Obama and Romney Hit Final Stretch Part 3

  • Thread starter Thread starter qui_est_ce
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
November surprise: EPA planning major post-election anti-coal regulation
November 4, 2012 | 11:44 am

President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has devoted an unprecedented number of bureaucrats to finalizing new anti-coal regulations that are set to be released at the end of November, according to a source inside the EPA.

More than 50 EPA staff are now crashing to finish greenhouse gas emission standards that would essentially ban all construction of new coal-fired power plants. Never before have so many EPA resources been devoted to a single regulation. The independent and non-partisan Manhattan Institute estimates that the EPA’s greenhouse gas coal regulation will cost the U.S. economy $700 billion.

The rush is a major sign of panic by environmentalists inside the Obama administration. If Obama wins, the EPA would have another four full years to implement their anti-fossil fuel agenda. But if Romney wins, regulators will have a very narrow window to enact a select few costly regulations that would then be very hard for a President Romney to undo.

Environmentalists at the EPA pulled this trick before in 2000 when the Clinton administration rushed out a finding that Mercury emissions from power plants were a growing public health threat pursuant to the Clean Air Act. That finding did not regulate power plants itself, but it did force the Bush administration to begin a lengthy regulatory process. The Obama EPA has estimated that this regulation alone will cost the U.S. economy $10.9 billion a year.

Reached for comment, Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said:
Code:
President Obama won’t tell the voters of the Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania the truth about his plans to shut down the coal industry. Even after he loses on Tuesday, it appears that the President will still try to continue his efforts to kill their jobs and drive up their energy prices. Mitt Romney is committed to reversing the damage caused by the Obama Administration’s disastrous liberal agenda as soon as he takes office.
washingtonexaminer.com/november-surprise-epa-planning-major-post-election-anti-coal-regulation/article/2512538
 
**CNN national poll tied at 49%. Romney up 22 with independents. Sample is D+11 (was D+7 in 08, even in 2004/2010). Taken 11/2-4. **

What kind of poll is this?

D+11 in the year 2012? This is not 2008, the year of the Greek pillars and the ascendance of Emperor Obama.

Tied at 49%? This in light of the fact that the poll cites with Romney up 22% with Independents?

Which one of my liberal friends was talking about fuzzy Republican math? 🙂
 
Okay, but liberals tend to see a vote for a 3rd party candidateas a vote for Romney. 🤷

Besides, there are enough predictions of a Romney landslide that it won’t matter if one votes for Obama. He’ll be swept away no matter what. Right?
That is what I was thinking.
 
Hey! Did we forget the Bradley Effect?
1:52 AM 11/04/2012

Barack Obama clings to a narrow poll lead in the swing states. What might happen in the final days to change that result? Well, there’s the Incumbent Rule, which says that late-undecideds break overwhelmingly for challengers. Mark Blumenthal discusses and dismisses it here–though I’m sure Republicans would be happy to take Erikson and Wlezien’s alternative “frontrunner” rule, which says undecides break against whoever is in the lead. But OK, we’ll leave the Incumbent Rule to Dick Morris.

Has everyone suddenly forgotten about the equally potent Bradley Effect? The Bradley Effect was such a hot topic in 2008 that I dressed as it for Halloween (it was a fairly abstract costume). This year hardly anyone mentions it (with a few exceptions). Why? The Bradley Rule holds that voters will be reluctant to tell pollsters they are voting against an African-American for fear of being labelled racist. It allegedly hurt Tom Bradley in 1982 and Douglas Wilder in 1989. It didn’t seem to hurt Obama in 2008. But does that mean it won’t appear in 2012? Voters who were genuinely enthusiastic about Obama in 2008–and therefore told pollsters they were voting for him and voted for him–might have second thoughts in 2012, but be reluctant to express them for fear of either seeming cruel (to a pol they tend to like personally) or racist (last hired, first fired!). Forbes Rich Karlgaard notes that the more MSNBC hosts and other Dems label Obama opponents racists, the more they discourage disaffected, former Obama supporters from telling the truth to pollsters–i.e. the more they resurrect a Bradley Effect.

You’d think this would be a possibility pundits would take seriously right around … now. At the least it will give them something to talk about.

dailycaller.com/2012/11/04/hey-did-we-forget-the-bradley-effect/#ixzz2BJ7LwNq1
The Bradley effect has been discredited by political scientist Dan Hopkins. He has done a rather comprehensive analytic study of many gubernatorial and senatorial races and has found a plethora of counterexamples. It may have once been a potent variable, but for the past 15 years it has become much less important. Even the evidence for it at the start had been largely anecdotal. In the mayoral NYC primary, for example, it worked in reverse since the black candidate, David Dinkins, received a significantly larger percentage of the vote compared to Ed Koch than the polls had predicted.
 
