this can't hurt Obama -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1869228.html

Treasury Cutting AIG Stake By $18 Billion, Expects Full Exit By 2013

NEW YORK, Sept 9 (Reuters) - The U.S. Treasury Department said it will sell most of its stake in insurer American International Group Inc, making the government a minority investor for the first time since it rescued the company in the depths of the financial crisis four years ago.

While the Treasury was universally expected to sell stock this month, the magnitude of the planned $18 billion offering was a surprise that will take the government stake in what had been the world's largest insurer to around 20 percent from 53 percent currently.

The sale announced on Sunday will trigger a number of changes for AIG, the most important of which is that it will now fall under Federal Reserve regulation as a savings and loan holding company since the company owns a small bank.

and most importantly -

With the Treasury's break-even point at $28.72 and AIG shares closing Friday at $33.99, this sale is likely to be profitable as were the government's four prior offerings of the company's stock.

- that's over $2.5 billion in profit - another big win for US taxpayers.

Do you remember all the whining over how the tax payer was going to get screwed by the bailouts?

- Basically, the same people who have been wrong about hyperinflation-is-just-around-the-corner.

Originally Posted by playwrite

It's Sept, with less than 60 days to the election, and you are getting yourself photographed with this guy -



and saying crap like this -



- having to appeal to your Evangelical base???

And this appeals to Independents, exactly how???

Incredible. Welcome, but frankly, just incredible.

Is that Britney Spears behind him? OMG.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Your strategists set the bar so low for Obama it's almost incredible that they couldn't see the contrast. This is not 1980.

Herbal Tee, please stop giving the enemy advice. Yes I had to say that. Let them fail. We need them to fail. We just have to not lose the election remember that.

Uh..I hate to be the guy that says this, but. The reason their strategist set the bar so low for President Obama is because at heart they are racists. Everyone knows that "illegal aliens" is their public code word for Latinos. That "urban" is their code word for Blacks. And that in their smoke filled rooms they call the President "that <n-word> in the White House."

And yes I am playing the race card here right wingers. I'll only stop playing it when y'all stop being racists.

Originally Posted by Aramea

Is that Britney Spears behind him? OMG.

Wow, your right!

Romney just lost the "I-want-the-baby-in-the-front-seat" vote! Mitt is toast now.

Here's the first non-tracking big poll that everyone has been waiting for -

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...s-over-romney/

CNN Poll: Obama up six points over Romney

yea, baby!

Obama gets a different kind of lift -



but what the hell was Biden thinking -

Originally Posted by Weave

Nothing but sheer fantasy from a partisan hack.

With these economic conditions its highly unlikely Obama pulls out a victory. Fridays jobs numbers are only the beginning, They'll probably be revised down in October. 1.7 GDP not a good sign. Of course the Obama cheerleading media its doing its best to help him out. If Obama was Repub, every night you'd see another story of some sad sack without a job trying to make ends meet....Obama's bounce will be limited and not lasting.

Here is an economic forecast of the election that has been right since 1980.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/release...ado-study-says

I would give this more credence than Silver's "analysis"

You make the mistake of letting your partisanship and your contempt for our President overpower mathematics.

This is a 4T. The political analogue is more to 1936 than to 1980. There is no swift, easy solution to economic distress. To be sure it is possible to create jobs if they have no pay attached and people can't leave them. Republicans now offer the same economic depravities of the 3T that got us into our economic plight.

A probabilistic model suggests that after the Republicans and their front groups have essentially abandoned all hope for winning Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin that President Obama has 253 of the necessary 270 electoral votes locked up. Ignoring states that have been long understood as sure R (let us say Texas) or aren't possible wins unless President Obama wins some other state (he isn't going to win Arizona without also winning Colorado; Georgia without also winning Florida and North Carolina; or Indiana without also winning Ohio), the election now devolves to 94 electoral votes -- those of Colorado, Florida, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia.

Reduce it all to coin flips and there are 128 possible outcomes.

Any Obama win of Florida or Ohio implies an Obama win. Those account for 96 of the possible outcomes.

An Obama win of North Carolina and any other state other than Florida or Ohio (that is to avoid double-counting -- thus VA, CO, IA, and NH) implies an Obama win. (North Carolina alone will not win the election). Such accounts for all but one of 16 possibilities.

Obama 111, Romney 1.

