, so give us some sort of idea of what both of them would have gone through because we saw after the event at least on the Republican side, the man who actually played Obama in the debate preparation for Romney sort of crowing about how well he’d actually done, what he’d achieved.

TONY JONES: Yes, there were some striking omissions too from Obama’s arguments. There’s no mention of Romney’s 47 per cent speech, no mention of Romney’s time at Bain Capital, no attempt to link Romney to the philosophical issues in that area that led to the global financial crisis. All of these are in the ads, of course. All this stuff’s in the campaign ads.

Did Obama specifically stay away from it because he didn’t want to get his hands dirty on national television?

TONY JONES: One of the most puzzling aspects of this whole discussion was the 20 per cent tax cut that Romney is proposing and the $5 trillion bill that the president put on that. Well Romney just simply said that’s not the case.

Obama didn’t seem to have the ammunition to actually prove that was wrong, what Romney was saying. The fact checkers afterwards had different views on the matter. What are your thoughts?

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3604976.htm
.

#596702, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:09 pm

As it turns out that could be very relevant because I just found(note that other NSAIDs(cox 2 inhibitors) do not provide an anti-cancer benefit):

Can you explain why it doesn’t work in dumbarse terms for me?

Thanks.
JamesK

#596703, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:09 pm

Politico: Lehrer-My job was ‘to stay out of the way’

Politico here says Lehrer was “widely criticized.”

By whom eggsactly?

LOL
JC

#596707, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:12 pm

Why I wonder does pervert and liar leftist, liar-steve™ feel it necessary to share his drivel pronouncements with us?

JamesK

American lefties are angry at Lehrer for not helping the Kenyan out of the pickle he was in. Stepford is just reciting their anger in a sort of plagiarized form.

The fact is that the Kenyan didn’t perform that badly I thought. Of course he stumbled at times, but he was no worse than the times I’ve seen him speak without a teleprompter.

Romney was just superior because he’s a superior intellect.

As I said yesterday, Romney is a person who went to Ivy League Schools on merit while the Kenyan was admitted as an international student and minority. Yesterday we saw the contrast.
.

#596708, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:14 pm

I’d prefer to have a drink with him than Kelly. She’d be a very scary date…

I thought she was a deadshit, plain and a shoe in.

I saw her on TV and I think she’s passionate, articulate and actually ok looking.

Um she’s probably happily married, but I’d rather date her stepford. I note how quickly a “concerned male conservative catholic” like you surrenders to the allure of sex with a man. Somehow as a socially liberal, culturally Catholic, live and let live guy, I just can’t warm to your incessant bullshit.
JamesK

#596709, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:15 pm

WSJ: The Obama Matrix
Romney’s triumph came from exposing the President’s campaign illusions.

The most instructive exchange came early, after Mr. Obama had already denounced Mr. Romney’s “central economic plan” for the third time. He repeated his lines from the stump about Mr. Romney’s $5 trillion tax cut for millionaires and billionaires that “dumps those costs on middle-class Americans” and raises their taxes by $2,000.

Mr. Romney has no such plan. Mr. Obama simply made it up, with an assist from one of his former economists and others at a liberal Washington think tank. Mr. Romney said as much categorically. He then added that Mr. Obama would continue to make the accusation, on the theory that incantation could make it true, “but that is not the case, all right?” and “I will not, under any circumstances, raise taxes on middle-income families.”

Mr. Obama was nonplused, perhaps because he had come to believe what he was saying in the bubble of his campaign rallies and unquestioned by the media. The best reply he could offer was that, “Well, for 18 months he’s been running on this tax plan. And now, five weeks before the election, he’s saying that his big, bold idea is ‘never mind.’” But for 18 months it has been Mr. Obama who has campaigned against a mirage of his own imagining. No wonder he was stumped.
steve from brisbane

#596710, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:21 pm

Well, I agree that (from what little I saw) that Obama was not as bad as people like drama queen Andrew Sullivan were making out.

But Romney was big on promise and low on detail; just shallow really.

I can’t see how you can call it a result of superior intellect. It was just political showmanship.
JamesK

#596712, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:22 pm

Yesterday we saw the contrast.

Tough but fair.

Mitt Romney spoke for 38 minutes and 14 seconds, or 47.3% of the candidate-allotted speaking time – a full four minutes and 26 seconds less than Bazza.

Jim tried his best to rescue him on occasion too.

LEAVE JIM ALONE!!!!