The Bradley effect has been discredited by political scientist Dan Hopkins. He has done a rather comprehensive analytic study of many gubernatorial and senatorial races and has found a plethora of counterexamples. It may have once been a potent variable, but for the past 15 years it has become much less important. Even the evidence for it at the start had been largely anecdotal. In the mayoral NYC primary, for example, it worked in reverse since the black candidate, David Dinkins, received a significantly larger percentage of the vote compared to Ed Koch than the polls had predicted.
I didn’t know that. Thanks for the scientific study update. I prefer that race were a non-issue. Now, if we could only figure out what exactly motivates 97% of black American voters to support Obama. Thoughts?
 
Not saying that. They are both wrong, more so with the death penalty I guess. Both are unnecessary in our modern times but both are not intrinsically evil. You could imagine a scenario where they could be used legitimately–like with gay-adoption agencies.I don’t know about that. There are limits. Mormonism is at the cusp of being too weird for me. What about Scientology or Raëlism?
I had to look up Raelism and found it is the largest UFO extraterrestrial religion. I don’t know if I would automatically not vote for someone who belonged to this religion or cult if I agreed with their economic and social policies. Many or most religions sound weird if you’re not familiar with their teachings or they are a minority religion in the society and culture in which you live. Western religions may seem unusual to Eastern cultures and the reverse.
 
I had to look up Raelism and found it is the largest UFO religion. I don’t know if I would automatically not vote for someone who belonged to this religion or cult if I agreed with their economic and social policies. Many or most religions sound weird if you’re not familiar with their teachings or they are a minority religion in the society and culture in which you live. Western religions may seem unusual to Eastern cultures and the reverse.
Just as an aside if a candidate was actually truly Raelian then he would be for unlimited abortion as that is a major tenant of their guiding alien race and supposedly a lost commandment. I love listening and reading all those crazy UFO stories they are great for laughs.
 
Just as an aside if a candidate was actually truly Raelian then he would be for unlimited abortion as that is a major tenant of their guiding alien race and supposedly a lost commandment. I love listening and reading all those crazy UFO stories they are great for laughs.
Meltzerboy is okay with abortion, so that wouldn’t stop him.
 
Don’t listen to Rich. He wants you to think that way, so Obama gets elected… 🙂
😃
Given all I know about Romney I am still heavily leaning towards a write in. Generally I always write in Keyes as he has run the last 4 times but not this time. I am just very worried that by writing someone in instead of voting for Romney I will go to hell. I definitely do not want that.
 
My main point is that there isn’t much funding to begin with, so that a cut would not be significant and would not reduce the deficit. That’s why the Romney example of saying good-by to PBS funding and Big Bird is so silly.
It is far worse than silliness. It’s attacking Big Bird. That is the principle at stake here.
 
I didn’t know that. Thanks for the scientific study update. I prefer that race were a non-issue. Now, if we could only figure out what exactly motivates 97% of black American voters to support Obama. Thoughts?
The number may very well be lower this time. I think racial pride is a significant factor, particularly since Blacks in the US were discriminated against for so long, as well as a feeling that Obama understands and can identify with the issues facing the Black community better than Romney. I must admit that if a Jew were running for President, I would consider their positions long and hard before deciding not to vote for them. I’m sure many Catholics felt the same way when Kennedy was running. However, I can unequivocally say I would not vote for Eric Cantor.
 
I think the fact Romney is Mormon has not driven most Evangelicals away from voting for him, as was feared by many other conservatives. And that’s a good thing since I don’t believe religion should be a factor in any election.
Would you vote for a truly radical muslim? obviously this question is only hypothetical, since such a person would not get through our primaries.
 
Would you vote for a truly radical muslim? obviously this question is only hypothetical, since such a person would not get through our primaries.
Radical in the sense of wanting to harm Americans and overthrow the government and convert it to a theocracy? No, I wouldn’t vote for such a person no matter what their religion was.
 
Would you vote for a truly radical muslim? obviously this question is only hypothetical, since such a person would not get through our primaries.
Normally, I would answer such a hypothetical with “…and a spaceship lands,” but someone else already brought up the Raelians, so…
 
Would you vote for a truly radical muslim? obviously this question is only hypothetical, since such a person would not get through our primaries.
No. I would not vote for such a person because of the “truly radical Muslim” tag you used in your hypothetical. I would consider what a mainstream Muslim had to say, but I’m admittedly very skeptical from the start. Have to think about that one.
 
😃
Given all I know about Romney I am still heavily leaning towards a write in. Generally I always write in Keyes as he has run the last 4 times but not this time. I am just very worried that by writing someone in instead of voting for Romney I will go to hell. I definitely do not want that.
Here is the answer from the apologist:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=725560

I’m supporting Romney because he’s better on the non-negotiables and this country is basically gone as we know it he loses. If that happens, there’s going to be a lot of hurting families who will have wished very much they had voted for him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top