An Obama win of Virginia and either CO, IA, or NH wins for Obama. That is 7 of 8.

Obama 118, Romney 2.

With Colorado but not FL, NC, OH, or VA, President Obama must win both Iowa and New Hampshire as well. That is 1 of 4.

Obama 119, Romney 3.

Neither Iowa, New Hampshire, nor both will be adequate.

Obama 119, Romney 9.

Even that is a long shot.


That's even more optimistic for Mitt Romney than this (from Nate Silver):

New Hampshire - Obama 86.1%
Nevada - Obama 85.6%
Wisconsin - Obama 84.7%
Virginia - Obama 76.7%
Iowa - Obama 75.7%
Colorado - Obama 75.5%
Ohio - Obama 74.6%
Florida - Obama 66.9%
--------------------------------
North Carolina - Romney 56.5%
Missouri - Romney 82.7%
Montana - Romney 84.9%
Arizona - Romney 85.1%
Indiana - Romney 87.1%

That is the chance of Obama or Romney winning certain states just recently based on polls.

Let's face it -- a 7% lead for President Obama in Michigan on April 1 doesn't mean as much (the Republican says that 'that support is soft') as on September 1. A 7% lead for Romney in Arizona doesn't mean as much in April 1 (the state offers some intriguing opportunities) as on September 1. Leads not chipped from the other side away harden as the campaign season runs out. The political battleground usually narrows with time as candidates recognize the futility of winning certain states. President Obama would gladly surrender his minuscule chances of winning Indiana for his command of the Ohio vote.

At this point I see more possibility of a meltdown of the Romney campaign that allows a 400-EV landslide for Obama than I do for any Romney victory. President Obama has about a 2/3 chance of winning the election simply by winning Florida and a 3/4 chance of winning the election simply by winning Ohio. Let's put it this way -- we have at least four more years (barring some tragedy) to be able to identify who will be our 45th President.

Originally Posted by playwrite

this can't hurt Obama -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1869228.html




and most importantly -



- that's over $2.5 billion in profit - another big win for US taxpayers.

Do you remember all the whining over how the tax payer was going to get screwed by the bailouts?

- Basically, the same people who have been wrong about hyperinflation-is-just-around-the-corner.

So much for our 'socialist' President... who has done more to privatize business than any previous President. (The alternative, socialism through receivership as exemplified through Dubya, is awful politics).

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

You make the mistake of letting your partisanship and your contempt for our President overpower mathematics.

He's sounding like so many four years ago. Many right thinking posters were sure of a McCain victory well after the housing collapse, right up to the election.

Not that the right is alone in wishful thinking. There is time for things to change.

Originally Posted by B Butler

He's sounding like so many four years ago. Many right thinking posters were sure of a McCain victory well after the housing collapse, right up to the election.

Not that the right is alone in wishful thinking. There is time for things to change.

I don't pretend to be neutral; I am as partisan as anyone. It's just that the mechanics of elections do not change. Miracles and disasters can happen, but anyone who expects them to shape an election in the last two months is a fool.

I would ordinarily discount the post-Convention bump of the Democrats... but something seems different this time. Mitt Romney has been the most inept Presidential candidate since Mike Dukakis. The Republicans have doubled down on extreme positions on reproductive rights and economic issues. The Democrats have a spellbinding speaker as their nominee.

[QUOTE=pbrower2a;443183]You make the mistake of letting your partisanship and your contempt for our President overpower mathematics.

This is a 4T. The political analogue is more to 1936 than to 1980. There is no swift, easy solution to economic distress. To be sure it is possible to create jobs if they have no pay attached and people can't leave them. Republicans now offer the same economic depravities of the 3T that got us into our economic plight.

A probabilistic model suggests that after the Republicans and their front groups have essentially abandoned all hope for winning Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin that President Obama has 253 of the necessary 270 electoral votes locked up. Ignoring states that have been long understood as sure R (let us say Texas) or aren't possible wins unless President Obama wins some other state (he isn't going to win Arizona without also winning Colorado; Georgia without also winning Florida and North Carolina; or Indiana without also winning Ohio), the election now devolves to 94 electoral votes -- those of Colorado, Florida, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia.

Reduce it all to coin flips and there are 128 possible outcomes.

Any Obama win of Florida or Ohio implies an Obama win. Those account for 96 of the possible outcomes.