Inevitable: The Obama “Uh” supercut

There’s no harm in enjoying it for a day, you, uhh, extremist, um, mob, uhh, of hostage-taking, uhh, bitter, um, clingers.

If only the rabble could put a sentence together like the glorious leader.

So, that’s 51 seconds of “uhs” for The One

The Daily reported earlier this week, Boston College psychophysiologist Joseph Tecce has found that since 1980, the candidate who blinks the least during the televised debates has gone on to win the popular vote. In his preliminary analysis of last night’s debate, Tecce found that Obama lost in a landslide: he blinked an average of about 75 times a minute, compared to 55 times a minute for Mitt Romney.

Closing statements were the blinkiest, but Obama outdid Romney there, too:

Both candidates seemed to do the most blinking during their concluding statements: Obama, 100 times per minute; Romney, 94. Tecce said this increase is consistent with past findings of elevated blinking during closing remarks.

Tecce also noted — as others have — that Obama showed “frequent gaze avoidance” during last night’s debate, which is often A physiological response to stress.
Infidel Tiger

#596713, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:22 pm

Got to love Australian lefties. They are going to take Obama’s defeat harder than Trotsky’s ill fated sojourn to Mexico.
JC

#596714, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:23 pm

About the US polls. I really don’t know what to believe. If the Pollsters are over-inflating party membership as they seem to be then there is a clear problem and the election could be a huge shock for a lot of people that thought the Kenyan was coasting home to an easy victory.

I’m astonished that people are suggesting the pollsters are fixing the numbers to accord with assumed party affiliation and essnetially ignoring the actual responses. This sounds incredible to me. But I still can’t buy it and sitting out on a prediction.
steve from brisbane

#596715, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:23 pm

“but that is not the case, all right?” and “I will not, under any circumstances, raise taxes on middle-income families.”

But that’s the bullshit part – no one can see how he can do it, and he (and Ryan) won’t tell the American public.
JamesK

#596718, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:25 pm

But Romney was big on promise and low on detail; just shallow really

Shallow pervert and leftist liar, liar-steve™ feels Romney is shallow.

Um ok.
Infidel Tiger

#596717, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:25 pm

But Romney was big on promise and low on detail; just shallow really.

Don’t be a glue huffer. The Willard could tell you the barcode on every receipt of every deduction he will be cancelling if he wanted. That guy can spit out more numbers than Dexter on a Perfect Match marathon.
.

#596720, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:26 pm

Jarrah

Do you reckon hammy might really be a rabid lefty who operates under the guise of parody?

Did you ever read Othello in school? Guess which character I’m referring to.

My other bet is that it is just Les/Tillman being a joker.

The genius part about hammy isn’t the trolling but the mystique.

Alice. Do not associate yourself with Jarrah. I like him. He pisses me off over what boils down to semantics sometimes. I’ll concede he’s right more than I am over that but I find it tedious.

On the other hand, you are an insane crackpot space cadet. If there was ever such a thing as regulation of the internet, you should be a persona non grata.

Jarrah and I actually agree on 99% of stuff. He’s studying economics and law and I think he’d be a better economist (although law is a better career path, IMO – and I actually think he will make a very good economist). I wish he’d lose some of the cultural baggage of being a lefty. I am not sucking up because I’ve met him and I quite like his blog.

Like typical libertarians, we go to war with each other on trivialities.

You were too loopy to be kept on as a cheerleader on Kwiggern’s left wing academic economist blog.
Gab

#596722, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:28 pm

that Obama showed “frequent gaze avoidance” during last night’s debate,

He very often showed an ashamed look. Especially when Mitt spkoe directly to him.
JC

#596723, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:31 pm

Stepford:

Stop wheeling out Krugman (or his wife). You have no understanding of economics yet you infest this site with the above gibberish.

You can read what the Princeton public finance expert says at this link. Here is the bottom line:

I analyze the Romney proposal taking into account the additional income that might be generated by economic growth. The main conclusion is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on high-income individuals about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral

Lets all hope this is the end of your incessant spamming on the subject, you moron.

Now fuck off. It is doable and it’s a good policy to get the economy running again as it brings lots of clarity to the tax system and lowers the marginal rates.
.

#596724, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:32 pm

but that is not the case, all right?” and “I will not, under any circumstances, raise taxes on middle-income families.”

But that’s the bullshit part – no one can see how he can do it, and he (and Ryan) won’t tell the American public.

You’re a dope Steve.

