The Data Crunching Prowess of Barack Obama

Hugh Pickens writes "Micah Sifry, co-founder of the Personal Democracy Forum, writes that Barack Obama may be struggling in the polls and even losing support among his core boosters, but when it comes to the modern mechanics of identifying, connecting with and mobilizing voters, as well as the challenge of integrating voter information with the complex internal workings of a national campaign, Obama's data analysis team is way ahead of the Republican pack. Alone among the major candidates running for president, the Obama campaign not only has a Facebook page with 23 million 'likes' (roughly 10 times the total of all the Republicans running), it has a Facebook app that is scooping up all kinds of juicy facts about his supporters and inside the Obama operation, his staff members are using a powerful social networking tool called NationalField, which enables everyone to share what they are working on. 'The holy grail of data analysis is data harmonization, or master data management,' says Alex Lundry, a Republican data-mining expert at TargetPoint Consulting. 'To have political talking to finance and finance talking to field, and data is flowing back and forth and informing the actions of each other — it sounds easy, but it's incredibly hard to implement.' Sifry writes that if the 2012 election comes down to a battle of inches, where a few percentage points change in turnout in a few key states making all the difference, we may come to see Obama's investment in predictive modelers and data scientists as the key to victory."

Comments

All this shows

[Anonymous Coward]

Is he's good at campaigning. Nobody has ever disputed that nor has he stopped campaigning since he won. He still sucks at presidenting.

Re:All this shows

[Nursie]

And call me old fashioned, but wasn't politics supposed to be about politicians spelling out their policies and views, and us voting for someone whose principles and policies we agree with? You know, a process with some integrity?

Not a whole bunch of refinements based on popular opinion until there's nothing left but a living, breathing popularity poll....

Maybe I'm just naive.

Re:All this shows

[rolfwind]

And call me old fashioned, but wasn't politics supposed to be about politicians spelling out their policies and views

I would say, that for the period I've been alive, that the less politicians show of their beliefs, the more advantageous it is for them. They can be amiable and pretend to agree with you and be just as nice to the next guy with completely different viewpoints. The less they show their cards, the less people can pick out something to pick a fight with.

With the exception of Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, you'll have very few politicians spelling out where they stand and more just dance around it. Listen to debates or townhalls these days, or even past ones - they're an embarrassment. These people should be publicly bitch slapped every time they dance around the question, outright ignore it, or some other scheme where they pander to the electorate without actually really addressing the question. But they get away with it, people reward them with votes, and then bitch afterwards, which is meaningless.

Re:All this shows

[castle]

Welcome the New boss, same as the Old boss, only, more "hip".

Re:All this shows

[Nadaka]

Silly question? Why does calling the Tea Party the traitors that they are get me modded down? They held the entire nation hostage and caused harm to us all by intentionally weakening our recovery from the recession under the influence of foreign and international interests like Rupert Murdoch under the guise of patriotism. Sounds like a betrayal to me, and any real Patriot would not tolerate being associated with their filth.

Re:All this shows

[jellomizer]

Yea, it is pretty much like 2004. We we had to deal the GWB or choose Kerry?
Bush won because we disliked Kerry more.
Now the Obama vs. Republicans. So far most of the GOP doesn't really have a presidential candidate that really sparks anyone's fancy. If I had to pick who should run for the GOP right now I would say Romney has the best chance. However I feel the Tea Party has Poisson the sole for electing a GEO presidential candidate. Just like the Anti-War activists Poisson the sole for Kerry when he ran.

Re:All this shows

[Brett Buck]

And as long as Obama supporters continue to mount absolutely absurd ad hominem attacks on conservatives, they will be even more motivated to come out and vote him out.

        We have mainstream media attacking Herman Cain as a racist or "race traitor", whatever the hell that means. Not only is that foolish, it's fodder for existing conservatives and highly offensive to a good fraction of existing African-American Democratic voters.

        Obama and Co. may (but probably aren't, I'm not going to even bother skewering the original puffpeice FA) good data miners, they are very severely tone-deaf, and their ever-more-desperate supporters are his worst enemy.

      But by all means, carry on....

        Brett

Re:All this shows

[Nadaka]

I would vote for Hillary Clinton (and probably regret it). I might be convinced to vote for Jon Huntsman (it would be a stretch though). And if they had a chance at making it, I would vote for someone like Perot or Nader (I have in the past). I just can't risk allowing the Tea Party control.

Re:All this shows

[MightyMartian]

I thought Murdoch was a US citizen?

Re:All this shows

[Anonymous Coward]

Because "has views different from you" does not mean "traitor"?

There are complete dickbags on both sides. Being dickbags alone does not make them traitors.

Re:All this shows

[jackbird]

He is (born Australian, naturalized 1985), but is so solely due to the FCC requirement that US television station owners be US citizens. Not a personal history that screams "love of country" for either the US or Australia.

Re:All this shows

[Nadaka]

He is Australian, and he purchased his US citizenship so that he could own US broadcasting stations in order to affect our politics. But that isn't as important to me as the damage he and others (Koch brothers for example) are doing to MY country. I am mostly pointing it out for the Tea Party members themselves.

Re:All this shows

[Nimey]

Cite for those racially-motivated attacks?

If it's true, it's a stupid way to do it. It's better to show that he's a clueless prick by pointing out:

1) he's a homophobe
2) he's bigoted against Muslims
3) he's clueless about what's going on with the Wall Street protests and said that if those dirty hippies aren't employed, it's their fault.

There are plenty of /good/ reasons to slag Cain.

Re:All this shows

[Nimey]

He's also possibly the only person who was ever naturalized by vote of the Congress. I'm /sure/ that was on the up-and-up.

Re:All this shows

[hackingbear]

The ultimate destiny of Democratic Process is Political Marketing. The ultimate destiny of Tyranny is a Revolution.

Choose one of the two.

Re:All this shows

[Nadaka]

I have not seen anyone saying Herman Cain is a race traitor.

Re:All this shows

[arkenian]

Okay, I have to know, what WERE you trying to say with "Poisson the sole"?? The closest I can think of is Poison the well, but I'm not sure how you'd manage to screw that up even with MLT.

Re:All this shows

[Nimey]

Ah, someone modded me flamebait. Let me back up those assertions:

1) http://instinctmagazine.com/blogs/blog/herman-cain-asks-for-the-science-behind-believing-being-gay-is-not-a-choice

2) http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/herman-cain-doubles-down-on-his-muslim-loyalty-oath-idea/

3) http://news.yahoo.com/cain-wall-street-protesters-blame-yourself-joblessness-031405246.html

Re:All this shows

[MightyMartian]

Except that's not actually a definition of treason.

You won't find a bigger critic of the Tea Party than me, but calling them traitors is absurd.

Re:All this shows

[Eunuchswear]

Obama has views different from me. I strongly disagree with his 2nd amendment and intellectual property stances among others.

I know I'll regret this, but....

So, what exactly is Obama's 2nd amendment stance?

Re:All this shows

[ThatsNotPudding]

Maybe I'm just naive.

Possibly, but I'm waiting on the data analysis from Peoria to be sure.

Re:All this shows

[NiteShaed]

Just like the Anti-War activists Poisson the sole for Kerry when he ran.

Sounds fishy to me.....

Re:All this shows

[xstonedogx]

What integrity?

They are representatives. They are supposed to represent their constituency - not just the ones who voted them in, but ALL of the constitutency. Their "views" shouldn't matter, because the view they should be pushing for is the view of the people they represent - even if that view is fickle and contradictory*. What they should be campaigning on is their fitness to hold office.

Now, where did I leave my unicorn?

*Of course, in practice they are villified by everyone if they listen to the proles^W polls.

Re:All this shows

[Nadaka]

He was recorded in a 1996 questionnaire as advocating a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns (a position he has since disavowed). He was on the board of the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, which takes an aggressive gun control position, and in 2000 considered becoming its full-time president.

The above is the part I disagree with, and while he no longer publicly advocates it, I doubt he has really changed his mind.

On the plus side, he has voted against confiscating firearms during a disaster and has endorsed the second amendment as an individual right independent of militia membership.

Re:All this shows

[NeutronCowboy]

I have. Mostly though, it's right-wing blogs saying that the mainstream media are saying that he is a race traitor.

Re:All this shows

[ISoldat53]

The fast track to nowhere.

Re:All this shows

[The Moof]

Obama is pro gun restriction and control. However, he's not as extremist about it as Republicans would lead you to believe.

Re:All this shows

[Nursie]

So it shouldn't make any difference who I vote for, right? Beause they all have the same access to polls and public opinion and it becomes irrelevant who the candidate actually is?
And we drop the idea of the impassioned politician making changes they care about and believe in?

I'm not saying those are all bad things, just checking.

Re:All this shows

[frank_adrian314159]

Agreed... But simply calling them shrill, ill-informed, ignorant, and politically and economically counterproductive still seems a bit too civil. Is it OK if we just call them assholes?

Re:All this shows

[MightyMartian]

I think the lot of them are ignorant self-defeating halfwits, myself. Populist movements are usually populated by people too fucking stupid to know they're demanding the branch they sit on be cut down.

Actually the Tea Party is populated by worse than that. Look at all those Baby Boomers all but demanding Medicare and Social Security be gutted for the next generation as they happily enjoy the benefits of it. At best, they're selfish morons, at worst they're evil sociopaths. But then again, Lilbertarianism in all its forms has always attracted nasty, selfish people.

Re:All this shows

[Fujisawa Sensei]

In reality politics has never been about that, not even in ancient Athens.

Re:All this shows

[demonlapin]

intentionally weakening our recovery from the recession

That's a mighty broad brush you've got there. I'll go make some popcorn while you tell this story.

Re:All this shows

[demonlapin]

"A sole" est un poisson.

Re:All this shows

[Nadaka]

This is a lot closer to the truth than a lot of people would admit.

Re:All this shows

[Nimey]

Since you've got no counter-arguments, what's your point again?

Re:All this shows

[anarkhos]

What the hell do you mean by "Tea Party control"?

I'm not a member, but I know people who consider themselves Tea Party-ers. Their primary concern is the debt. Does this make you pro-debt?

