Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (683985)	11/8/2012 10:55:58 PM
From: puborectalis	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571987

It turns out that Republicans had based their projections on two misguided assumptions: 1. That Obama could never win in such a poor economy. Historically, no incumbent since FDR has ever won reelection when the unemployment rate was above 7%, or when the consumer-confidence index was below 95 (it was at 72 in October). But history only predicts the future until it doesn't anymore. Even as polls continued to show Obama ahead or tied the issue, Republicans kept pointing to grim economic numbers as evidence Romney was going to win the race. Exit polls Tuesday found that while 77% of the electorate has a negative outlook on the economy, more than half of voters, 53%, blame the problems on former President George W. Bush, rather than on Obama. 2. There was no way Obama could mobilize the same turnout he had in 2008. Republicans operated under the assumption that low Democratic enthusiasm and disillusion with Obama would drive down turnout among Latinos, African Americans, and youth voters, the key voting blocs that made up the president's winning 2008 coalition. Romney pollsters predicted that the electorate would be older and whiter in 2012, with whites making up about 76% of the electorate, up from 74% in 2008. As it turns out, the Romney campaign's polling model was completely wrong. The country is getting more, not less, diverse, and those shifts have been reflected in the electoral turnout for presidential races over the past 20 years. There was no real reason to indicate that 2012 would be any different. According to exit polls, whites actually made up just 72% of the electorate this year, while Latinos and youth voters upped their share of the electorate by one percentage point each. The African American percentage of the electorate stayed the same. Karl Rove's meltdown on Fox News Tuesday night illustrated just how shocked Republicans were by this outcome. Rove was convinced that Romney would regain the lead in Ohio with unreported rural white votes, but never anticipated the number of minority voters that would turn out for Obama in the state's urban centers. In Florida, Republicans were similarly floored by the huge Latino and African American turnout for Obama in Tampa. The flawed assumptions underscore a more fundamental weakness in Republican campaign strategy. The predictions were based off of the vague idea that minority and first-time voters were put under Obama's charismatic spell in 2008, and would retreat from the political landscape now that the "magic" is gone. They failed to account for the Obama campaign's massive, data-driven field operation, designed to get first-time or sporadic voters to the polls, with or without the magic. In the aftermath of Romney's loss, Republicans have fretted over how the party can appeal to other voting blocs – specifically Latinos. It's a worthwhile exercise, but useless without a mechanism to actually reach out to these voters. The bottom line is that Republicans got distracted by 'momentum,' cheering crowds, SuperPACS, and yard signs, and ignored the actual purpose of a political campaign: Convincing voters to like you and then getting them to the polls. Read more: businessinsider.com

To: i-node who wrote (683985)	11/9/2012 1:04:51 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571987

All nonsense. Government workers are workers. Period. And private sector workers are not necessarily more efficient. Look at Medicare, 7% overhead while private insurance is at least 20% and often much more. This makes no sense. More typically, because of government inefficiency, some number (greater than 1) private workers lose jobs for each government worker that is hired. Because government is inefficient, government workers are more efficient. Else how can a government worker replace more than one private sector worker? And this is equally incoherent It is true that both will spend the money they earn; but private sector workers' expenditures will generate more economic activity than will public sector workers, since people spend their own money more wisely than government spends it for them. Does the government dictate how its employees spend the money they earned?