If you cut loopholes and handouts, then you can flatten the tax structure by lowering rates and increase tax thresholds.

This then engenders more productivity growth and capital accumulation, and punishes overtime and highly skilled labour less. National income rises. The tax base expands and so does revenue.

The there is the fact that spending, not revenue is the issue.

You do not understand a single thing about economics. It is insulting and an affront to human endeavour when you talk about economics.

I beg you for the sake of our children’s future, to prattle on about some other crap. Society can ill afford you spouting economics.
Gab

#596726, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:35 pm

If you cut loopholes and handouts, then you can flatten the tax structure by lowering rates and increase tax thresholds.

This then engenders more productivity growth and capital accumulation, and punishes overtime and highly skilled labour less. National income rises. The tax base expands and so does revenue.

The there is the fact that spending, not revenue is the issue.

That’s about the third time I’ve seen you explain the concept. I don’t believe he’s go it yet.
JC

#596727, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:35 pm

More…

Eggsactly what I said yesterday and keep repeating.

While this debate has been illuminating in some respects, something seems to be missing. As far as I can tell, not much has been said about the possible effects of the Romney proposal on economic growth. This is curious because increasing growth is the motivation for the proposal in the first place.
JamesK

#596728, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:35 pm

This sounds incredible to me. But I still can’t buy it and sitting out on a prediction.

I don’t believe that but they mostly don’t correct for party affiliation.

The correct for demography.

So why are they getting suspiciously large Dem samples?

It’s not explained.

The two national polls – Gallop and Rassie both correct for party affiliation.

Rassie corrects after a separate second monthly poll for party affiliation and it is presently D+2.

In the state polls most show Romney winning Independents.

If its more than a D+5 sample it should be viewed with suspicion.

The other thing is pollsters by telephone are getting 95% refusals.

So the are only polling 5% of the population they attempt to sample.

That self-selection bias is difficult to gauge the meaning of.
steve from brisbane

#596729, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:37 pm

From Bloomberg:

The Republican presidential nominee pledges to “lower taxes on middle-income families,” without giving high earners another tax cut or adding to the U.S. budget deficit. He can do that, he says, by capping the value of tax breaks available to any individual taxpayer.

His tax plan, however, would upend financial planning for millions of middle-class households, denying them thousands of dollars in annual deductions. Earlier this week, after months of refusing to specify which tax breaks he would curtail, Romney said taxpayers might be able to take a total of no more than $17,000 in deductions each year.

That won’t bring in enough revenue to make up for almost $5 trillion the government will lose once tax rates are reduced by 20 percent as Romney has proposed, according to economist William Gale of the Brookings Institution in Washington.

“It doesn’t come close to paying for the $5 trillion,” said Gale, who co-authored a study of Romney’s tax plan for the non-partisan Tax Policy Center in Washington.

At least 3.7 million U.S. taxpayers last year reported deductions of $25,000 or more. About 10 million others wrote off $15,000 to $25,000. Romney says their taxes wouldn’t go up, and in fact would decline, under his 20 percent across-the-board tax rate cut.

…

Gale, who was a senior White House economist in the administration of President George H.W. Bush, says the Tax Policy Center is analyzing Romney’s latest concept of capping deductions. It appears the deduction cap would raise only $1 trillion to $2 trillion of the needed $5 trillion, he said in a telephone interview.

“Something’s got to give with all the things he’s promised,” he said. “It’s not clear what.”
JC

#596731, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:41 pm

The other thing is pollsters by telephone are getting 95% refusals

Is that what has always occurred. Is it out of the ordinary?
JamesK

#596732, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:42 pm

LOL

Jobs report: 114K jobs added, jobless rate 7.8%;

Rush Limbaugh predicted some 9 months ago(my guess) that the unemployment figure would mysteriously dip below 8% or even the magic 7.9% that saw Reagan get re-elected in the month before the election.

Limbaugh knows these devious fuckers.
JC

#596733, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:44 pm

Stepford

You cockroach, show exactly in your link where they adjust for higher economic growth like the Princeton professor has talked about.

If you can’t then fuck off and stop the spamming.
JamesK

#596734, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:45 pm

Is that what has always occurred. Is it out of the ordinary?

Its been increasing from 60% 15 years ago and has dramatically worsened since 08′(from late 80s)
JC

#596736, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:52 pm

What I don’t get is that the polls were pretty decent in 2010 suggesting a sweeping GOP election of the house and possible senate, so what were they doing then and why the difference now?
C.L.