An Obama win of North Carolina and any other state other than Florida or Ohio (that is to avoid double-counting -- thus VA, CO, IA, and NH) implies an Obama win. (North Carolina alone will not win the election). Such accounts for all but one of 16 possibilities.

Obama 111, Romney 1.

An Obama win of Virginia and either CO, IA, or NH wins for Obama. That is 7 of 8.

Obama 118, Romney 2.

With Colorado but not FL, NC, OH, or VA, President Obama must win both Iowa and New Hampshire as well. That is 1 of 4.

Obama 119, Romney 3.

Neither Iowa, New Hampshire, nor both will be adequate.

Obama 119, Romney 9.

Even that is a long shot.


That's even more optimistic for Mitt Romney than this (from Nate Silver):

New Hampshire - Obama 86.1%
Nevada - Obama 85.6%
Wisconsin - Obama 84.7%
Virginia - Obama 76.7%
Iowa - Obama 75.7%
Colorado - Obama 75.5%
Ohio - Obama 74.6%
Florida - Obama 66.9%
--------------------------------
North Carolina - Romney 56.5%
Missouri - Romney 82.7%
Montana - Romney 84.9%
Arizona - Romney 85.1%
Indiana - Romney 87.1%

That is the chance of Obama or Romney winning certain states just recently based on polls.

Let's face it -- a 7% lead for President Obama in Michigan on April 1 doesn't mean as much (the Republican says that 'that support is soft') as on September 1. A 7% lead for Romney in Arizona doesn't mean as much in April 1 (the state offers some intriguing opportunities) as on September 1. Leads not chipped from the other side away harden as the campaign season runs out. The political battleground usually narrows with time as candidates recognize the futility of winning certain states. President Obama would gladly surrender his minuscule chances of winning Indiana for his command of the Ohio vote.

At this point I see more possibility of a meltdown of the Romney campaign that allows a 400-EV landslide for Obama than I do for any Romney victory. President Obama has about a 2/3 chance of winning the election simply by winning Florida and a 3/4 chance of winning the election simply by winning Ohio. Let's put it this way -- we have at least four more years (barring some tragedy) to be able to identify who will be our 45th President.[/QUOT

You are relying on Silver analysis that relies on polls using faulty 2008 models for predicting the electorate. It will be more like 2010 than 2008. the youth vote is not fired up anything like 2008 and the silent/boomer vote is. Obama's support among the boomer/silents seriously lags Romney. Among the millies the gap has closed. Obama still leads but its much less than in 08. Voter intensity among Republicans is 13% higher at this point than Dems.

I still give Obama a slight edge as the incumbent but its slipping away as the economy continues to deteriorate. Plenty of wild cards out there but an 80% chance of a win is ridiculous.

It's fun to predict elections; I did well last time using the polls and history, except I thought Hillary would be nominated. I've also done well this year, using my crystal ball. If I knew what I know now from my crystal ball, I would have picked Obama. But that also means I'm not too optimistic about Hillary in 2016. Biases always play a role, as we see from the different predictions by brower and weave. They would play a role in mine as well.

Just looking at what I know from the polls and history, this is how I see it. It is true that Republicans are more intense, and the youth vote is less solid this year. However, there will be more young voters this time than in 2010, because it's a presidential election. Obama's got that going as well as incumbency. The turnout was very low in 2010.

The way it looks to me, the swing states in order of most-likely to go "blue," to the most uncertain, to those more likely to go "red":

likely or solid blue: 221 votes

Michigan 16
New Hampshire 4
Wisconsin 10
Nevada 6
Colorado 9
Virginia 13 = 279
Ohio 18
Florida 29
Iowa 6 (very very tight; if Romney comes close to winning, he'll get this one) = 332

North Carolina 15 appears most likely to go "red" but it is very tight.
Missouri 10
Indiana 11

Obama wins.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I don't pretend to be neutral; I am as partisan as anyone.

Ya think?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

It's just that the mechanics of elections do not change. Miracles and disasters can happen, but anyone who expects them to shape an election in the last two months is a fool.

I would ordinarily discount the post-Convention bump of the Democrats... but something seems different this time. Mitt Romney has been the most inept Presidential candidate since Mike Dukakis. The Republicans have doubled down on extreme positions on reproductive rights and economic issues. The Democrats have a spellbinding speaker as their nominee.