Re:All this shows

[anarkhos]

Your post sounds like it was written by a nasty, selfish person.

Re:All this shows

[couchslug]

"Maybe I'm just naive."

Yes. Go read ye some history and you'll know it was ever thus.

The mob dictates that they can only be led in a certain way.

The politicians you know today are the product of public selection.

Re:All this shows

[Nadaka]

No. The tea parties primary concern is destroying America by defunding the government in order to enrich the coffers of the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch. If the Tea Party was against debt, they would be willing to raise taxes instead of demanding that they be cut or eliminated. The solution to debt is to raise taxes, end the wars and trim the inefficiencies of government where possible.

The tea party are anti-American traitors and the fools who buy into their propaganda machine.

Re:All this shows

[ChrisMaple]

1. People are individuals As far as I can tell, some homosexuals are born that way, others are neutral and do have the ability to choose one way or the other. Don't say it ain't so, I've spoken to at least one of the latter group.

2. Have you read the Koran? I've read part of it, and what I read was vicious. Given that and the demonstrated behavior of Muslims that makes the news frequently, any rational person will decide that examining Muslims extra-closely is very important for top government positions. Is it bigotry to recognize that a group of people want to kill you, to say so, and to take steps to prevent it?

3. Many, probably most, of the Wall Street protesters are "mind-numbed robots", an insult to the concept of "human being". Cain has it right.

Re:All this shows

[MacTO]

Actually, you're old fashioned politics was a popularity poll. Finding a politician who can formulate policy based upon public opinion, objective data, and reliable models -- even if it goes against their firmly held convictions -- is the challenging part. Yes, some of their own personality will enter the mix when it comes to things like choosing between conflicting models, figuring out which data is objective, But pretending that any man or woman can share all of the views of a single person (heck, they may even disagree with themselves in the future) is naive -- never mind sharing the views of the majority of the people whom they represent.

Re:All this shows

[ChrisMaple]

Nope, no such person as Condoleezza Rice. No such person as Clarence Thomas. No such person as Colin Powell.

Given that the vast majority of "blacks" are Democrats, they are remarkably well accepted and supported in the Republican party.

Re:All this shows

[Nimey]

I give this troll 3/10, mostly for effort.

Re:All this shows

[Nimey]

None of those three were elected, just selected and confirmed.

Put it to the base and we'll see.

Re:All this shows

[Vidar Leathershod]

Edward G. Walker, Republican, 1866, Massachusetts, State Legislature
Charles L. Mitchell, Republican, 1866, Massachusetts, State Legislature
John Willis Menard, Republican, 1868, Louisiana, U.S. Congressman, denied a seat due to wrangling by racists, neither candidate seated
Hiram Rhoades Revels, Republican, 1870, Mississippi, U.S. Senator
Black delegates Robert B. Elliott, Joseph H. Rainey, and John R. Lynch deliver addresses at the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia, 1872
John R. Lynch, Republican, 1872, Mississippi, U.S. Congressman
Blanche K. Bruce, Republican, 1874, Mississippi, U.S. Senate
Crystal Bird Fauset, Democrat turned Republican, 1936, Pennsylvania, State Legislature. "In 1944, disappointed by the Democratic Party’s failure to advance civil rights, Fauset switched to the Republican Party", from http://www.blackpast.org/
J.C. Watts, Republican, 1994, Oklahoma, U.S. Congressman

There are actually quite a few others. Start your research here, maybe, and take a breather from Slashdot. Trust me, you aren't adding any value to the conversation anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_in_the_United_States_Congress

Re:All this shows

[Nimey]

I note that all but the last one were Republicans back when that was the liberal party.

I also note that the Wackypedia page shows the vast majority of the black congressweasels (they're all weasels, regardless of race) in the modern era were not Republicans.

I'm guilty of some rhetorical excess by saying they've suddenly discovered black men, but there's still a kernel of truth to it.

Re:All this shows

[mrchaotica]

Obama has views different from me. I strongly disagree with his 2nd amendment and intellectual property stances among others.

You don't disagree with his 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th amendment stances strongly enough to mention them here?

That bastard got my vote before because he called himself a "constitutional scholar" and promised to end the civil rights violations of the Bush administration, and instead the only parts of the Bill of Rights he hasn't shat all over are the irrelevant ones (about quartering troops and civil lawsuits)!

Re:All this shows

[Vidar Leathershod]

Actually, they were Republicans, and became unelectable when Democrats in the South used various schemes to prevent such an occurrence. You didn't see any quantity of Black Democrats in office, either.

From Wikipedia:

"State legislatures reduced voting by blacks by passing more restrictive electoral and voter registration rules, amending constitutions to the same ends from 1890–1910, and passing Jim Crow laws to establish racial segregation and restrict labor rights, movement and organizing by blacks. The Democratic Party essentially dominated the "Solid South" until the 1960s."

and from the same article:

"During the Great Depression, many black voters switched allegiances from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party, in support of the New Deal economic, social network, and work policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration"

The Democratic party has been able, to some extent, to scam a large percentage of the Black electorate into thinking that they are on their side, and that Republicans and Conservatives and the like are bigots. That smoke screen will last only so long, and labeling every Black person who happens to be running as a Republican a stooge or Uncle Tom or what have you will start to backfire.

There is nothing of truth in your half-baked assertions.

Re:All this shows

[Nimey]

Since like so many you're ignorant of a bit of our political history, let me fill you in:

The Republicans used to be the liberal party, and the Democrats used to be the conservative, starting as the Republicans did just before the Civil War. This started changing around the time of the Great Depression and FDR and was finished in the '60s and '70s when the national Dems started to push for civil rights and the Dixiecrats (southern Dems) left the party for the Republicans because they wanted to keep Jim Crow around.

Mind the beam in your own eye before you care about the speck in mine.

Re:All this shows

[treeves]

"However I feel the Tea Party has Poisson the sole for electing a GEO presidential candidate."

Almost correct. Actually, they just binomial the red snapper.

Re:All this shows

[Vidar Leathershod]

Wow. What have you been *reading*? My best guess is that you had some very "dynamic" professors while going to college. There is no addressing anything you have written, as your theory of a sudden reversal of the parties is so ingrained into your belief system it would take a crisis of faith to shake it.

I could point you to various biographies of the politicians of the time, and platforms adhered to by William Jennings Bryan vs. those of McKinley in the late 1800s to early 1900s, but it won't matter. As much as you decry others as being bigoted, well, you are free to use the public domain quote and turn it right back around.

Interesting...

[jesseck]

Interesting stuff... seems like a waste, though. Manipulating the masses. Especially the last sentence of the summary, which implies everyone will re-elect Obama and he is already the victor.

Re:Interesting...

[FooAtWFU]

Yeah, reading the field will only get you so far. It's one thing to propose all sorts of hopes and dreams for your first term, but to be re-elected, you need to actually achieve something with your policies. Make of Obama's record there what you will.

Re:Interesting...

[MightyMartian]

Or, you need the opposing party to pick a lunatic. With the Tea Party and the religious conservatives in the GOP trying to smash Romney to bits at every opportunity, the possibility that the Republicans may in fact deliver Obama is victory cannot be discounted.

Re:Interesting...

[Jason Levine]

Of course then there's the possibility that the Tea Party and religious conservatives will pick a lunatic and this lunatic will actually get elected to be President. There is nobody in the current crop of GOP hopefuls that I think I would vote for except perhaps Jon "We Can't Run From Science But Must Embrace It" Huntsman. Sadly, there are a few in there that actively scare me.

Two words: President Bachmann (*runs away screaming in terror*)

Re:Interesting...

[couchslug]

You of course understand that "the masses" will ONLY respond to certain stimuli and THEY impose the rules for interacting with them.

Omney or Robama, either way we get a "moderate Republican"....

Have some George Carlin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

Re:Interesting...

[Nimey]

Och aye. Huntsman's the only Republican candidate I'd consider voting for, but unfortunately he's not extreme enough to survive the primary.

Just as unfortunately, there's no way to get someone else to run against Obama in the primaries and win.

Re:Interesting...

[rolfwind]

Or, you need the opposing party to pick a lunatic. With the Tea Party and the religious conservatives in the GOP trying to smash Romney to bits at every opportunity, the possibility that the Republicans may in fact deliver Obama is victory cannot be discounted.

Romney wants to add 100k troops to the military. The man is a lunatic too. Most national politicians are these days. They reflect the electorate that votes for them, and America is a country, by and large, that can't get its spending under control, either at home or in W DC.

Re:Interesting...

[Nadaka]

The military itself knows it is over staffed and has issued instructions to its recruiters to process reserve enlistments over active duty.

Re:Interesting...

[fermion]

The thing to remember is that there is only a small percentage of people who are going to vote for the person. In Texas perry won against a strong fiscal conservative because, even though has shown he is fiscally irresponsible and more interested in himself than running the state, Perry is the conservative christian candidate. I know many people who were going to vote for White, who were essentially pushed by their republican christian peers to vote for Perry. Texas as a whole does not have enough independent voters and districts to elect a person based on who they are.

Likewise, there is a large block that will always vote for the republican candidate even if he is an adulterer, or a drug addict, or porn star, or a tax collector, as long as he says he is a christian conservative now. There is a large block that will always vote for the democratic candidate even if he supports taxing the poor into oblivion. The key then is to identify the districts that enough independent voters to make a difference. Alternatively one can register voters that otherwise would not vote because they know that it really makes no difference. Either party is going to steal from the poor and give to the rich, as was shown with the car bailout that was supported by Bush and Obama.

So the republicans can often win just by, like Perry and Romney do and Bush and Reagan did, pretending to be christian and conservative and racking in the votes. Pray, thank god, tell a teary story, and rake in the cash. However democrats actually have to do work, find the key districts, get the people registered, convince them that helping others is the best way to help themselves(do unto others as you would have them...) and hope that one can squeak by. Obama did a masterful job of this, and, along with the help of Palin, won many districts. This time he will not likely have the help of people like Palin, or Bachman, and at the point of the real election no one will saying Romney is not a christian, so it will be a harder election.