#596737, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:52 pm

Alberici on Lateline was conducting a free-flowing discussion with Boris Karloff’s great grandson re Tony Abbott’s ‘links’ to Alan Jones (and even inanimate objects) whereupon Kelly O’Dwyer brought up the arrest of the former national president of the ALP and pointed to his connections to the HSU and – you know – the AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY.

Alberici interrupted O’Dwyer to dismissed this as a “stretch.”

At other times, she appeared to be in a state of mild hysteria.
steve from brisbane

#596739, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:56 pm

Ha. the Princeton analysis bases all of the hope on growth making up for it, while admitting that “no one knows for sure” whether growth will happen.

It’s all a rubbery figure analysis.

Voodoo economics is back, baby.

And hey, I wrote that even before I read this, from Klein:

Harvey Rosen, a public finance expert at Princeton, argued that the Romney tax plan will increase economic growth dramatically, which in turn would raise revenue and negate the need for tax increases on the middle-class. He finds that if the Romney plan increases economic growth by 3 percentage points relative to where it would be under current policies — a huge, and many economists think implausible, boost — then Romney’s numbers might work out. But behind his analysis lurk two assumptions that might not add up.

Rosen bases his growth estimates on a study of Romney’s plan done by Rice economist John Diamond. Diamond assumes that Romney’s plan is implemented under conditions of full employment. That’s important because it means that if you eliminate tax breaks for one industry and they have to fire workers, those workers can relatively easily find jobs in another industry. But barring a miraculous labor market recovery in the next few months, that won’t be the situation when Romney takes office. In the current world, wiping out tax breaks for an industry could lead to displaced workers who simply join the ranks of the unemployed, dragging down growth.

But more damaging for Rosen’s case is that Diamond’s study assumes that Romney’s plan is revenue-neutral before you take economic growth into account.* That is, Diamond assumes that the tax cuts have been fully paid for first, and that’s part of why they do so much for growth. Rosen, conversely, is making the case that you don’t need to fully pay for the tax cuts because growth will fill in the gap. So the Diamond-Romney tax plan and the Rosen-Romney tax plan are quite different, and growth estimates that apply to the first don’t necessarily apply to the second.
SteveC

#596740, posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:58 pm

and SteveC – where is he lately?
I’ve been on holidays enjoying the sunshine in WA. But never fear I’ll be back to annoy soon.
Meanwhile:

http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/video.html?freewheel=90062&sitesection=serasmussen&VID=23834079

no bounce from the debate yet for Romney, will be interesting to check the polls over the next few days.
Rasmussen:
Daily Swing State Tracking Poll
Swing State Daily Tracking: Obama 51%, Romney 45%
JC

#596742, posted on October 6, 2012 at 12:02 am

SteveC

Did you at least ~~stick~~ place Kimberly in a reasonably comfortable suitcase and not carry on luggage?
Infidel Tiger

#596743, posted on October 6, 2012 at 12:02 am

At other times, she appeared to be in a state of mild hysteria.

We should buy her a vibrator.
Dead Soul

#596744, posted on October 6, 2012 at 12:02 am

Can you explain why it doesn’t work in dumbarse terms for me?

Thanks.

Nah sorry Mark don’t have a clue. Cox 2, cyclo oxgenase 2, is involved in a host of things whereas as I suspect 5 LOX has more constrained functions. Cox 2 via Arachidonic acid stimulates prostaglandins, Lipo induces leukotrienes via AA. The conflicting results for COX 2 inhibition *might* be explained by the fact that via AA COX 2 can generate either pro-inflammatory or anti-inflammatory prostaglandins, this being dependent on the ratios of omega 3-/omega 6 in the cell. So it might be the case that COX 2 is a good target but only when the fatty acid ratios is within certain ranges whereas 5 LOX may be generating the same leukotrienes independently of fatty acid ratios. But I still don’t have a clue. So I’m a dumbarse too. No surprises there.
JamesK

#596745, posted on October 6, 2012 at 12:04 am

What I don’t get is that the polls were pretty decent in 2010 suggesting a sweeping GOP election of the house and possible senate, so what were they doing then and why the difference now?

No the weren’t.

And even Rasmussen’s last poll didn’t predict a Mass win for Scott Brown in 2009 although he was the first one to predict the massive wave in Brown’s favour.

Rasmussen generally did ok in 2010.

Rassie was very accurate in 2004 and 2008
JC

#596747, posted on October 6, 2012 at 12:07 am

Revelation from Andrew Leigh.

