tzor wrote:1. Romney has gotten legislation passed when his party was in the minoriry. 2. Romney has balanced the budgets of several companies, the Olympics, and a state.
These are probably legitimate reasons for a person, generally speaking, to vote for Mitt Romney.
I'm not sure they're legitimate in Scott's case, though. Scott has presented himself as deeply opposed to Obamacare and (to point #1), legislation successfully passed by Romney included Obamacare. Scott has presented himself as against increased taxes and (to point #2), Romney balanced the budget for three of his four years (there was a large deficit in his fourth year) by raising business taxes by 14%.
tzor wrote:3. Romney actually believes in this document called the constitution as being a good thing that must be followed.
This is difficult to quantify without an explanation of how "believes in this document called the constitution as being a good thing" manifests itself. On the basis of Romney's support of FISA, the Patriot Act, etc., I would say that is not true, but we'd need more information on what exactly "believes" means.
PhatScotty wrote:Romney is better for Libertarians than Obama is
Libertarians have repeatedly disagreed with this view.
Reason has been most horrified by Romney's selection of Robert Bork as his lead legal advisor and have slammed Bork as one of the most anti-libertarian jurists in America. Reason has also been concerned about Romney's pledge to "nominate judges in the mold of John Roberts." (deciding vote to uphold the federal version of Romneycare [also called 'Obamacare']) - http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/28/romne ... supreme-co
This is one of many issues on which Libertarian thought leaders are terrified by Romney. I'm unsure of any on which there's agreement.
and their views on Obama?
pretty damning - and in almost every case they editorialize on, they note that Romney would mirror Obama's actions to the letter: war, judicial appointments, PATRIOT Act, FISA, etc.
Re: Romney is Better than Obama
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 5:33 pm
by Phatscotty
saxitoxin wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
tzor wrote:1. Romney has gotten legislation passed when his party was in the minoriry. 2. Romney has balanced the budgets of several companies, the Olympics, and a state.
These are probably legitimate reasons for a person, generally speaking, to vote for Mitt Romney.
I'm not sure they're legitimate in Scott's case, though. Scott has presented himself as deeply opposed to Obamacare and (to point #1), legislation successfully passed by Romney included Obamacare. Scott has presented himself as against increased taxes and (to point #2), Romney balanced the budget for three of his four years (there was a large deficit in his fourth year) by raising business taxes by 14%.
tzor wrote:3. Romney actually believes in this document called the constitution as being a good thing that must be followed.
This is difficult to quantify without an explanation of how "believes in this document called the constitution as being a good thing" manifests itself. On the basis of Romney's support of FISA, the Patriot Act, etc., I would say that is not true, but we'd need more information on what exactly "believes" means.
PhatScotty wrote:Romney is better for Libertarians than Obama is
Libertarians have repeatedly disagreed with this view.
Reason has been most horrified by Romney's selection of Robert Bork as his lead legal advisor and have slammed Bork as one of the most anti-libertarian jurists in America. Reason has also been concerned about Romney's pledge to "nominate judges in the mold of John Roberts." (deciding vote to uphold the federal version of Romneycare [also called 'Obamacare']) - http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/28/romne ... supreme-co
This is one of many issues on which Libertarian thought leaders are terrified by Romney. I'm unsure of any on which there's agreement.
and their views on Obama?
pretty damning - and in almost every case they editorialize on, they note that Romney would mirror Obama's actions to the letter: war, judicial appointments, PATRIOT Act, FISA, etc.
I'm sure he would on those issues, maybe not as badly, maybe worse.
How about other issues, such as religious Liberty and economic Liberty? Does Romney score a few more points than Obama?
Re: Romney is Better than Obama
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 5:37 pm
by saxitoxin
Phatscotty wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
tzor wrote:1. Romney has gotten legislation passed when his party was in the minoriry. 2. Romney has balanced the budgets of several companies, the Olympics, and a state.
These are probably legitimate reasons for a person, generally speaking, to vote for Mitt Romney.