The election, if won by Obama, will be won on the margins, district by district, registering voters in key states. If you do not believe this, then why are republicans making it harder to register voters rather than easier? If one says to prevent voter fraud, then one has drank the republican kool aid and really mean nothing to either party. There are not enough fundamentalist to win an election, so fundamentalist have no individual power.

Re:Interesting...

[qeveren]

I dunno, "burned hand teaches best" I've always heard said. Maybe you lot *should* elect the Tea Party, just to get it over with...

Re:Interesting...

[ChrisMaple]

Romney is closely coupled to his health care plan in Massachusetts, which he steadfastly refuses to disown.

A mandatory government-run healthcare program is economically disastrous, profoundly immoral, and fascist. Anyone who supports it (and that means both Obama and Romney) should be immediately rejected as a candidate for public office.

Re:Interesting...

[ChrisMaple]

Vote fraud is historically tied to the Democrat party, and the Chicago machine that spawned Obama is the well-known master of the process.

Republicans, and any honest person, support making registration more difficult. Where I live, you can walk into any polling place on election day, say "I live here now", and be given a ballot and allowed to vote. That is an open invitation to voter fraud, and ought to be changed.

Re:Interesting...

[MightyMartian]

Yeah, look at all the those fascist European states. Why, they're goose-stepping through Hyde Park as we speak. Imagine, wanting to keep the working poor from dying due to a lack of health coverage. Positively immoral.

Community Organizer

[BriggsBU]

He was a community organizer for how many years? Organizing his supporters is about the only thing he knows how to do.

I'm not convinced

[chispito]

I'm not convinced that Facebook likes translate into election victory yet. When the President is re-elected, it will be because he's still far more charismatic and interesting than any current Republican contenders. I don't like his politics but I like him more than Romney, Perry, et al.

The generation that lives and dies by Facebook still doesn't show up at the polls in significant numbers.

Re:I'm not convinced

[elgeeko.com]

I'm not convinced either. We actually host and manage several political websites for various groups, mostly conservative organizations (We're politically neutral, as long as it isn't inflammatory we'll host just about anything). Many of the member's of these groups will click 'Like' on things they don't really like, just so they can share it with their circle of friends, not because they actually agree with the content of a certain page. I see this all the time in their feeds. I wonder how many of those 23 million 'likes' were done by people trying to share the page and shouldn't be taken as a sign of approval or support.

Re:I'm not convinced

[Baloroth]

When the President is re-elected, it will be because he's still far more charismatic and interesting than any current Republican contenders. I don't like his politics but I like him more than Romney, Perry, et al.

Are you honestly saying that the Presidential campaign is nothing but a popularity contest which has nothing to do with the merit of their respective political views or actions? I am... totally not shocked, actually. The presidential campaign has become more or less just a popularity contest. Although I'm pretty sure that increasing his appeal to voters is precisely the point of this campaign.

Which is somewhat sad. The only reason data mining like this is useful is if you intend to modify your political basis towards what is popular. In other words, you aren't electing someone based on what their views are, you elect them based on what they think your views are. Frankly, I would rather politicians actually just came out and said what their views are... but apparently, that can't happen anymore. No, politicians will now be elected based on how well they can adapt themselves to what Internet commentators say. That seems to me to be the point of Obama's campaign tools, anyways. Unfortunately, this does not make for good presidential candidates. Good presidents tend to know themselves what needs to be done and do what they think is right, not what the masses think. Because honestly? The masses are idiots, no matter how intelligent they may be individually.

Re:I'm not convinced

[DeadDecoy]

Would you like to vote for the douche or the turd sandwich? : /

Re:I'm not convinced

[Rockoon]

Oblig. Four more years of douche-bag!

Re:I'm not convinced

[couchslug]

None of these pieces of shit from either party are "charismatic" unless one has extremely low standards for charisma.

Re:I'm not convinced

[chronoglass]

truly, until there is an equal and opposing option (IE dislike) "like" can't really mean anything other than "talked about".
and I know i've talked about bad things a whole lot more than good things in my lifetime.

Re:I'm not convinced

[benhattman]

Which is somewhat sad. The only reason data mining like this is useful is if you intend to modify your political basis towards what is popular. In other words, you aren't electing someone based on what their views are, you elect them based on what they think your views are. Frankly, I would rather politicians actually just came out and said what their views are... but apparently, that can't happen anymore. No, politicians will now be elected based on how well they can adapt themselves to what Internet commentators say. That seems to me to be the point of Obama's campaign tools, anyways. Unfortunately, this does not make for good presidential candidates. Good presidents tend to know themselves what needs to be done and do what they think is right, not what the masses think. Because honestly? The masses are idiots, no matter how intelligent they may be individually.

What if what needs doing is convincing the idiot masses that you agree with them? Then, a good president would use social networking tools to learn what the idiots want, and pretend to be giving it to them.

Besides, I think you'll find yourself far more accepting of our political hades if you take a more pragmatic view. I frequently hear people lamenting that politicians sometimes adjust their positions based on polls. Well, what if their positions are truly bad? What if polls told Perry that he should support science instead of being a backwards hick? I would rather have an elected official support good positions, even if for bad reasons, than support bad positions but remain true to themselves.

If only decisions were so carefully counted

[WillAdams]

and accountable.

Look at the circular chain of passing the buck on the decision to block the importation of collectible M1 rifles and carbines:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/01/obama-administration-reverses-course-forbids-sale-antique-m-rifles/

Why they can't be transferred to the Civilian Marksmanship Program is inexplicable:

http://www.thecmp.org/

Re:If only decisions were so carefully counted

[Nadaka]

This pisses me off. I am a liberal. I am pro 2nd amendment.

There is nothing special about the Garand. It is an average rifle at best. It wouldn't even fall under the thankfully expired assault weapons ban.

Re:If only decisions were so carefully counted

[couchslug]

The NRA and GOA need to run with that ball.

Re:If only decisions were so carefully counted

[rickb928]

True that. My mother's .300 Savage lever-action is a much more capable rifle, and the old .30-06 is better too. Both are hunting weapons. The Garand is too, it just happens it was designed and used to hunt something other than four-legged game.

Re:If only decisions were so carefully counted

[Baloroth]

Hmmm, so .50 caliber BMG rifles and everything on this list is legal (sort of), yet 60 year-old Korean-war era rifles aren't? Has anyone in the Obama administration studied logic? Or for that matter, have any kind of common sense at all? These things are far less dangerous that dozens of weapons I can legally buy in nearly any gun store. "They clearly were used as military guns..." oh FFS, so were muskets, you wanna make those illegal too?

Sadly, they probably would.

How about a good policy?

[Bardwick]

Just throwing it out there.. Maybe that would help some as well.

Re:How about a good policy?

[dkleinsc]

What, and make the government responsive to the uneducated masses? I'll bet you're also one of those nutcases that supports Americans getting out on the streets and making their views known, or taking the time to chat with their neighbors about upcoming local elections. A few more like you and the place might turn into some sort of democracy.

And the worst part of that: The people might vote for candidates end up taxing the rich and using the extra cash to hire the unemployed to build highways and the like. And of course one side effect of this is that it would get workers thinking they could demand a minimum wage so that they can survive on a 40-hour work week. Any moves in that direction would quite obviously lead to socialism!

Re:How about a good policy?

[Bardwick]

I could care less if thier out on the streets making thier views known. Corporations bad! Wallstreet bad! Walking around with iPads that were made by one of America's largest corps, who was created by a Wallstreet IPO. I WANT those protesters out there, I think it's a hoot. "Demand a minimum wage"? Hopefully all the police and firefighters don't *demand* more than we can afford.. Unions represent less than 10% of the work force, hardly represent the other 90% of the working folks. I'm okay with raising taxes on the "rich". Tell me how much of every dollar the rich earn, they get to keep. I WANT A NUMBER DAMNIT, not just a theory. Give me a real number. That's always bugged me about people who say "tax the rich more", but have notta clue how much they already pay, or how much they should pay...

Re:How about a good policy?

[dkleinsc]

I didn't say which views those Americans out in the streets held - I'm pro-free speech regardless of who's doing the speaking or what they're saying.

Now, as far as the exact policies I put forward:
- The kind of legal minimum wage I'm referring to would be enough to cover (a) rent on a modest place to live (1 bedroom apt, trailer, something along those lines), (b) food, and (c) $900 a year for everything else like clothing and transportation. What that number actually varies depends a lot on the metro area, but the math comes out to about $8 per hour. Police and firefighters both make way more than that, but a lot of people make less.

- I'd be pushing for the richest of the rich taking home about 50% of their salary, and 80% of their investment income. That's the combined effect 3 proposals: (a) return income and capital gains taxes to the rates they were at in the 1990's, (b) apply FICA taxes to incomes between $106K and $250K, and (c) create a 44% income tax bracket for incomes above $1 million.

Re:How about a good policy?

[Bardwick]

$400,000 guy pays 29% in taxes. His efforts contribute $117,314. $34,500 guy pays 13.7% in taxes. His efforts contribute $4,485. So, given actual math, I'm having a hard time understanding the rich not paying thier fair share. Since math is out, you have to go on emotion. It's not that you have a bad life, it that someone else has a better life. It's the only conclusion i can figure...

Re:How about a good policy?

[Bardwick]

I like it, minus the investment income at 80%. Totally not worth risking losing say, $110,000,000 dollars for the possibility of a 20% return (google IPO), but other than that, i'm with you. I would raise the minimum wage, and all federal assistance by 5% (welfare, foodstamps, etc). Then I would increase taxes on EVERYTHING by 5%. If we need another tax increase, increase it on EVERYONE. It would be a much different landscape if so many people weren't voting on who would give them the most money.

Re:How about a good policy?

[Dutch Gun]

Raising the minimum wage tends to both increase unemployment (since it cost more to hire people, businesses tend to hire fewer people), and increase the general cost of living across the board (again, logical if you think about it for just a moment).

Taking away 80% of investment income is insane. Investments are largely about providing capital to companies that wish to expand operations. This is a critical part of our economy, and disincentivizing a monetary return on already risky investments mean our economy will tank even further.

If simple solutions like these would actually fix the problems, I'd be all for it. The law of unintended consequences means you'd probably hurt working-class people more than the rich by doing this. Case example: The failure of the luxury tax.

