2012 republican presidential nominee IV: NEEDS MORE BOOING

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1267 of them)

holy shit obama politicking with important foreign relationship motherfucking russia? i hope to god he's giving all kinds of explanations every day to them bc that's his job.

Mordy, Monday, 26 March 2012 22:19 (2 years ago) Permalink

"I will transmit this information to Vladimir."

flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Monday, 26 March 2012 23:12 (2 years ago) Permalink

^^^Russian guy talking like Romney...I don't think this is a big deal either, and yes, he's pragmatically doing his job. I just think it's funny that he'd get caught on mike saying virtually the same thing Romney's guy said last week. I suspect Santorum will use this in the next few days to morph Romney and Obama together even more.

clemenza, Monday, 26 March 2012 23:36 (2 years ago) Permalink

i just think the admission that medvedev has to relay anything of import to putin is hilarious.

flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Monday, 26 March 2012 23:49 (2 years ago) Permalink

"mr president, there are nuclear missiles headed toward moscow. they will arrive in three minutes."

"i will transmit this information to vladimir."

flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Monday, 26 March 2012 23:49 (2 years ago) Permalink

transmitting live from medvedev

the sir edmund hillary of sitting through pauly shore films (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 26 March 2012 23:50 (2 years ago) Permalink

medvedev, president of the russian fanclub for vladimir

1986 tallest hair contest (Z S), Monday, 26 March 2012 23:55 (2 years ago) Permalink

vladimir, this is medvedev!
what is it, my son
vladimir, i have an important transmittal from u.s. head of state "barack obama"!
tell me the information
he says that he will have more flexibility after the election!
very interesting, i have never thought of that

1986 tallest hair contest (Z S), Monday, 26 March 2012 23:56 (2 years ago) Permalink

this is the kinda thing that's a big, big, big deal to people who already hate obama but it's not gonna affect the marginal voter

iatee, Monday, 26 March 2012 23:57 (2 years ago) Permalink

yeah obama's comment to that effect might have appeared condescending

who knows what these heads of state talk about in private moments though

i often wonder about such things

flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Monday, 26 March 2012 23:57 (2 years ago) Permalink

sometimes they bitch about how much they hate bibi

Mordy, Monday, 26 March 2012 23:59 (2 years ago) Permalink

yeah i loved that

flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 00:00 (2 years ago) Permalink

I would guess they are almost always less interesting than you would expect

iatee, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 00:00 (2 years ago) Permalink

nachos, 9 diamond whores, Tebow

Euler, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 00:00 (2 years ago) Permalink

The Russian Nachos were beautifully done and super tasty. It had a tiny bit of spiciness which boosted the flavor of the fish eggs on the sashimi.

Euler, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 00:03 (2 years ago) Permalink

Much better when you cut out the middlemen.

(Have at it, Z S.)

clemenza, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 00:08 (2 years ago) Permalink

mitt romney mitt romney's campaign staff just wrote this editorial for foreign policy magazine on obama's medvedev "gaffe":

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/03/27/bowing_to_the_kremlin

flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Wednesday, 28 March 2012 00:11 (2 years ago) Permalink

It is not an accident that Mr. Medvedev is now busy attacking me. The Russians clearly prefer to do business with the current incumbent of the White House.

This is understandable. The Russians have seen Romney lay waste to Rick Perry and Herman Cain. They want no part of that.

clemenza, Wednesday, 28 March 2012 00:17 (2 years ago) Permalink

i think it's fair to say that "the russians" couldn't give half a shit about mitt romney

flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Wednesday, 28 March 2012 01:00 (2 years ago) Permalink

Sad that a major presidential candidate gets pwned in the press by a regime that's currently enabling the slaughter in Syria, but I guess every day in this campaign is sad.

timellison, Wednesday, 28 March 2012 01:22 (2 years ago) Permalink

hahah omg this fn guy

lag∞n, Wednesday, 28 March 2012 14:37 (2 years ago) Permalink

During an appearance at a Wisconsin bowling alley the former senator heroically intervened when a male member of a group of college Republicans nearly made the life altering mistake of rolling a neon pink bowling ball down the lane. "Friends don't let friends use pink balls," Santorum declared.

pplains, Thursday, 29 March 2012 16:14 (2 years ago) Permalink

Santorum was all over pink balls in Wisconsin this week...