I'm not sure they're legitimate in Scott's case, though. Scott has presented himself as deeply opposed to Obamacare and (to point #1), legislation successfully passed by Romney included Obamacare. Scott has presented himself as against increased taxes and (to point #2), Romney balanced the budget for three of his four years (there was a large deficit in his fourth year) by raising business taxes by 14%.
tzor wrote:3. Romney actually believes in this document called the constitution as being a good thing that must be followed.
This is difficult to quantify without an explanation of how "believes in this document called the constitution as being a good thing" manifests itself. On the basis of Romney's support of FISA, the Patriot Act, etc., I would say that is not true, but we'd need more information on what exactly "believes" means.
PhatScotty wrote:Romney is better for Libertarians than Obama is
Libertarians have repeatedly disagreed with this view.
Reason has been most horrified by Romney's selection of Robert Bork as his lead legal advisor and have slammed Bork as one of the most anti-libertarian jurists in America. Reason has also been concerned about Romney's pledge to "nominate judges in the mold of John Roberts." (deciding vote to uphold the federal version of Romneycare [also called 'Obamacare']) - http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/28/romne ... supreme-co
This is one of many issues on which Libertarian thought leaders are terrified by Romney. I'm unsure of any on which there's agreement.
and their views on Obama?
pretty damning - and in almost every case they editorialize on, they note that Romney would mirror Obama's actions to the letter: war, judicial appointments, PATRIOT Act, FISA, etc.
I'm sure he would on those issues, maybe not as badly, maybe worse.
How about other issues, such as religious Liberty and economic Liberty? Does Romney score a few more points than Obama?
Based on his 14% tax hike on businesses as Governor of Massachusetts I'd say no on economic liberty.
I'm not familiar with any times Romney confronted a religious liberty question while Governor of Massachusetts so any comment would be speculative. The ACLU gave Romney 0-out-of-23 points and Johnson 20-out-of-23, but I'm not sure the criteria used.
Were there any other areas besides war, judicial appointments, civil rights, economic liberty, religious liberty? It seems like we're not looking good on these fronts.
Re: Romney is Better than Obama
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 5:43 pm
by Woodruff
Phatscotty wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:Won't the Tea Party need to find the guy who is programming the teleprompter first? They weren't able to track him down in August.
Yeah, the GOP fucked my guy over, but we live to fight another day. It's still either Romney or Obama
I try not to get too emotionally involved with the politics of winning the nomination, as just about every politician will do whatever they can to win. It's not like I'm never going to vote again or dropping out of politics because of the Convention.
But that's just it. How does this not tell you PRECISELY what the Republican Party thinks of the Tea Party and Libertarianism in general? How does this NOT drive you away from the Republican Party and toward Gary Johnson UNLESS you don't actually believe all the bullshit you spout in these fora about only caring about fiscal issues? I think the answer is pretty clear. You don't actually believe in Libertarianism. You're a Republican at heart.
Phatscotty wrote:The Tea Party and Libertarian candidates still have a lot of work to do to get a majority in the Republican party in the House of Representatives, and hopefully the cocoon laid in 2011 will become a beautiful butterfly in 2013.
The Republican Party thinks the Tea Party and Libertarian Party don't even need to be bothered with. You're proving them correct. You are supporting them in the position that the Tea Party and Libertarian Party are not worth their time.
Re: Romney is Better than Obama
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 5:43 pm
by Woodruff
Phatscotty wrote:I'm not a quitter just because the candidate is not perfect in every way. I'm all in
Well...you're all BOUGHT in, anyway. Bought and paid for.
Re: Romney is Better than Obama
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 5:44 pm
by Phatscotty
saxitoxin wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
tzor wrote:1. Romney has gotten legislation passed when his party was in the minoriry. 2. Romney has balanced the budgets of several companies, the Olympics, and a state.
These are probably legitimate reasons for a person, generally speaking, to vote for Mitt Romney.
I'm not sure they're legitimate in Scott's case, though. Scott has presented himself as deeply opposed to Obamacare and (to point #1), legislation successfully passed by Romney included Obamacare. Scott has presented himself as against increased taxes and (to point #2), Romney balanced the budget for three of his four years (there was a large deficit in his fourth year) by raising business taxes by 14%.
tzor wrote:3. Romney actually believes in this document called the constitution as being a good thing that must be followed.