Re:How about a good policy?

[dkleinsc]

You got the stat backwards: I was saying that you'd tax away 20% of the capital gain, not 80% of it. The 80% would be what the investor keeps.

Re:How about a good policy?

[Dutch Gun]

Ah, ok. That's 60% less insane. :) In general, discouraging investment still has a lot of negative repercussions, which I think is the last thing our economy needs right now.

Re:How about a good policy?

[dkleinsc]

For comparison, right now investors take home 85% of capital gains. So for a $1000 gain, instead of getting $850 you'll get $800. Sure, that's less return, but not enough to make investing a bad move.

Scraping Facebook data - ingenious in a scary way

[Quick Reply]

First I thought that going by the "Likes" would be skewed by International users who like Barack Obama, but if you scrape the User Data, and discard everyone who do not have "United States" in their profile (as their 'like's don't count as they don't get to vote), there is a higher degree of confidence in that data.

The data collectors will also have to do some community surveys to see which demographics actually use Facebook for 'liking' their political candidates because some communities are more "connected" than others and they will need to adjust accordingly. eg: If only one republican for every two democrats are likely to put a like on Facebook, then the republican likes get more weight.

Pretty scary stuff what can be worked out from scraping Facebook data. This is the sort of uses that Privacy Experts have been warning about. One person who thinks it's 'Cool' to like Barack Obama on Facebook is someone else's campaign data.

Karl Rove

[Animats]

That's what Karl Rove did for decades. There's a classic picture of Karl Rove with a 12" reel of computer tape. He was able to turn demographic and polling data into information on how, when, and where to tell people what they wanted to hear.

Re:Karl Rove

[HBI]

This administration's political operatives have made clear that they are huge fans of Rove's work. The problem is that they aren't as good at it as he was. Rove was able to keep Bush popular (+50% approval) for almost 6 years. These people succeeded for about 1 year.

Now, they intend to use racial smears to replicate the Swift Boat strategy of 2004. Judging by their choice of topics and their past success, I don't see much hope down this road.

Someone didn't do enough data collection...

[jeffmeden]

Disclaimer: I am NOT choosing sides in this post.

The notion that the Obama team is the only one in the prospective 2012 race to understand data mining and acting on numbers is pretty shallow. Rick Perry has a well documented (and apparently very well run) data mining team that he has used in the past and would no doubt use again in a presidential bid... More info here: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/rick-perrys-scientific-campaign-method/ and here: http://www.thevictorylab.com/ and in this E-book: http://www.amazon.com/Rick-Perry-His-Eggheads-ebook/dp/B005HE8ED4

Re:Someone didn't do enough data collection...

[Dyinobal]

I've lived in Texas all my life and I can tell you this Rick Perry is not someone you want to be president. At best you can call him a snake oil salesmen at worst he's a delusional sociopath who doesn't live in the same reality as the rest of us.

Re:Someone didn't do enough data collection...

[Nimey]

But he's killed over two hundred people, some of whom were probably even guilty. How can that man /not/ be a good President? /sarcasm

Re:Someone didn't do enough data collection...

[DeadDecoy]

He also wants to get rid of the biggest ponzi scheme of all! Social Security.

Re:Someone didn't do enough data collection...

[Nimey]

Oh look, a talking-point spouter. I'm sure this will be an intelligent conversation that I won't bother having with you.

Re:Someone didn't do enough data collection...

[ruiner13]

At best you can call him a snake oil salesmen at worst he's a delusional sociopath who doesn't live in the same reality as the rest of us.

Isn't that the definition of a US politician?

Re:Someone didn't do enough data collection...

[ChrisMaple]

I'm 62. If Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid were annihilated today, the improvement in the nations economy would overwhelm the effects of losing the government programs for me.

Re:Someone didn't do enough data collection...

[Nimey]

Imma guess you've got enough money socked away to pay for medical care and such.

Re:Someone didn't do enough data collection...

[doom]

But he's killed over two hundred people, some of whom were probably even guilty. How can that man /not/ be a good President?

That's hardly enough to qualify as a statesman.

And it's awfully sloppy, nailing some of the guilty.

Re:Someone didn't do enough data collection...

[riverat1]

There's a book coming out titled "Why Rick Perry will make you miss George W. Bush".

Hmm... Just like George W. Bush made me miss Nixon.

So which other candidate is better?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which other candidate is better? All the Republicans want to shove their religion down our throats, and increase huge government spending even while complaining about how the Democrats want to increase huge goverment spending.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[Wyatt Earp]

Show me where Herman Cain, John Huntsman, Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney want to "show religion down our throats". Bachman, Santorium and Perry do, but they aren't the entire field of Republicans running for President.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[GameboyRMH]

As a non-American I'm not intimately familiar with the American election process, but does Obama have to run as the only Democrat candidate in this election? You couldn't elect a different Democrat?

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[Attack DAWWG]

You're seriously suggesting Newt Gingrich doesn't want to shove religion down our throats?

A really quick search (actually, I went to the Wikipedia page for Newt Gingrich and glanced through the citations at the bottom) turns up this. Scary stuff, and it's only the first article I looked at.

Also, isn't Newt a huge supporter of the Defense of Marriage Act? That's huge government forcing religion down our throats right there. And after he has been divorced a couple times! Hypocrite.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[bberens]

Technically the Democrats could put up another candidate, but historically that doesn't happen unless the incumbent has medical issues or something.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[BBTaeKwonDo]

The Democrats could, in theory, nominate a different candidate. In practice, it is very difficult to wrest the nomination away from an incumbent. At this stage of the presidential race, it would take a miracle for sufficient support to coalesce behind another candidate. The organization would take several months to build, by which time it would be too late. IMHO, the only candidate who would have even the remotest chance of pulling this off would be Hilary Clinton, who of course is SecState, so that's not going to happen.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[rcb1974]

Ron Paul doesn't want to do any of that stuff you mentioned.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[Nimey]

Cain does. He thinks Muslims should have to take loyalty oaths.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[Nursie]

So Ron Paul doesn't want to repeal the Roe v Wade decision and set women's rights in the US back 30 years?

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[anopres]

Romney, Huntsman and Gingrich should challenge Obama in the Democratic primary.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[wagnerrp]

Of course, one of the other Democrats could decide to run as an independent, without the backing of either party, but I don't know the last time an independent had any real chance of victory. More likely, a Democrat running as an independent would do nothing but pull votes from Obama, assuring the win for the Republican nomination.,

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[Machtyn]

There is, actually, one or two other democrats running for the Democratic nomination. But the are so inconsequential that "no one" has heard they are running. Only if Hillary Clinton attempted to steal the bid could Obama not be nominated as the Democratic choice. There is precedent. Jimmy Carter did not run unopposed in his primary. Ronald Reagan won the Presidency that year.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[HBI]

Newt is a pragmatist. He doesn't deserve to be labeled as a knee-jerk activist about anything. His views are just as mutable as Romney's have been. So is his religion, he converted to Catholicism in 2009. Hardly the M.O. of a religious nut.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[Machtyn]

Frankly, I see several of the candidates promising to reduce government spending and I only see a few that are wearing religion on their sleeves. Romney is not one of them - in fact, any time he is asked about his religion he side steps the question. That topic has been hashed over plenty by Huckabee in 2008.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[fifedrum]

You do understand that his stance is to remove it from the federal level so the states can decide, right?

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[arnott]

state can decide a individual's (woman's) rights ?

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[skids]

OK, so out of the three picked by the parent, that leaves Mitt. Who might not win the nomination because the Republican Party is scared of his underwear.

Man, this whole Republican primary is a hoot. What a desperate scramble of hapless misfits.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[skids]

Oh wait, the GP had four examples. I forgot john huntsman, didn't I? That's OK. So has everyone else.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd rather it was set on a federal level so any new argument or law can potentially overturn Roe v Wade for ALL Americans?

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[rcb1974]

What about the rights of the fetus? There is already legal precedant establishing those. If you kill a pregnant woman, you get charged with the death of both the woman and the fetus. As far as abortion is concerned, the States should decide what is legal and what isn't, not the Federal government.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[NeutronCowboy]

I can see myself voting for Huntsman. He actually seems sensible, but only because he figured out that being sensible and middle of the road would actually make him stand out. He still has no chance in hell of winning the nomination. Then there's Romney, who at least figured out that winning the nomination isn't everything. You can't go full retard if you want to have a chance at winning the real election.And then..... there is Cain, who doesn't trust Muslims. Gingrich, who loves the Defense of Marriage act (even though he can't stay married himself). Paul, who doesn't give a whit about religion, but is a freak in everything else. And then come the rest of the total loonies.

Yeah, I don't like everything Obama is doing, and there are some real stomach churners in his recent decisions. But the GOP is trying really, really hard to make sure that I will never, ever even remotely consider voting for a Republican. Their entire idea of a GOP purity test, the no-tax pledges.... good god, I feel like I'm in grade school again.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[NeutronCowboy]

Of course. Why do you think that the new GOP mantra is "States' Rights!" anytime an unsavory proposition is made that isn't explicitly disallowed by the Constitution?

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[jpstanle]

Because letting the states determine person-hood worked out so well in the past.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[jpstanle]

Frankly, I see several of the candidates promising to reduce government spending and I only see a few that are wearing religion on their sleeves. Romney is not one of them - in fact, any time he is asked about his religion he side steps the question. That topic has been hashed over plenty by Huckabee in 2008.

You only see a few that wear religion on their sleeves? Romney and Ron Paul may not do it, but pretty much every other candidate does. Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann, Palin, and Cain are all theocratic lunatics. Hell, Romney's biggest challenger to date, Perry, stared his campaign with a fucking prayer rally.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[Doctor_Jest]

Those amendments merely qualified the position that the Bill of Rights were not subject to State usurpation. It has nothing to do with the breach of Federal power that occurred during and after the Civil war, which spat in the face of the 10th amendment.

Regardless of your position on the role of the Federal government, the 10th Amendment's pretty clear what is and is not Federal power... and yet the federal government continues to grow...

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[Nimey]

It's not like the 10th is special in that regard - the 4th is regularly ignored as well, for instance.