Doctor Casino, Thursday, 29 March 2012 16:16 (2 years ago) Permalink

omg Cantor pic

You big bully, why are you hitting that little bully? (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 29 March 2012 16:17 (2 years ago) Permalink

the quote really puts it over the top

lag∞n, Thursday, 29 March 2012 16:35 (2 years ago) Permalink

This thread needs a makeover.

1) Turn it into a comedy poll. (Officially, that is--unofficially, it always has been.)
2) Get the Rolling Stones into it somehow.
3) Make it more in the style of a Lincoln-Douglas debate.

clemenza, Saturday, 31 March 2012 16:20 (2 years ago) Permalink

Recommended to iatee:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/models-based-on-fundamentals-have-failed-at-predicting-presidential-elections/#more-29633

(Follow-up to some back-and-forth we once had as to whether the economy was always the most important issue in an election.)

clemenza, Saturday, 31 March 2012 17:58 (2 years ago) Permalink

quality lolpic

Johnny Fever, Monday, 2 April 2012 15:18 (2 years ago) Permalink

well I don't think I ever said "nothing else matters", I just said it was always the most important factor - and even if it only explains 40-50% of the result, as silver suggests here http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/which-economic-indicators-best-predict-presidential-elections/ - it would take a fairly extraordinary election for something else to play a bigger role. even if the economy tanks, I don't think david duke could beat obama - ideology does matter. and campaign effects exist - even if the economy tanks, I don't think mitt romney could beat obama if he decided to only air ads with him in a bikini singing 'ALL AMERICANS WILL BE MORMONS WHEN I AM PRESIDENT'. so there are def ways obama could win even if the economy sank into a depression. it's just not super likely given a 'fairly normal campaign' and w/ a candidate w/ a 'fairly normal ideological views'.

iatee, Monday, 2 April 2012 15:53 (2 years ago) Permalink

w/ a 'fairly = w/ 'fairly

iatee, Monday, 2 April 2012 15:54 (2 years ago) Permalink

I know you never meant "nothing else matters," and I agreed with you that, in most every election, yes, it's the economy. The one specific one we disagree on is '68, where I just think other issues took precedence.

clemenza, Monday, 2 April 2012 16:12 (2 years ago) Permalink

did I? I mean 1968's an outlier election all around cause it was a major structural shift in the party composition + a war, that's to say an election where the ideology and candidate effects were pretty huge. I think what I was arguing was that even when it seemed like the economy 'didn't really matter', it still plays an important role - 1968 happened w/ the backdrop of a strong economy, and if he had happened w/ an economy in chaos, nixon would have won by even more. it might not have won or lost an election but it doesn't stop existing as a variable when the economy isn't in chaos. if the gop falls apart in coming decades (I think there is a decent chance this happens) there will be some unusual elections.

iatee, Monday, 2 April 2012 16:32 (2 years ago) Permalink

We're right back to where we left off. I conceded that the economy's always a factor (how could it not be?); I was saying then, and now, that in certain elections, though--an outlier, of course, or a perfect storm--it won't always be the most important factor. '68 was just such a perfect storm. And I thought then, and still do, that it's just semantics when you try to prove something in the negative (i.e., even though the economy was strong, it's still a major factor by virtue of it not being weak).

clemenza, Monday, 2 April 2012 16:43 (2 years ago) Permalink

it's not just semantics, when we look at these things as variables, 'factors' exist whether they're expressed or hidden in the narrative. as far as the weight of various variables go, that's a good example of an election where it'd be given less weight - like, let's give it 20%. that 20% contributed to the fact that the popular vote was actually quite close between nixon and humphrey. in a world where some other major event happened that hurt nixon in another variable + there was no electoral college, humphrey wouldn't be far from winning the election, and 'the economy', despite not having changed, now seems pretty important.