I can understand where you're at. After Romney's gaffs at the London Olympics, it's hard to see him doing well in the debates. Romney feels a bit more off than just a politician adapting extreme positions as they are his best chance. He seems to have a truly extreme mind set, and it is leaking out in his presentations.

I'd quibble on Obama as a spellbinding speaker. He's good. Not sure he's great. Clinton 42 seemed to handle the convention opportunity better.

And I'll hold my celebrations for a while. You have good reason for your optimism, but I'm inclined to remain nervous for a while longer.

from non-tracking big ABC poll -

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...poll-the-note/

Ready To Bounce? Obama Gets A Lift In New Poll

...President Obama now leads Mitt Romney 50 percent to 44 percent among registered voters in the latest ABC News-Washington Post poll out today. That’s after a previous survey before last week’s Democratic National Convention showed the two candidates tied at 48 percent.

ABC News Pollster Gary Langer notes: “For the first time Obama’s numerically ahead of Romney in trust to handle the economy, the key issue of the 2012 contest, albeit by a scant 47-45 percent. Obama’s seized a 15-point lead in trust to advance the interests of the middle class. And strong enthusiasm among his supporters is up by 8 points from its pre-convention level; Obama now leads Romney by 10 points in ‘very’ enthusiastic support.”

Louis: Looking good, Billy Ray!
Billy Ray: Feeling good, Louis!

Originally Posted by playwrite

from non-tracking big ABC poll -

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...poll-the-note/





Louis: Looking good, Billy Ray!
Billy Ray: Feeling good, Louis!

I hate to burst your bubble here but among LIKELY voters in his poll its Obama 49% Romney 48%. Then look at the internals of the poll 33% Dem, 23% Repub, 37% Independent. Do you really believe that'll be the breakdown in the election. If you do you are on drugs, Latest partisan breakdown by Rasmussen among those who are most likely to vote is is 35% Repub, 33% Dem.

Look at the last question in the internals of the ABC poll
http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2...elease_126.xml

Rasmussen should always be ignored except right before elections, they are partisan hacks who switch to be legitimate pollsters in October so they are not exposed.

Minority Voters To Be Intimidated By Polling Place Vigilantes, Report Warns


The Right knows that they can't win fairly, so they will just scare all the black and Hispanic voters away.

James Fallows of The Atlantic has written that Romney is a formidable debater, although a not a great speaker. It's best not to underestimate anyone.

CNN/ORC, these are the real partisan hacks... Romney actually lead Obama with unskewed numbers...

http://www.examiner.com/article/mitt...t-cnn-orc-poll

Weave, if you really believed what you are posting, you would see no need to post it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Weave, if you really believed what you are posting, you would see no need to post it.

Hello pot, this is kettle....

Originally Posted by Weave

Hello pot, this is kettle....

LOL that didn't even make any sense. Or perhaps you're thinking in categories, and can't distinguish me from anyone else you categorize as a liberal, so that if anyone has posted polls showing a big Obama lead I must have done it, 'cause we're all really just one person with a collective mind. Or something.

Or maybe it just made no sense at all and I'm trying too hard to squeeze sense out of it.

Whatever -- you still protest too much.

Originally Posted by Weave

I hate to burst your bubble here but among LIKELY voters in his poll its Obama 49% Romney 48%. Then look at the internals of the poll 33% Dem, 23% Repub, 37% Independent. Do you really believe that'll be the breakdown in the election. If you do you are on drugs, Latest partisan breakdown by Rasmussen among those who are most likely to vote is is 35% Repub, 33% Dem.

Look at the last question in the internals of the ABC poll
http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2...elease_126.xml

You can take hope from that. Obama supporters will take hope from their strong ground game, which can turn "unlikely" into "actual" voters.

Originally Posted by Weave

CNN/ORC, these are the real partisan hacks... Romney actually lead Obama with unskewed numbers...

http://www.examiner.com/article/mitt...t-cnn-orc-poll

That confirms my suspicion that a lot of the polls are now basically being faked. In this case, CNN didn't mind sacrificing its credibility (knowing that it would likely go relatively unreported) for the goal of pretending Obama got a big bounce out of his convention. What I sense among all the people I have encountered recently (I live in a swing area of a swing state) is a massive backlash against the Democrats. I've even seen signs of it online, where you mostly run into crackpot internet nerd liberals.

It's not my imagination, which leads me to believe that something fishy (more so than usual) is going on with the media.

JPT is living in his own reality, again.