Still, the Civil War resolved the question of whether the states or the federal government was supreme. It's another case of unintended consequences from rash actions.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[Anonymous Coward]

The current President was a card carrying member of a very hateful anti-white church for over 20 years, and we all collectively looked the other way on that one. When a black friend of his was an indignant asshole to the cops who responded to a 911 call and did their jobs, the President actually stated that the police "acted like jerks." When he realized that he nationalized a small local dispute and that maybe he acted like a jerk himself before he got the facts straight, it suddenly became a "Teachable moment" over a forced photo-op uncomfortable beer at the White House, orchestrated to save face.
      As his own head of DOJ sticks his neck out for "my people" and basically gives black youth the wink and the nod that they won't be prosecuted, we start to see black youth rampaging through towns and cities and beating white folks in brazen racial attacks. The President is STONE SILENT on this issue. Apparently black on white violence is not a "teachable moment."
    If you think having a personal distrust issue toward a group of people is a disqualifying event, I think you're in a real pickle. Or else you could just act out your own bias and choose Obama, because he's very post-racial and all that. guffaw.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[SteveFoerster]

I think Ross Perot could have won in 1992 if he hadn't withdrawn from the race and then reentered. At the height of his popularity he was outpolling both Clinton and Bush.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[fifedrum]

ignorant? Ron Paul was a physician. Not only that, but an OB. He's hardly ignorant of reality on this issue.

My stance is that abortion IS slavery. The life of the child is 100% subject to the whim of the mother. Just as the life of the slave was subject to the whim of the owner. Further, if released from bondage, a slave's natural state was to become a free individual, as just a few months down the road, the child's natural state would also be as a free individual. Both enter the state of slavery through no fault of their own, and both had societies at large capable of absorbing them.

The problem arises when you try and narrow down a range of acceptability for the culling of the child. That child might be just a few cells large, but fetal viability fast approaches and the time for making the decision passes quickly. The point is that the state should be the body that decides at what point the process can occur, if at all, or where viability is marked. Most states do limit the activity, but they're restricted from eliminating it completely (except presumably for medical necessity) by the federal law.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[SteveFoerster]

Libertarians are willfully ignorant of reality, history, and pretty much everything.

Rhetoric much? I mean, can't you disagree with them without saying something that ridiculous?

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[SteveFoerster]

Frankly, I see several of the candidates promising to reduce government spending and I only see a few that are wearing religion on their sleeves. Romney is not one of them - in fact, any time he is asked about his religion he side steps the question.

He's running for the GOP nomination and he's not Christian. It's no surprise he doesn't want to talk about it. Yes, I know many Mormons say they're Christian, but their theology is further from mainstream Christianity than Islam's is, so I don't count them. And I'm neither Mormon nor Christian so it's not like it affects me, I'm just calling it like I see it.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[demonlapin]

Being religious is not proof of a theocratic bent. Prayers are pretty standard issue stuff in a lot of the country. They say them before high school football games. Don't get your panties in a wad just because somebody believes in God (or, more likely, realizes they can't get elected without acting like they do).

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[BoberFett]

And the Obama administration has begun going after legal marijuana dispensaries in California. What's your point?

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[the linux geek]

Gary Johnson and Jon Huntsman are both moderates (Johnson is, as far as I can tell, secular, while Huntsman is quietly Mormon). Of course, neither of them have much of a chance of winning the nomination, despite both having excellent political credentials.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[Anonymus]

That's exactly the MO of a religious nut. All of the craziest psycho religious people I know change religions frequently.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[Anonymus]

No, he's rabidly anti-abortion. Read anything about him and you will know that. He wants to remove it because he hates abortion. States rights is just what he says so he doesn't come across as an irrational nutjob.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[HBI]

That's so silly that I have a hard time believing that you believe it.

Many evangelical Christians don't even consider Catholics to be Christian, citing the icons and saint worship as idolatrous and polytheistic. They also don't like the liturgy and the pomp of the services.

Gingrich's move was hardly a pragmatic political move, except inasmuch as no one is getting elected as a Republican as an atheist. He had to have a religion so he chose the one his wife liked. I'm sure he believes in a personal God, but I hardly can see him as any kind of religious freak.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[jthill]

Have you ever even read it? You'd have to repeal the 14th or the 9th, or add a specific amendment, to overturn that, because the alternative is to abandon stare decisis and strip the American people of all common-law rights.

It perhaps is not generally appreciated that the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage.

This issue was litigated and settled long ago, in multiple nations more Christian than ours is today and one of whose collection of settled rights are explicitly guaranteed to the people here (as in, protected from all government interference short of amendment). If the Ninth's reach doesn't include settled common-law issues, it includes nothing.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[Nimey]

The Right's been wanting to get rid of common-law for a while now; remember all the noise about judicial activism?

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[misexistentialist]

Female logic has no problem with that because it defines the fetus as a "baby" or as a "parasite" depending on how she feels about it.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[bmo]

I get to disagree with them because I used to be one of them.

I used to be a libertarian (and a communist, and other things), then I grew up.

Toodles.

--
BMO

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[Synerg1y]

We've learned over the course of this great country that a president's campaign has little to nothing to do with his actual term in office. I haven't been following the campaign much yet, but let's apply a little common sense... there's a pattern here somewhere

Bush Sr. > Gulf War
Clinton > High GOP
Bush Jr > Afgan, Gulf War II
Obama > no gulf war III, we withdrew from there actually

When we are at war, money becomes tighter, stock markets drop faster, it'll all rise again, but is it really that great for our society?

My point being we need to burn the republican party with fire, besides if you read the article he isn't exactly talking about mounting a cross to the front door of the school here, he's talking about oppressed beliefs. If you have a problem saying "under god" in school, that's your problem and not the state's and I agree with that any day even though I believe more in the Buddhist branches of religion.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[anarkhos]

So Ron Paul doesn't want to repeal the Roe v Wade decision and set women's rights in the US back 30 years?

If Ron makes any supreme court appointments, his litmus will be : "Can you read?"

The Constitution doesn't give the Federal government any authority over such matters. Murder, manslaughter, health, etc. aren't federal issues, so why is abortion?

I'm pro-choice and the best affect will be removing this wedge issue from federal politics. The fundies will go away and we can get our house in order!

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[anarkhos]

The states didn't enforce slavery, fugitive slave laws did. If the south had been allowed to secede, slavery wouldn't have lasted long.

You should check out the book "Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men" for a more nuanced understanding of slavery than what you've been taught in Lincoln-worshiping publik skools.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[gangien]

Yeah, I guess you're correct. He wants to reset the clock to 1860 when it was still legal for states to individually determine that owning slaves was legal.

Your comment makes you quite the idiot as well.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[Entrope]

Catholics obviously don't count as Christians -- they've been in the business for 1500 years longer than the Protestants, which excludes them from consideration.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[bmo]

Racist unreconstructed Democrat detected.

--
BMO

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[bmo]

If you ever bother to delve beneath the surface of Ron and Ran Paul's "states rights" bullshit, it means repealing the Civil Rights act and letting states go back to doing whatever they want, up to and including Jim Crow and all that stupidity.

Because there aren't enough petty tyrants in the world that we have to divide up the Union and make more.

Really, I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday.

Scratch a libertarian, find a racist.

--
BMO

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[HornWumpus]

Sexist woman hater.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[Machtyn]

What a horrendously ignorant thing to say. A "Mormon" is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Some might cite that the theology of mormonism, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost are 3 separate beings, the first two with flesh and blood, but all members of one Godhead differs from the idea of the Trinity put forth by a council in Nicaea several hundred years after the death of Christ (and certainly not what the early Christians believed as proven by countless religious historians).

That pastor Jeffress was on the air today or yesterday claiming that Mormons are not Christians because they don't believe the same historically taught Christ as the other Protestant churches teach. That argument has all sorts of fallacy in it. (Why are the Protestant teachings any better than the Catholic teachings which came before them?)

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[riverat1]

And nobody ever even mentions Buddy Roemer who may be the sanest of the whole bunch.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[riverat1]

Historically when an incumbent get's primaried it tends to weaken them enough that they will lose the general election.
 

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[riverat1]

Isn't it the mother who is slave to the fetus? It's the one that is drawing resources out of her. My position is that until the fetus is capable of living independently of the mother then it's just a part of the flesh of the mother.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[riverat1]

Yes, I flirted with libertarianism for a bit in the 1980's but like all pure ideologies it assumes everyone will go along with the program because of it's beauty. That's never going to happen because humans are far too heterogeneous. I'm too pragmatic any more to get tied up in ideology preferring just to get the job done by whatever reasonable means possible.
 

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[riverat1]

There are passages in the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments that imply that life begins when you draw your first breath.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[ChrisMaple]

The only sitting president to lose a nomination was Franklin Pierce in 1856.

Although Lyndon Johnson beat Eugene McCarthy in the New Hampshire primary, the margin was pretty small. When Robert Kennedy also entered the race as an antiwar candidate, Johnson knew his chances of winning were poor and he withdrew from the race. As a result, Nixon beat Humphrey, even with George Wallace probably siphoning off more votes from Nixon than Humphrey.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[SteveFoerster]

Perhaps it would help if I explain why I think so. Both Mormonism and Islam start with Christianity, but think that a later prophet came along with a new revelation that significantly changed things. Mormons believe that God was once a man like us, and that similarly humans who follow the rules closely enough can become gods. Muslims, meanwhile, believe that Jesus was merely a prophet, not an earth-bound instance of God, but other than that, much of what Christians believe about Jesus Muslims also believe.

I think the bit that "as we are, God once was, as God is, we may become" is further from the Christian mainstream than "Jesus was merely a prophet". Thus, I said what I said.

You're more than welcome to disagree; after all I don't believe any of these stories are true anyway. But even if you do, even if your disagreement is well reasoned, I don't think it makes what I said "horrendously ignorant".

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[ChrisMaple]

The Civil War resolved the question of whether a president dedicated to preserving the union at any cost, no matter how extreme, can defeat a militarily, economically, and philosophically weaker group of states that decide to secede. It was not a question of law, just raw force and determination.