This is difficult to quantify without an explanation of how "believes in this document called the constitution as being a good thing" manifests itself. On the basis of Romney's support of FISA, the Patriot Act, etc., I would say that is not true, but we'd need more information on what exactly "believes" means.
PhatScotty wrote:Romney is better for Libertarians than Obama is
Libertarians have repeatedly disagreed with this view.
Reason has been most horrified by Romney's selection of Robert Bork as his lead legal advisor and have slammed Bork as one of the most anti-libertarian jurists in America. Reason has also been concerned about Romney's pledge to "nominate judges in the mold of John Roberts." (deciding vote to uphold the federal version of Romneycare [also called 'Obamacare']) - http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/28/romne ... supreme-co
This is one of many issues on which Libertarian thought leaders are terrified by Romney. I'm unsure of any on which there's agreement.
and their views on Obama?
pretty damning - and in almost every case they editorialize on, they note that Romney would mirror Obama's actions to the letter: war, judicial appointments, PATRIOT Act, FISA, etc.
I'm sure he would on those issues, maybe not as badly, maybe worse.
How about other issues, such as religious Liberty and economic Liberty? Does Romney score a few more points than Obama?
Based on his 14% tax hike on businesses as Governor of Massachusetts I'd say no on economic liberty.
Was this all Romney? Or was 85% of Massachussettes government at the time held by the Democratic party have more say in what legislation was sent to the Governors desk? I think they originally wanted a 19% increase....
FYI: I view the houses of Representatives as closest to the voice of "the people"
Re: Romney is Better than Obama
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 5:46 pm
by Woodruff
Phatscotty wrote:
bedub1 wrote:Romney is a better liar than Obama Romney is a better douchebag than Obama Romney is better at screwing over companies than Obama.
There are many ways Romney is better than Obama, just none of them good.
Who understands religious Liberty better?
First of all, this simply proves that Phatscotty is Republican for the social issues, not for fiscal ones.
As to the question...honestly? Between Romney and Obama, I would suggest that Obama probably does. At best, they are equal. That is my honest opinion. What is it that leads you to believe that Romney understands religious liberty better than Obama?
Re: Romney is Better than Obama
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 5:49 pm
by Woodruff
Phatscotty wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:And neither has really proven to be betterin any meaningful way. My previous post listed the reasons you give for Romney being better, but none of them actually are true.
perhaps they were sarcastic and inside jokes between me and TGD???? did the i added to it not give it away enough?
Except that TGD is asking you the very same question, so I don't think that really applies very well.
Phatscotty wrote:Being serious: I believe Romney deeply loves America and understands and appreciates our principles, and I honestly believe Obama hates America's founding principles
Partisan bullshit.
Phatscotty wrote:That is why I think he is turning things upside down every chance Obama gets. Specializing in division and taking abrasive positions against the majority of Americans
So you think Obama does this more than Romney does? Why do you think that? Do you pay any attention to the thinks Romney says?
Re: Romney is Better than Obama
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 5:50 pm
by Woodruff
Phatscotty wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:How will this difference manifest itself in a hypothetical Romney administration? What policies will Romney pursue different to Obama due to his love of America and its founding principles? Do those policies represent your beliefs best compared to all opposition?
I think it's okay to leave the decision at "loves America and values our principles" versus "wants to fundamentally transform America and it's principles". Policy is secondary when the difference is crystal clear at the base.
If you actually believe that, you can ONLY vote for Gary Johnson or possibly Virgil Goode. A vote for anyone else proves you a liar.
Re: Romney is Better than Obama
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:05 pm
by saxitoxin
Phatscotty wrote:]
Was this all Romney? Or was 85% of Massachussettes government at the time held by the Democratic party have more say in what legislation was sent to the Governors desk? I think they originally wanted a 19% increase....
Then it seems you'd agree with the Libertarian idea that gridlock is most what Libertarians want. The fewest expansions of government and violations of rights happen when no one can get anything done. With the GOP poised to take control of the Senate, a Libertarian who doesn't want to vote for Gary Johnson has a tactical case for voting for Barack Obama.
