2012 Presidential Election Polls

carlfense said:
Comish said:
Here is one opinion (of course it will be discounted because it's not "mainstream"), but it makes for some interesting numbers.....(data is about 2 weeks old)

Right now, the federal government owns 500,000,000 shares of GM, or about 26% of the company. It would need to get about $53.00/share for these to break even on the bailout, but the stock closed at only $20.21/share on Tuesday. This left the government holding $10.1 billion worth of stock, and sitting on an unrealized loss of $16.4 billion.

http://www.breitbart...-Abuse-Of-Power
Click to expand...
I don't see those numbers at your link...
Click to expand...
Apologies.........I attempted to provide multiple links...........this one has those particular numbers..

http://www.humaneven...nkruptcy-again/

 
knapplc said:
It's debatable whether or not we needed GM alive - manufacturers are awfully handy to have around in case the homeland is invaded, after all - but Darwinian business principles definitely weren't observed.
Click to expand...
I'd like to think it's nice to have them around they helped us win WWII, they got us to the moon, and many other things people probably don't remember. Of course that's more sentimental than a true reason to keep them around.

A lot of people tend to forget that GM closing down meant losing more than a couple hundred thousand jobs within GM, but in all likelihood would have created a ripple effect with suppliers, dealers/service centers, and other markets I can't think of. And suppliers it's self covers a pretty big area, we're talking mechanical parts, belts, hoses, tires, coolants, oil, seats, radios, etc. They may be GM parts but usually their production is outsourced. I think the small chance that they would have had to go through chapter 7 was a pretty good reason to save them.

 
ZRod said:
knapplc said:
It's debatable whether or not we needed GM alive - manufacturers are awfully handy to have around in case the homeland is invaded, after all - but Darwinian business principles definitely weren't observed.
Click to expand...
I'd like to think it's nice to have them around they helped us win WWII, they got us to the moon, and many other things people probably don't remember. Of course that's more sentimental than a true reason to keep them around.

A lot of people tend to forget that GM closing down meant losing more than a couple hundred thousand jobs within GM, but in all likelihood would have created a ripple effect with suppliers, dealers/service centers, and other markets I can't think of. And suppliers it's self covers a pretty big area, we're talking mechanical parts, belts, hoses, tires, coolants, oil, seats, radios, etc. They may be GM parts but usually their production is outsourced. I think the small chance that they would have had to go through chapter 7 was a pretty good reason to save them.
Click to expand...
Not arguing their historical value..........but the larger question is................Is any company TOO BIG to fail? At what threshold do we hold "somebody" accountable for failure?

I'm not concrete on an answer, but would be interested in hearing arguments both ways........

 
Comish said:
Not arguing their historical value..........but the larger question is................Is any company TOO BIG to fail? At what threshold do we hold "somebody" accountable for failure?

I'm not concrete on an answer, but would be interested in hearing arguments both ways........
Click to expand...
I don't know, not sure anyone can know for certain. But in all honesty I think GM was at the very least on the edge of too big to fail. It's a painful thing to think about that we may have to bailout companies in a capitalist society, but like I said if they completely liquidated it would have had pretty far reaching affects.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
now927-blog480.jpg


http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/sept-27-the-impact-of-the-47-percent/

 
Yep, hearing that Romney got a huge bump in the polls after winning the initial debate. I'll continue to admit I was wrong about how Romney would perform in the polls. Shocked is the best descriptor for me right now.

 
knapplc said:
Yep, hearing that Romney got a huge bump in the polls after winning the initial debate. I'll continue to admit I was wrong about how Romney would perform in the polls. Shocked is the best descriptor for me right now.
Click to expand...
Romney did quite well. Should be interesting to see where the polls settle out in the next few weeks.

 
knapplc said:
Yep, hearing that Romney got a huge bump in the polls after winning the initial debate. I'll continue to admit I was wrong about how Romney would perform in the polls. Shocked is the best descriptor for me right now.
Click to expand...
I’ll give you props for admitting your shock.

And, I’m the first to admit it’s a long way from over, but looking back it really shouldn’t have been such a surprise that MR did well.

The most important point, I believe, is that for much of America the debate was the first chance to see him unfiltered. America watching him speaking live is much different from reading a Obama-sycophantic press account about him. The media has portrayed him so unflatteringly, that really there were no expectations for him, thus making it a relatively easy threshold to surpass. The bar will be much higher in the next debate and that is a format that favors the President.

The flip side is Obama’s performance. I know we have sparred over this in the past, but Obama with a teleprompter and prepared remarks is a much different animal than Obama off the cuff. And, I believe we have been told so often what a great orator he is that the standard for him was much higher and he obviously failed to meet expectations.

The outcome is wide open (although I have predicted and bet on MR with a lot of friends for over a year now), and much can occur in the next three weeks. With the focus on foreign policy next time, it will be interesting to see how much Benghazi plays into the debate. Certainly the “official version” now being promulgated by the administration that they never blamed the video will be a tricky landmine for BO to navigate, especially when there are such pesky items like video to refute those claims.

 
Comish said:
Certainly the “official version” now being promulgated by the administration that they never blamed the video will be a tricky landmine for BO to navigate, especially when there are such pesky items like video to refute those claims.
Click to expand...
Why do you think that it will be tricky for Obama to navigate? Is he on video somewhere stating that the Benghazi embassy attack was because of the video? If so . . . could you link the video? I'ld like to watch it.

 
carlfense said:
Comish said:
Certainly the “official version” now being promulgated by the administration that they never blamed the video will be a tricky landmine for BO to navigate, especially when there are such pesky items like video to refute those claims.
Click to expand...
Why do you think that it will be tricky for Obama to navigate? Is he on video somewhere stating that the Benghazi embassy attack was because of the video? If so . . . could you link the video? I'ld like to watch it.
Click to expand...
Earth to Carl.........wake up please :lol: If you really haven't seen the administration from Susan Rice to Hillary to Obama at the U.N. speech blame the video...................then I'm not going to wake you from your slumber.

 
Mitt's performance was a surprise to everyone, including his supporters. His Primary debate record was full of landmines.

And you can go on about the Obama Teleprompter myth all you want. We saw Obama take McCain down without a teleprompter. The evidence is there, despite Fox News' favorite myth.

 
Comish said:
If you really haven't seen the administration from Susan Rice to Hillary to Obama at the U.N. speech blame the video..........
Click to expand...
Could you show us the exact statements that you're talking about? It should be quite easy for you. Transcripts or video would be fine.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc said:
Mitt's performance was a surprise to everyone, including his supporters. His Primary debate record was full of landmines.
Click to expand...
It has been an interesting few days . . . the return of Massachusetts Mitt and the conservative base doesn't care a bit . . . solely because he looked much better than Obama. Style has apparently completed it's triumph over substance.

 
Back
Top