A US government headed by a president who isn't power hungry, and who is sympathetic to the cause of a group of states that wanted to leave or who philosophically defended the right of a people to form their own government (as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence) could persuade the rest of the country that "we don't need people who oppose us."

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[ChrisMaple]

Your tying of the Pauls' consistent support of freedom to racism is so dishonest it's breathtaking. Their message is freedom. For everybody who's not justly in jail. Everything else is in support of that principle or derived from it.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[ChrisMaple]

Libertarians are willfully ignorant of reality, history, and pretty much everything.

So Murray Rothbard never wrote a 4 volume history of the United States, "Conceived in Liberty"?

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[ChrisMaple]

Alas, Ron Paul justified his politics on the basis of religion within the last few days.

Romney doesn't push religion because (possibly among other reasons) Mormonism stands out as silly even within the madhouse that is Christianity. That said, most religious people don't base the bulk of their decisions on religious doctrine (because if they did they'd be dead of natural causes in a few weeks.) The best that can be done is to listen to what the candidate actually says, watch what he does, and try to integrate that with the tendencies of the religious group in question. Mormons tend toward being good businessmen, but they also tend to be suckers (in fact there are groups of con men who specialize in Mormons because they are recognized as being credulous.)

We very much do not want another Republican gull as President, although even that is better than a tyrant like Obama.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[bmo]

The freedom, by businesses, to discriminate based on race is what Rand Paul has advocated in the past. Repeatedly. The same has been said for Ron Paul. Their reasoning is that an African American's money is no less important to a business than a White's. Which is bullshit, because there was 100 years of Jim Crow to put the lie to this.

This is so disingenuous that I cannot find the words to describe it precisely.

States rights indeed.

--
BMO

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[Nimey]

I seem to recall him saying that forcing e.g. lunch counters serve black people was wrong because it was anti-freedom, and that it should have been left up to the Holy Free Market (pbui) instead.

It's not liberty he's interested in, it's freedom from government.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[Nimey]

He sounds like Romney - repeal the health care act and increase the size of the military.

Fuck that.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[riverat1]

I wasn't saying that I support him, just that he's not quite as insane as some of the others.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[fifedrum]

I know plenty well enough what states' rights is about, I know quite a bit about history, I'm a student of the ACW and have quite a firm grasp on the history of the nation leading up to the war, the people who fought the war, and even more so on the language and content of the constitution. I've taught about the war itself and the aftermath to many a student. Hell, I've worn wool on many occasions, read the books, and visited the grave sites and battle fields. The ACW wasn't the first time the nation started to come apart, there were many calls for secession and disunion dating back to the foundation all based on the arguments surrounding states' rights.

The subthread was about the one subject, so I restricted my comment to the one subject. It doesn't mean I'm an idiot or know nothing about states' rights. Abortion just happens to be one symptom of the federal disease.

Paul isn't advocating slavery, you imply that's what he implies by agitating for states' rights.

That's nonsense. The whole libertarian movement is about Freedom from restrictions to rights, like freedom from petty tyrants from other states enforcing their view of morality on me from afar. Slavery is 180 degrees from Libertarianism. This isn't liberty as defined in 1776. There's no tenet of libertarianism that supports the restriction of an individuals right like making someone a slave. Anyone who believes that or thinks Paul believes that is the idiot.

It's gun owner rights.
it's speed limit and licensing age rights.
It's drinking age rights.
It's about business and property owner rights.
It's professional association rights.
The right to own gold, remember that one was taken away too and the right to buy and sell on an open market.
It's about the right to ferment beer, distill alcohol and sell it inside your own state without federal regulation or taxation.
Hell, it's about the right to produce anything at all from pop corn to feed animals to your local school curriculum without unlawful restriction by the federal government or some multinational coming to your town and confiscating your corn.

Here's an excellent example of something that is firmly in the states' rights subject. Handicapped parking and other access methods like ramps. Does every business in the world have wheel chair accessible doors? No? Why not picket them and legislate them into bankruptcy to force every bar, restaurant, gas station, repair shop, donkey kongery and factory to have 100% accessible spaces?

It's up to the state to decide what's appropriate in those situations, your state and if they don't, then it's up to the business owner.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[mrchaotica]

if released from bondage... a child's natural state would also be as a free individual

If 'released from bondage,' a fetus' natural state would be death.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[gangien]

yes, your business, you should be allowed to discriminate, as all businesses do, who you deal with.

And just how long do you think a business that had a whites only sign up, would last? It wouldn't. Free market working.

And freedom from government is freedom, because no one has power over you.

Paraphrasing Thomas Jeffersion, Liberty yields as government gains ground.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[gangien]

guess what jim crow was? it was government. So guess what, the businesses had no freedom. Both Pauls were certainly in favor of ending jim crow laws.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[Nimey]

In Alabama in the '60s? I think the business would have done just fine. Which is the problem that government intervention fixed, as society demanded.

You're yet another wonderful example of libertarians who just don't get how the real world works.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[Nimey]

Oh, come off it. You're really one of those tards who think Lincoln was a monster who destroyed States' Rights? The South did it to themselves by picking a fight they had no chance of winning.

The majority of the North's population (who, you may remember, /elected/ Lincoln) wanted the Union to be preserved.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[gangien]

Jim Crow laws forced segregation, which is certainly not libertarian/free market. Ending them was all that was needed. People would have taken care of any places that still served whites only and crap like that, by boycotting as they were already doing.

You're another example of someone who will willfully cheer the government on as they fuck us in the ass.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[Nimey]

You're giving me "if only" and ideology; typical libertarian. I don't buy it.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[Nimey]

Jim Crow laws were in place because the majority of southerners wanted it that way.

Congratulations, you've just given me a reason why States' Rights fails and we sometimes need the federal government to protect minorities.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[gangien]

that's great you want to ignore reality. because you don't buy it. You're not even debating what i said.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[gangien]

Oh damn your really got me there. After All, I said states are perfect or something?

But be sure to ignore my point.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[Nimey]

The point is that representative governments will enact that kind of law because a majority of the voters in that locality want it that way. The stores would continue to prosper by not allowing blacks to patronize them, because the majority like it that way.

This is not a place where the Holy Free Market can fix it; only government intervention from a higher level is going to fix it.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[gangien]

Yeah all those civil rights activists would have just given up. Not like they would have boycotted stores that still had whites only signs.

But i'm never going to convince you of this. You just want to believe that those southerners were all incredibly racist and thank god we forced them to not be racist.

The funny part about all this, is it's a relatively minor point in terms of practicality in the current state of the US government (although important in terms of principle). Everyone wants to bring it up, because they think they've got a nice gotcha on the libertarian view.

Re:So which other candidate is better?

[bmo]

>guess what jim crow was? it was government.

And you seriously believe that Jim Crow would have stood for 100 years if it didn't have the backing of businesses? Business was /complicit/ with Jim Crow laws.

You are delusional.

--
BMO

Re:Scraping Facebook data - ingenious in a scary w

[Quick Reply]

Or it could be 2:1 Republicans connected to Democrats, I'm not saying that the republican supporters are less connected than democrats, it was just an example!

Great, election by Facebook

[bryan1945]

Can this farce of a political system get any worse?

Re:Great, election by Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Obama could be re-elected...

Re:Great, election by Facebook

[vlm]

Can this farce of a political system get any worse?

Oh Yeah, election by /. poll:

1) Bachmann/Palin
2) Obama/whoever the VP is today
3) Ron Paul write in
4) Cowboy Neal
5) Goatse man, because he understands what the financial industry is doing to America

Re:Great, election by Facebook

[KingSkippus]

Please, don't ask. I have a high degree of confidence that not only can it, it probably will.

Re:Great, election by Facebook

[Quiet_Desperation]

Um, yes?

Re:Great, election by Facebook

[GameboyRMH]

For once Cowboy Neal isn't the joke vote!

Re:Great, election by Facebook

[cp.tar]

And neither is the Goatse man.

Re:Great, election by Facebook

[rickb928]

You can poll a ham sandwich and get the results you want. Straw polls ditto. there is ONLY one poll that counts, and the next one will be taken next November.

Re:Great, election by Facebook

[GameboyRMH]

True, as a serious decision Goatse wouldn't be my last choice...his addresses to the public would be a bit scarring though...

Re:Great, election by Facebook

[cp.tar]

Ah, well. It is common in politics to elect the biggest asshole.

Not Necessarily True

[Nova Express]

Rick Perry's campaign, for instance, is well-known for using social-science methods to rigorously test various campaign tools, including controlled experiments on what actually worked and what didn't.

As, as long as we're talking about Perry, you know that "Perry cut firefighters budgets" story that went around a month ago? It's not true. The Texas legislature authorized, and Perry signed, an 80% increase in wildfire fighting and prevention funding for the 2012-2013 biennium.

Re:Not Necessarily True

[TubeSteak]

Texas Republicans wanted to cut the firefighting budget before they moved to increase it.
Even your own article acknowledges that the original budget had big cuts.

It was a bit embarrassing that they wanted to slash budgets while the State was burning.

Like?

[vlm]

How do you know if a candidate is "liked" or "+1" because they'll vote for them in the election, or because they'll be easy to beat?

The Dali Lama has "recently" joined G+ and I've circled and +1'd him, because he is one of the very few "world leaders" I actually respect. That is an entirely different relationship from me +1'ing Palin because I think she is the most easy to beat out of the R field; +1 for being a humorous caricature in her field.

I suppose you could analyze my other +1s to figure out I don't want to throw my vote away on a D or R, and I'm gonna vote straight LP (unless RP is somehow on the ballot for the R in which case I'd hold my nose only a little tiny bit and vote for him). So maybe that data would show LP supporters think the best way for the R to lose is to put up Palin (or her cronies), or if they want LP supporters maybe they need a party plank that if they win RP will be the next (last?) chairman of the Fed. That might be actionable data, might not.

Re:Like?

[Nimey]

I know of at least one person who will "like" politicians on Facebook for the sole purpose of flaming them.

Re:Like?

[MightyMartian]

We hurt the ones we like the most.