In any case, both Obama and Romney agree with Al-Qaeda foreign policy. Those who "will never forget" may not be able to resign themselves to voting for one of the pro Al-Qaeda candidates. Others, who believe America has a lot of buildings and a lot of people, and can afford to lose a few of each every now and then, may have a cogent case to view Obama/Romney/Zawahiri as logical options. So, I can respect both viewpoints, the anti-alQaeda view of GreecePWNS or Player and Scott's more alQaeda-tolerant view.
Re: Romney is Better than Obama
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:51 pm
by MegaProphet
What is everyone trying to accomplish here? Get PS to change his vote?
Re: Romney is Better than Obama
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:07 pm
by Phatscotty
Gary Johnson failed to grab a nomination on a winning ticket. Ron Paul came much much closer. You will probably never be able to see things the way I do, but it doesn't bother me.
Re: Romney is Better than Obama
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 8:49 pm
by Woodruff
Phatscotty wrote:Gary Johnson failed to grab a nomination on a winning ticket. Ron Paul came much much closer. You will probably never be able to see things the way I do, but it doesn't bother me.
True, being on the winning team isn't more important to me than my views of what the country should be.
Re: Romney is Better than Obama
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:15 pm
by saxitoxin
Phatscotty wrote:Gary Johnson failed to grab a nomination on a winning ticket.
So if Obama is re-elected, you'll switch to supporting him because he's the winner and Romney's the loser?
Re: Romney is Better than Obama
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 11:39 pm
by Woodruff
Phatscotty wrote:
bedub1 wrote:Romney is a better liar than Obama Romney is a better douchebag than Obama Romney is better at screwing over companies than Obama.
There are many ways Romney is better than Obama, just none of them good.
Who understands religious Liberty better?
Re: Romney is Better than Obama
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:09 am
by thegreekdog
tzor wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I feel like I've asked this question before, but...
COULD YOU PLEASE NAME FIVE REASONS WHY ROMNEY IS DIFFERENT THAN OBAMA
Sure, this is easy ...too easy ,,,
Romney has gotten legislation passed when his party was in the minoriry.
Romney has balanced the budgets of several companies, the Olympics, and a state.
Romney actually believes in this document called the constitution as being a good thing that must be followed.
Romney has boys while Obama has girls
Romney is a Mormon
All good things. But I don't think Romney believes in the Constitution being good and I don't think Romney is going to have success balancing the budget.
CNN, I believe, commented on the foreign policy debate saying that the candidates didn't differ on anything. I think that right there is a problem. Further, if you look at the domestic policies, they aren't very different. Both candidates want to continue crony capitalism, they just have different companies they want to support.
Apparently I cannot emphasize this enough: domestically and internationally, the two candidates are not opposed. They are virtually the same; the only inherent, important differences lie in their supposed positions on social issues (and I'm not holding my breath that President Obama is going to push for federal recognition of gay marriage or that President Romney is going to push for abortion illegalization).
Re: Romney is Better than Obama
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 1:10 am
by stahrgazer
Any of you read, really read, the reports on HOW Romney "balanced the budgets" of several companies?
Ever see the movie, "Pretty Woman"? Richard Gere before he got a change of heart and let that old man's company live, that's what Romney did to "balance budgets" of companies. His personal company, which he brainstormed and was CEO of, Bain, made hundreds of millions but left the original companies they took over, holding more hundreds of millions in debt.
(Some claim all the icky stuff happened after "Romney left" but that's not true. Romney planned some of the "icky stuff" and even when he went on to "balance the Olympics budget" he was still CEO of Bain until at least 2002.)
What he'd do is, put up 5m or so, borrow a few hundred mill for a takeover bid, usually encouraging the target company's managers to accept the bid for a nice bonus in their pocket, which they'd take. Then, with the "promise" of all this new capital, Romney'd arrange for the target company to borrow hundreds of millions, which then would get paid out to the upper echelons. Then, this "robust new company" stock would rise, and Romney would arrange the sales and get out. A majority of the targeted companies went bankrupt within 1-2 years, overwhelmed with hundreds of millions in debts. Approximately 20k United States jobs LOST from his schemes.
And, yeah, Romney "balanced the Olympics budget." Read how? He got grants from the United States Federal Government and used that, then spent enormous amounts, much more than was originally budgeted, for that Olympics.