Tony Abbott refers to the lying slapper as “she” in the house.

Is this dickhead for real?
JamesK

#596749, posted on October 6, 2012 at 12:08 am

I predict the US unemployment rate of 7.8% will be headline news on ‘their’ ABC and SBS tomorrow.
steve from brisbane

#596748, posted on October 6, 2012 at 12:08 am

We should buy her a vibrator.

Kelly gives the impression she knows how to use a strap on.

[Sorry, out of character.]
.

#596750, posted on October 6, 2012 at 12:09 am

Ha. the Princeton analysis bases all of the hope on growth making up for it, while admitting that “no one knows for sure” whether growth will happen.

Yes Steve, that is what Kennedy, Costello, Reagan, Putin, Menzies, Hawke and Keating, …. did. That is how tax cuts work.

They also plan to cut spending.

They are correct. China might blow up, their assumptions may be worthelsss as trade to China diminishes.

It’s all a rubbery figure analysis.

Voodoo economics is back, baby.

All analysis uses rubbery figures you twit. You have never built an economic model, and econometric model or a financial model of any kind. Everything is multivariate, probabilistic as opposed to deterministic and subject to exogneous factors.

Voodoo economics was a term that Bush I used to sledge Reagan in primaries against him before he was chosen as his VP.

The Laffer Curve is real. The alternative to the Laffer Curve is a world where as long as tax rates go up, revenues go up.

Perhaps you’d like to explain how tax rates going up from 99% to 100% would increase revenue.

Like John Humphreys said (PBUH), there is an optimal amount of something between zero and infinity. Likewise, the optimal rate of taxation to maximise revenue lies somewhere between 0% and 100% taxation.

Please stop polluting the collective intellect of society with your disjointed blather.
JamesK

#596751, posted on October 6, 2012 at 12:13 am

Is this dickhead for real?

That part was particularly puerile.

I suspect Leigh is finding it difficult to keep down the ALP talking points sh1t sandwich.

Whilst liar-steve™ would positively salivate for the opportunity from his superiors.
Infidel Tiger

#596752, posted on October 6, 2012 at 12:15 am

Kelly gives the impression she knows how to use a strap on.

[Sorry, out of character.]

I am shocked and chagrined but mostly pleasantly surprised at this outburst.
JC

#596753, posted on October 6, 2012 at 12:16 am

Please stop polluting the collective intellect of society with your disjointed blather.

It’s all linked to partisan websites. He has no fucking idea what it all means.

Stepford

Show the scoring done on assumptions to economic growth. Go!
Gab

#596754, posted on October 6, 2012 at 12:18 am

Revelation from Andrew Leigh.

Tony Abbott refers to the lying slapper as “she” in the house.

Do these people ever hear themselves talk? What a moron. The poor bloke can’t even use a personal pronoun without the idiots like Leigh carrying on like a premenstrual school girl.
Dead Soul

#596755, posted on October 6, 2012 at 12:18 am

It was an Obama Disaster and yes the polls did reflect a bounce for Romney. But I’d wait til after the weekend to get a better idea. This will certainly help Romney but hey, don’t get cocky Mitt … .

The other thing is pollsters by telephone are getting 95% refusals

So we need a poll on who refuses to be polled? 95% refusals suggest some selection issue possibilities to me. DOT?
JamesK

#596756, posted on October 6, 2012 at 12:21 am

Jack Welch ‏@jack_welch

Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can’t debate so change numbers

LOL
JC

#596757, posted on October 6, 2012 at 12:23 am

This really doesn’t seem to be over.

Ohio is moving around too.

Virginia remains a nail-biter in the first post-debate survey of the key battleground state, with Mitt Romney edging slightly ahead.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Virginia Voters, taken last night, shows Romney earning 49% support to Obama’s 48%. Three percent (3%) remain undecided. (To see survey question wording,
JamesK

#596758, posted on October 6, 2012 at 12:23 am

What a moron. The poor bloke can’t even use a personal pronoun without the idiots like Leigh carrying on like a premenstrual school girl.

He’s an ALP foot-soldier, just repeating what they all repeat.

He’s doing what he’s told.
twostix

#596759, posted on October 6, 2012 at 12:26 am

Tony Abbott refers to the lying slapper as “she” in the house.

Can you imagine what the foreign political analysts write in their reports about this country right now?