Facebook likes are not enough

[kidcharles]

Now, if he hadn't spent the last 2.5 years largely doing exactly the opposite of what he campaigned on, angering his base to no end, he might be able to make better use of all of that data management. No amount of carefully worded campaign e-mails are going to convince me to vote for a President who has normalized extra-judicial assassinations of American citizens by the CIA.

Re:Facebook likes are not enough

[couchslug]

Your not voting doesn't matter. Your binary choice between candidates doesn't matter much.

Obama understands that political polarization really means you are stuck with him or a Republican.

As for attacks on enemy troops, many Americans are supportive of killing enemy combatants, especially Muslims. I'm liking Obama more in his incarnation as a "moderate Republican", and his work with Panetta is an intelligent way to fight against Jihadists.

Any American who believes in the beastly superstition of Islam merits disposal, and I will continue to vote for laws, interpretations of law, and for candidates who help (lawfully) kill them.

The Muslim is worse by orders of magnitude then even Bible-thumping white trash. I've seen the best that Islam can do with unlimited wealth. Their social influence, anywhere, is bad. The totality of Islam is "submission, and consists of prohibitions.

Re:Facebook likes are not enough

[rickb928]

"No amount of carefully worded campaign e-mails are going to convince me to vote for a President who has normalized extra-judicial assassinations of American citizens by the CIA."

Um, just to be clear, George W. Bush isn't running, ok?

Re:Facebook likes are not enough

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Luckily for Mr. Obama, voters like you, who think for themselves, are in the extreme minority. :)

He'll get re-elected. There isn't a single candidate anywhere else in the country that doesn't come off as a complete lunatic or is not the victim of a media-wide smear campaign.

Re:Facebook likes are not enough

[rickb928]

Sorry, but the accusation has been made against multiple presidents. Just trying to clarify which one.

Incompetent IT management loses elections, too.

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to (rather recently) work as a software developer for a company that sold IT data services exclusively to Republican campaigns. The company was owned by some nationally-known Republican activists. The rank-and-file within the company did not necessarily care about politics, but the management mostly did.

The company easily could have developed and offered this kind of data services to its customers. The IT talent was there, and the developers has a rather good idea of how things could be done. The problem was that the management simply would not listen to the developers. All we seemed to get done was to have idea after idea shot down because the estimated hours were too high (even though most of the developers were full-time, so it's not like most of the expenditures were on contractor hours). Pretty much any estimate that came in over 80 hours of development time for any feature meant that the feature got shot down. We would keep asking management what they wanted the products to look like by the 2011 election season and by the 2012 election season, and there was just no clear vision at all. Also, even though top management had budgeted for more developer help, the company wasn't willing to do what it took to get competent developers in the door, so we had at least one open developer position most of the time I was there. We would have candidate after candidate come in from the same recruiter (because of some pre-existing relationship with IT management), supposedly with the skills we needed, but realistically who couldn't code their way out of a paper bag when we gave them a very basic test to complete.

The stupid hour estimates got so pervasive that management implemented a bonus plan that rewarded meeting your own estimates. So, basically, it just rewarded whomever could come up with the highest estimate while keeping a straight face. It also helped the process of driving morale into the ground. Anyone who stayed did so because of external circumstances keeping them in the job.

Note that we weren't billing hourly for (most of) these projects. They were part of a subscription product being sold.

Extreme cheapness -- to the point of neglecting the mission of the company -- plus managerial incompetence really hurt the Republican cause. I'm fine with that as a citizen, but it's really demoralizing to see what a product could be and not be able to implement it.

Re:The Republicans are worse

[GameboyRMH]

Posting anonymously because most Slashdotters are Republican, are angry, and have mod points.

Most? Hah I doubt it. Definitely enough to mod you into the ground though.

Nearly the perfect slashdot post:

[Hartree]

It's got computers. It's got Democrats. It's got Republicans. It's got Facebook and datamining. It's got high priced consultants of dubious worth.

What else does it need?

Now we just have to figure out how there can be huge flame ridden disagreements about it.

Oh wait. It's already started.

And yet

[Hatta]

And yet, the streets are full of protesters. If anything, people today have less hope than they did in 2008. Nothing changed, and he's going to have to run on that record.

At this point it's abundantly clear that if you vote for either major party, you are throwing your vote away. Vote third party or stay home.

Re:And yet

[wzinc]

Do you think a run-off election would be better? Say there are six candidates, you vote 6 for who you really want, five for the next guy, etc. The one with the most points wins. I feel like that would make your vote count for more and give third party candidates a better shot.

Re:And yet

[Dutch Gun]

I'll settle for anyone who I believe will not deficit-spend our government and economy into insolvency.

Re:And yet

[riverat1]

That isn't anybody who is going to win the Presidency any time soon.

Wow!

[Quiet_Desperation]

He has a Facebook page! That is just absofuckinglutely bleeding edge, there, baby!

I look forward to our precise and data analyzed to death future! Yay!

Re:The Republicans are worse

[Wyatt Earp]

Maybe you get modded down because you post idiotic things.

Because the debates aren't neutral now.

[khasim]

The "debates" are now hosted by the parties themselves instead of the League of Women Voters.

Control of the presidential debates has been a ground of struggle for more than two decades. The role was filled by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters (LWV) civic organization in 1976, 1980 and 1984. In 1987, the LWV withdrew from debate sponsorship, in protest of the major party candidates attempting to dictate nearly every aspect of how the debates were conducted.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates
So they're nothing more than a forum for the candidates to issue sound bites now.

Re:Because the debates aren't neutral now.

[Dahamma]

So they're nothing more than a forum for the candidates to issue sound bites now.

Actually, the Republican debates have been a lot more than that so far. It's been a great forum for the candidates to repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot.

Re:A referendum on extremism or a loyalty test

[Hatta]

Looking at the way the country has been run, it's more like this: Democrat nutjob, GOP nutjob, Tea Party candidate, OWS candidate. The ONLY truly nutty position is that the major parties can get us out of the mess they created.

Re:News for nerds

[couchslug]

Slashdot is essentially dead as a geek/nerd forum (but I'm sure is far more profitable now).

What are some other forums more like what Slashdot once was?

Any why did you post AC? Who gives a fuck?

Re:As an Australian...

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama's performance has been pretty lackluster. So much for Hope and Change, huh?

But the modern Republican party and the Tea Party (who are basically the Totalitarian Christian Theocracy party these days) scare the fucking shit out of me. HOW DO YOU PEOPLE EVEN CONSIDER VOTING FOR THEM!?

Whatever Obama's flaws, he's *gotta* be better than someone who literally prays for rain while denying climate change, or someone who believes gay marriage is the #1 issue to affect America in the next 30 years, or someone who was so homophobic that the gay community named a mixture of semen and faeces, a by-product of improperly performed anal sex, after him.

How does this... how is... I don't even...

Just where do you get your news, anyway?

And FWIW, it's pretty much impossible to be WORSE than someone who:

1. Campaigns on the premise that $200 billion deficits per year are unsustainable
2. When elected, runs $2 TRILLION deficits.

Yep - the Obama MONTHLY budget deficits (which in truth began when Democrats took control of the US House of Representatives - where all spending bills must originate...) exceed the YEARLY deficits under George W. Bush - which Senator Obama called "unsustainable".

That's Greek-style government. It's impossible to be WORSE than that.

Barack Obama: when he reaches rock-bottom and has to stop digging - HE'LL START BLASTING.

Gonna be hilarious to see Baracky's "they all RAAACISTS!!!!" meme crash-and-burn with Herman Cain on the Republican side....

Re:Interesting replies considering

[MightyMartian]

I'm not sure what alternate reality you live in, but in the one we live in, Reagan ballooned the debt.

um

[Charliemopps]

Because facebook "Likes" is a good polling mechanic... especially when those likes could have been bade 4 years ago, the people may not remember "liking it" or even log into their facebook account anymore.

Re:likes on a FB page....

[Bardwick]

"Like" is meaningless unless there is a "hate" button.

Not a good plan.

[khasim]

If you vote for a third party, all you're doing is making it more likely that the candidate who is closest to your views will lose.

At least it will be that way with the current voting system in most states.

FIRST you have to change the voting rules so that a candidate you want to endorse has a chance of actually winning the election.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Voting_system

Start locally by improving the voting system in your district / state.

Re:Not a good plan.

[Hatta]

Any candidate who wants radical change in the system in any direction is closer to my views than any democrat or republican, who simply want to preserve the status quo.

Re:Not a good plan.

[Fned]

If you vote for a third party, all you're doing is making it more likely that the candidate who is closest to your views will lose.

...which is the best way, in any voting system, to make the motherfuckers change their platform next time.

Not voting could mean anything. Voting Green Party, on the other hand, by way of for instance, gives a strong message to the Democrats that they're not doing enough on the environmental front and had better shape up their fucking act if they want to win next time.

This is what's causing the Republicans to have to pay so much attention to the Tea Party; for good or for ill, they HAVE to at least give lip service to those policies, because they feel they can't afford to lose that percentage of the vote.

He did?

[Anonymous Coward]

His first order of biz was to cut government spending.

Look, I can be some what pro-republican. (IE that U-2 story about Bush? To me it was fairly obvious that story was made up and didn't actually happen.) Anyway I don't know where you got your data but I just checked Wikipedia on it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_budget#Federal_budget_data Let's see, spending went up under Reagan. Ok, if you compare against GDP it went down from 83 to 84 and again from 85 through the rest of his term. However the first order of business definitely wasn't to cut spending and overall spending went up. Of course I'm posting anonymous because you know the Slashdot moderators, say anything not derogatory toward W and they basically froth at the mouth.

Re:He did?

[Baloroth]

Of course I'm posting anonymous because you know the Slashdot moderators, say anything not derogatory toward W and they basically froth at the mouth.

I'm pretty sure most of them start out frothing.

Hope and Change

[gearloos]

Well, we got hope and change. Just as promised. As a matter of fact that is the NUMBER 1 ISSUE with me. I HOPE they CHANGE out this administration as soon as possible.

Re:News for nerds

[rickb928]

Don't leave so quickly. The whole religion angle is totally nerd. As in socially ignorant.

It's the economy, stupid!