Also, he arranged much of his "salary" to be given as stock instead of salary, which enabled him to skip out on paying any taxes on those earnings. (There are real reasons he alone, out of every "modern day" Presidential, Congressional, or Senate candidate; yup, Mitt and only Mitt, refuses to release decades of tax returns even though EVERYONE ELSE has.)
Now, Romney is definitely better than Obama at concealing immoral unpatriotic behaviors, and is better than Obama at finding all the tax loopholes that keep him getting rich on the backs of those beneath him. But a better candidate for President? Only for liars, semi-cheaters, and flip-floppers just like him, or those who wish to hate Obama so much that they won't even read "the goods" on Romeny, that are available all over the web. Rolling Stone articles are a good place to start.
Reading other information about how "leveraged buyouts" and "hostile takeovers" occur would give you a set of other resources to see just how Romney "balances budgets."
He's good at making money for himself and those he considers to be his peers, but unless you've got hundreds of millions to help finance similar schemes, he may not be the President for you after all.
And as for foreign affairs? He either wants to be just like Bush only moreso, or wants to be just like Obama only moreso; depends on which phase of the campaign he was in or who his audience is within the same phase of his campaign. He either wants us to stay in Afghanistan with about 20k troops for a good long time, or wants us to phase out in 2014 like is currently planned. He either wants to be buddies with China or wants to start a trade war by labeling them "currency manipulators." He thinks Russia is our biggest foe, decades after the Berlin Wall came down, and a scant ten years after we realized Al Qaeda and other middle east terrorists are truly our biggest foe.
Romney might also be totally against abortion under any circumstance or totally pro choice, depending on which day someone asked him the question.
If you like Medicare but you're not 55 or older, forget about it. Romney and Ryan want voucher systems for anyone younger than the seniors who qualify as baby boomers (like himself) which means, when your voucher is up, it doesn't matter how much it costs, the cost is on you - because his "voucher system" does not build in cost increases. At all.
He may wish to repeal Obamacare "today" but remember, it was his brainchild first and when he had that brainchild, he suggested it would be a fantastic national model. Oh. But wait. That was his opinion "yesterday," his opinion differs today, and tomorrow, who knows whose idea he'll go for?
Finally, he claims a budget balancing and tax lowering for the rich along with changes to deductions (limits for everyone) that will "create 12 million new jobs," yet when pressed for details, he tells his questioner to pick a number, any number... which means, HE did NOT pick a number, which means he CANNOT KNOW how many jobs his plan will gain - or lose - because he never ran the damned figures. If he had, he'd KNOW what the numbers need to be, not tell his questioners to pick their own numbers!
Listen up, folks, Obama may not be perfect but he's a helluva lot more honest about his ideas, how they will work, why they will work, than Mitt.
But. Admittedly, romney is alot better than Obama at making the types of soundbites he thinks his audience wants to hear.
Re: Romney is Better than Obama
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:32 am
by Phatscotty
WE DON'T WANT TO SEE THE SAUSAGE BEING MADE! JUST COOK IT UP AND SERVE IT WITH SOME SYRUP!!!!!!
Re: Romney is Better than Obama
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:19 pm
by Woodruff
Phatscotty wrote:WE DON'T WANT TO SEE THE SAUSAGE BEING MADE! JUST COOK IT UP AND SERVE IT WITH SOME SYRUP!!!!!!
So that's Mitt's saugage in your mouth? I was wondering.
Re: Romney is Better than Obama
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:34 pm
by PLAYER57832
stahrgazer wrote: Listen up, folks, Obama may not be perfect but he's a helluva lot more honest about his ideas, how they will work, why they will work, than Mitt.
Yep.
stahrgazer wrote: But. Admittedly, romney is alot better than Obama at making the types of soundbites he thinks his audience wants to hear.
Which is why he might win.. particularly if liberals vote Green. He has a LOT more of those "independent non profits" making nice ads attacking Obama and supporting him.
This is also why the Green Party will fail.. and continue to fail. They are very poor at communicating in ways that average people want to hear.