We had somebody from the ruling party on the government news media on a most “serious” political show attacking the leader of the opposition for using the word “she”.
Infidel Tiger

#596760, posted on October 6, 2012 at 12:27 am

~~She~~ my apologies, The loathsome whore.
JC

#596762, posted on October 6, 2012 at 12:28 am

Can I just say one thing here. Bank stocks are moving up really smartly since yesterday which could, could mean the markets are taking another look at a Romney win.

Bank of America for instance, which a high beta stock (higher vol), has put on 7% in two days.

Romney was talking about repealing big parts of Dodd Frank and this would help the banks.
.

#596765, posted on October 6, 2012 at 12:33 am

The other thing is pollsters by telephone are getting 95% refusals

So we need a poll on who refuses to be polled? 95% refusals suggest some selection issue possibilities to me. DOT?

Surveys are not my strong point but a 5% response rate to a survey?

Working out a yes no preference: only a small difference that may or may not be statistically significant.

Modelling economic or buyer behaviour: Holy fuck you’ve got some problems.

My caveat on that is that I think telephone response rates are usually pretty high. I think mail gets very low response rates without prior contact/building a rapport.

If the response bias is not known, but you suspect that economic variables might deter respondents, this may be useful:

http://fairmodel.econ.yale.edu/cgi/computv5.pl

There is probably some way around it with choice modelling but I can’t thunk it. My best answer would be to do some factor analysis of the respondents to model different predictors and input them as the bias correcting term in a Heckman two step logit/(probit/tobit) model.

This doesn’t even really address polling as a stated preference and voting as a revealed preference.
JamesK

#596766, posted on October 6, 2012 at 12:33 am

Priorities USA (Obama Super PAC) Pulls Ads From FL, WI

The pro-Obama “super PAC” that has spent millions of dollars attacking Mitt Romney in ads is pulling commercials from Florida and Wisconsin, part of what the group says is a realignment of its advertising campaign.

The cancellations by Priorities USA Action, coupled with new purchases of television time in other key swing states, indicate where Democratic strategists think the presidential race may and may not be competitive with a month left to Election Day.

First, the bad news: apparently Obama (or his allies, as the case may be) thinks Wisconsin is in the bag.

However, pulling ads from Florida is huge. Wish we could get a glimpse at the campaign internals…

We’ve already seen all the pro-Obama Super PACs and Obama’s campaign itself pull out of North Carolina.

And we know Romney’s next target was to continue pushing the firewall back and take Florida. This move by PUSA would appear to be a signal that the Sunshine State is strongly trending toward Romney now.

Where will PUSA be spending its advertising dollars, you ask? Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, and Virginia are the four states in which they will now be focusing ads. Until the firewall gets pushed back again…
.

#596768, posted on October 6, 2012 at 12:35 am

http://fairmodel.econ.yale.edu/vote2012/computev.htm

Is the actual modelling inputs page. Sorry I gave you the output page with the default variables.
Dead Soul

#596770, posted on October 6, 2012 at 12:36 am

Thanks DOT.
JamesK

#596773, posted on October 6, 2012 at 12:38 am

Michael Barone, NRO:

As a recovering pollster (I worked for Democratic pollster Peter Hart from 1974 to 1981), let me weigh in on the controversy over whether the polls are accurate. Many conservatives are claiming that multiple polls have overly Democratic samples, and some charge that media pollsters are trying to discourage Republican voters.

First, some points about the limits of polls. Random-sample polling is an imprecise instrument. There’s an error margin of 3 or 4 percent, and polling theory tells us that one out of 20 polls is wrong, with results outside the margin of error. Sometimes it’s easy to spot such an outlier, sometimes not.

In addition, it’s getting much harder for pollsters to get people to respond to interviews. The Pew Research Center reports that only 9 percent of the people it contacts respond to its questions. That’s compared with 36 percent in 1997
C.L.

#596791, posted on October 6, 2012 at 1:05 am

If anyone would know how to use a strap-on, it’s Steve.
Jarrah

#597023, posted on October 6, 2012 at 10:33 am

“Jarrah congratulations, old bean! You appear to have realised that hammyracist is a troll.”

Wow, revisionism to the max.

I said that on his first appearance. You, on the other hand, along with other assorted dumbasses, kept responding as if he was serious. Which is why I told you not to bother, at which point you got your panties in a bunch and tried to pretend you knew all along. It’s very weird.

Now you seem to be hallucinating a reverse reality. Maybe my recommendation to up your dose was a mistake, since you seem to have gone too far and overdosed.