iatee, Monday, 2 April 2012 17:03 (2 years ago) Permalink

basically in both cases the economy mattered '20%', in one of them it seems more relevant to the story because it was part of the group of factors that lead to a majority popular vote, in the other story it seems like something that should be downplayed because it was part of the group of factors that lead to a .7% gap in the popular vote.

if you want a baseball analogy, the run scored in the 1st inning and the run scored in the 9th inning both contributed 'the same amount' to a 2-1 victory, but the one in the 9th always seems more important. a strong economy can be a run in the 1st, even if that 2nd run doesn't come it doesn't change the value of a run, which was 'nothing in a loss, but the game was closer than it woulda been'.

iatee, Monday, 2 April 2012 17:38 (2 years ago) Permalink

But in your baseball analogy, both runs are 50% determinative; in the '68 election, the economy (I contend) was not equal to Vietnam or civil unrest in deciding the election.

Let's end this on a point of agreement; the economy was worth about 20% as an issue in '68.

clemenza, Monday, 2 April 2012 18:01 (2 years ago) Permalink

interestingly the economy increases in determinativeness (there's a word) as it swings above OR below historical trend. above 2-3% it becomes very kind to incumbents, below that and the opposition has an easy lift. but right at that mark, it "stops mattering!" or, more accurately, is held at equilibrium and neither side can make a broadly-legible case on economics. and so politics tends to express itself on other issues.

goole, Monday, 2 April 2012 18:11 (2 years ago) Permalink

2-3% growth, obviously

goole, Monday, 2 April 2012 18:11 (2 years ago) Permalink

I think my main point was that 'stops mattering' doesn't make the factor disappear, it just makes its effect less prominent in the narrative, and as you say, decreases its determinativeness. also there's only 100% of determinativeness to split up so even w/ a strong economy in 1968 it prob lost share to other factors.

iatee, Monday, 2 April 2012 18:34 (2 years ago) Permalink

sorry everyone else

iatee, Monday, 2 April 2012 18:34 (2 years ago) Permalink

GREEN BAY, Wis.—Mitt Romney has long been criticized for being awkward on the stump, but his wife, Ann, defended her husband in a radio interview today, rejecting a host's statement that Romney is "too stiff" on the campaign trail.

Per ABC News' Emily Friedman, Ann Romney told Baltimore WBAL radio that she's working to show another side of her husband. Asked about criticism that Romney is "too stiff," Ann Romney laughed and replied, "I guess we'd better unzip him, and let the real Mitt Romney out because he is not."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ann-romney-unzip-him-let-real-mitt-romney-170357495.html

omar little, Monday, 2 April 2012 19:00 (2 years ago) Permalink

Unzip...stiff...get thee to the comedy poll!

clemenza, Monday, 2 April 2012 19:12 (2 years ago) Permalink

guys Sarah Palin is hosting the Today Show

You big bully, why are you hitting that little bully? (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 2 April 2012 19:17 (2 years ago) Permalink

didn't she used to be a politician at some point?

TALiB KWELi SODMG (The Reverend), Monday, 2 April 2012 22:31 (2 years ago) Permalink

8.5 years of political exp (6 in Wasilla, 2.5 in Juneau).

It's really a toss-up between her entertainment career and governing careers re: longevity.

Johnny Fever, Monday, 2 April 2012 22:33 (2 years ago) Permalink

Oh wait, I missed her Wasilla City Council exp from 1992-96. So make that 12.5 years!

Johnny Fever, Monday, 2 April 2012 22:34 (2 years ago) Permalink

Looking at these numbers, I'm reversing my position. She's totally qualified to run for national office. (PLZ RUN FOR NATIONAL OFFICE AGAIN!)

Johnny Fever, Monday, 2 April 2012 22:34 (2 years ago) Permalink

They should start the show with the camera sneaking up on her unawares, as she sits at a desk absorbed in her favourite newspapers and periodicals. She then looks into the camera and winks.

clemenza, Monday, 2 April 2012 22:38 (2 years ago) Permalink

Then explodes.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 2 April 2012 22:40 (2 years ago) Permalink

each show starts with her performing a different clarinet solo

1986 tallest hair contest (Z S), Monday, 2 April 2012 23:55 (2 years ago) Permalink


This thread has been locked by an administrator

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.