Re: Romney is Better than Obama
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:39 pm
by Woodruff
PLAYER57832 wrote:
stahrgazer wrote: But. Admittedly, romney is alot better than Obama at making the types of soundbites he thinks his audience wants to hear.
Which is why he might win.. particularly if liberals vote Green. He has a LOT more of those "independent non profits" making nice ads attacking Obama and supporting him.
This is also why the Green Party will fail.. and continue to fail. They are very poor at communicating in ways that average people want to hear.
I know it's hard to salve your conscience for betraying what you believe in, but you won't look so bad if it's an internal conversation rather than an external one. Just keep telling yourself, and eventually you'll believe it.
Re: Romney is Better than Obama
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 1:02 pm
by MegaProphet
Choosing the lesser of two evils keeps things exactly as they are
Re: Romney is Better than Obama
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 1:29 pm
by saxitoxin
PLAYER57832 wrote:Which is why he might win.. particularly if liberals vote Green. He has a LOT more of those "independent non profits" making nice ads attacking Obama and supporting him.
This is another meme that the Democrat Party has breathlessly pushed in an attempt to trick lesser-informed people like yourself into believing they need to rally around the flag to prevent a SuperPAC takeover and must run, screaming from the Green and Justice parties. As Public Relations Strategist reported last month, SuperPACs have had a negligible impact on this election. Corporations already own both parties, they don't need to dump money into SuperPACs.
The Democrat and Republican parties have a severe enthusiasm deficit so need to use their mainstream media control to scare lesser-informed people like yourself into action. In point of evidence:
Barack Obama spends $9,118,000 for every 1-percentage point of popular support.
Mitt Romney spends $6,441,860 for every 1-percentage point of popular support.
Gary Johnson spends $500,000 for every 1-percentage point of popular support.
Jill Stein spends $250,000 for every 1-percentage point of popular support.
see: CNN poll, September 1 -
Now suppose that the presidential candidates on the ballot in your state included Barack Obama as the Democratic Party's candidate, Mitt Romney as the Republican candidate, Gary Johnson as the Libertarian party candidate, and Jill Stein as the Green party candidate, who would you be more likely to vote for?
Barack Obama - 50% Mitt Romney - 41% Gary Johnson - 4% Jill Stein - 2% None - 1%
In the current issue of Journal of Marketing Research, University of Michigan and University of Chicago researchers find that Obama and Romney supporters all have similar value-sets. We already know the two candidates have identical value-sets, now we also know their supporters do as well.
This is important to understanding the American body politic. Before we could say it was 45% (Republican) vs. 45% (Democrat) vs. 10% (third party). Now we know it's really 90% (sheeple) vs. 10% (intellectual elite). Not only are Romney/Obama aligned in their hatred for the American people, all of their supporters are similarly aligned in stamping out a tiny percentage of free-thought that remains. A zombie attack on a small outpost of survivors.
Being one of the poor can sometimes be attributed to fate. Being one of the morons is always a matter of choice.
Re: Romney is Better than Obama
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 1:42 pm
by BigBallinStalin
saxitoxin wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:Which is why he might win.. particularly if liberals vote Green. He has a LOT more of those "independent non profits" making nice ads attacking Obama and supporting him.
This is another meme that the Democrat Party has breathlessly pushed in an attempt to trick lesser-informed people like yourself into believing they need to rally around the flag to prevent a SuperPAC takeover and must run, screaming from the Green and Justice parties. As Public Relations Strategist reported last month, SuperPACs have had a negligible impact on this election.Corporations already own both parties, they don't need to dump money into SuperPACs
First, the truth is that they don't know how effective such advertising through SuperPACs is, and secondly they're not sure if it's ineffective or that the effects from the pro-D SuperPACs offset the effects from the pro-R SuperPACs. Third, it could be the case that SuperPACs themselves are not ineffective, but certain programs/production processes are ineffective--whereas, a few others are actually effective, but whose effectiveness is lost in the statistical aggregate.
The first point is an age-old problem that marketing has faced with mass advertisement. They're just not sure how effective it is. The relevant variables simply are not tractable, thus rendering statistical analysis mostly useless. (It also depends on one's product, but if that product is a politician, it gets even more complex.)
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 5:31 pm
i added to it not give it away enough?