[iVillageIdiot]

Either the economy improves drammatically over the next 12 months or so, or Pres Obama will lose by a wide margin. The IT infrastructure of his campaign is irrelevant.

There is a whole lot of difference

[Shivetya]

between campaigning and leading. He is very good at promising something yet incredibly good at not delivering it and then brushing off complaints.

Considering all he promised about protecting our rights and the rights of the combatants we took into custody in the War on Terror why should I believe anything that passes his lips? He is worse than Bush, he has doubled down on nearly every bad part of the Patriot Act that Bush used, hell he used Drones to kill American citizens overseas. And the press remains silent.

If only to be have an active press again, one that regularly chases the Administration, this guy has got to go. I want no more Presidencies where the Press acts as if it is part of the Administration.

We would have investigations in Congress over the drone killing if it were Bush, if not full press stories about how abusive it is of the Office. Let alone Solyndra and Fast and Furious.

His real self will surface when he has no further campaigns to run, meaning if he wins or loses we will finally see what he will do.

consider the source

[fche]

Judging by the website of this "Personal Democracy Forum", one would not expect an objective assessment of anything having to do with the election. http://personaldemocracy.com/advocacy/advocacy

They all want to shove religion down my throat...

[tjstork]

It's just a matter of picking my poison. If I vote left, I get some jackass preaching about saving mother earth and we're all in some syrupy Star Wars Force binding us all together, so I have to give up my money in the name of the cause and join in the mission to get rid of the evil right. If I vote right, I get some jackass preaching about saving culture and we're all god's children, so I have to give up my money in the name of the cause and join in the mission to get rid of the evil left.

Re:As an Australian...

[couchslug]

How any modern man would entertain religion at all is a mystery.

How people who presumably self-identify as modern (Slashdotters) could treat superstition with anything short of disgust is an even greater mystery.

disturbing...

[roc97007]

> it has a Facebook app that is scooping up all kinds of juicy facts about his supporters and inside the Obama operation, his staff members are using a powerful social networking tool called NationalField, which enables everyone to share what they are working on.

Does anyone else find this a little creepy?

In any case, I think the team may be making an assumption that will skew the numbers. They're not really measuring Obama supporters, they're measuring Obama supporters who are stupid enough to enter the security scorpion pit that is Facebook apps. This has to be a smaller, less technically minded subset of Obama's actual supporters.

Doesn't it?

Re:disturbing...

[kanto]

They're not really measuring Obama supporters, they're measuring Obama supporters who are stupid enough to enter the security scorpion pit that is Facebook apps. This has to be a smaller, less technically minded subset of Obama's actual supporters.

I guess we now know what the millions of monkeys are doing after Shakespeare.

Re:disturbing...

[roc97007]

That's brilliant!

Re:disturbing...

[roc97007]

Yeah, how is that working out for him?

As long as we're talking about Perry . . .

[Idou]

Speaking of "social-science methods", I think he is attempting some kind of vulnerability exploit on the brains of his audience:

"I think Americans just don’t know sometimes which Mitt Romney they’re dealing with. Is it the Mitt Romney that was on the side of against the Second Amendment before he was for the Second Amendment? Was it — was before he was before the social programs, from the standpoint of he was for standing up for Roe v. Wade before he was against Roe v. Wade? He was for Race to the Top, he’s for Obamacare, and now he’s against it. I mean, we’ll wait until tomorrow and — and — and see which Mitt Romney we’re really talking to tonight"

Ouch, I think I need to go read some Bush-isms to recovery from that . . .

Re:As an Australian...

[anopres]

Interesting note: Zogby has Cain ahead of Romney by 20 points! http://news.yahoo.com/poll-cain-surges-opens-20-point-lead-romney-132015440.html

Doesn't matter

[ThatsNotPudding]

The right wing controls the fraudulent voting machine code bases. And this time around, there will be a bumper crop of uniformed, no-neck white guys outside the polling stations, pretending to be part of the official Security Theater so as to suppress all minority voters - excepting those to whom they've already given the wrong election date (and location).

Throwing free elections: doing The Lords' work.

Didn't we all take loyalty oaths?

[Dinghy]

You know, that whole Pledge of Allegiance thing? Back before they banned it from schools of course.

Re:Didn't we all take loyalty oaths?

[Nimey]

The difference, since you're being obtuse for rhetorical reasons, is one group being singled out for the treatment.

Starting around middle school I stopped saying "under god".

Re:Didn't we all take loyalty oaths?

[webnut77]

Starting around middle school I stopped saying "under god".

Oh, you rebel, you!

Re:Didn't we all take loyalty oaths?

[Nimey]

Yeah, well. One doesn't tend to think "you know, why should I say this?" when everybody else says it every day during your formative years, especially when elementary and middle school history texts gloss over things.

Re:Didn't we all take loyalty oaths?

[Oligonicella]

If you don't know why one group is being watched more than the others, t'is you who are obtuse.

Re:Didn't we all take loyalty oaths?

[Nimey]

Oh, I know /why/. Bigotry isn't a good reason, though.

Re:Didn't we all take loyalty oaths?

[ChrisMaple]

Oh, I know /why/. Bigotry isn't a good reason, though.

Semtex is.

Re:Didn't we all take loyalty oaths?

[Nimey]

...because clearly all Muslims, even those who have lived here all their lives, are terrorists.

Forget abortion, you're a poster child for genocide.

Re:Didn't we all take loyalty oaths?

[therealbev]

They added 'under god' when I was in elementary school. That's the day I stopped saying the pledge.

Much earlier I hid a tooth under my pillow without telling anyone. The next morning I accused my parents of making up the Tooth Fairy story and threw in the Easter Bunny and Jesus along with it. They 'fessed up. Good for them.

Re:As an Australian...

[roc97007]

> But the modern Republican party and the Tea Party (who are basically the Totalitarian Christian Theocracy party these days) scare the fucking shit out of me. HOW DO YOU PEOPLE EVEN CONSIDER VOTING FOR THEM!?

(1) because it's not Obama, and (2) because it pisses you off.

Re:A referendum on extremism or a loyalty test

[Hatta]

Anyone who votes democrat or republican is an extremist. The democrat/republican parties are both extreme corporatist parties. Anyone who suggests sensible policies, like abiding by the limits set forth in the Constitution, or enforcing the law when banks break it, is smeared as an extremist.

The referendum is not between extremists and normal people. It's between people who believe the Big Lie and those who don't.

Not that easy...

[Junta]

That was the mantra for a long time. However, polling strongly indicates that enough people currently hold a picture in their head of an obstructionist republican party causing the crappy economy to persist.

Re:As an Australian...

[istartedi]

(2) because it pisses you off

A real life Swing Vote scenario, except that it's an Australian controlling our elections. Whodathunkit? (Ah say, that's a joke, son).

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Facebook likes don't mean dick

[skids]

You know, if the electorate doesn't turn out to vote for Obama next year, it won't be because they are discouraged about his chance of victory. Someone at the troll factory apparently forgot to remove the obsolete talking points.

Obama: master of the skynet

[sgt_doom]

Oh wow, so when he's not sending out killer drones, assigned targets by Obama's "kill committee" while what's left of the "economy" is about to be destroyed by his "super committee" (thanks for signing that Budget Control Act of 2011, dood) he's master of those Internet pipes. Who could ask for more????

The below is perfect for making bookmarks and placing in store windows:

http://disinfo.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Screen-shot-2010-11-17-at-10.30.55-AM.png

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6164/6225849088_4fd0c3e282_b.jpg

And about that thingy called the "law"

[sgt_doom]

Forgot to mention his statement on the pre-decided guilt of Bradley Manning, whom the commander-in-chief has illegally kept in jail when he is supposed to be granted a speedy courts-martial. And negative, Obama, the banksters did break the law: many millions of times over in filing millions of false affidavits (that equals millions of felonies) and falsely filing wrongful IRS reports (in violation of tax-exempt REMIC status), and millions of violations of Article 3 of the Uniform Commerical Code.

I wouldn't really gush too hard.

[argStyopa]

So you're saying we have a president now who really is just a full-time campaigner?

How...wonderful?

Neal the prophet

[dargaud]

What, nobody has mentioned Neal Stephenson's Interface, yet. A presidential candidate is interfaced with an instant polling system...

The current pledge of the US.

[kryliss]

I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the corporate states of America.
And to the stockholders, for which they stand,
one nation, under Mammon, socially divisible,
with liberty and justice for some.

Telling the truth is political poisen

[InterGuru]

We complain that politicians lie, but refuse to elect any of them that tell the truth. Go figure!

Fast and Furious

[countertrolling]

Obama is a killbot. Who gives a shit about his technical prowess? He's just using it against the rest of us... He already has effectively put the entire civil rights issue to sleep. I guess he did something during his term. He is indeed worse than Bush.

Re:Fast and Furious

[HornWumpus]

Put the entire civil rights issue to sleep?

The race baiters/poverty pimps will be back. They have their own shows on MSNBC but once Obama is out of office they will go somewhere with viewers.

RE: Data Crunching

[Noli_Me_Tangere]

You have got to be kidding me...if our wonderful President is so keen on data crunching, how could he not figure out that his "stimulus" wasn't working and we needed a new approach (even though it is the same crap, different election) and a new bill? How could he not have noticed his plummeting approval numbers and make adjustments to serve the interests of the people he is supposed to be supporting? I'll tell you why. Because Mr. Obama is only worried about one thing and that is his prestigious job title. While in Congress, he abused the ability to vote "present" in order to walk down the middle of the isle of his voter base. He has continually pointed fingers at other people's actions while remaining almost completely inactive since Congress abused its majority to pass the Obamacare elephant that is about to sit on the back of this fragile economy. In fact, all while he has been "pushing" Republicans to take action on the list of ideas he calls a job bill, it has been Harry Reid who is stalling and has continued to use parliamentary procedure reindeer games to stop progress. And I will also tell you why I am right about this...for the past two and a half years we have heard NOTHING but how we are in such a terrible situation and who we should be blaming. Whether this country is falling apart because rich people don't pay enough taxes or because Wall Street steals money, the liberal argument is completely mute because WE HAVE BEEN SPENDING THE MONEY WE DON'T HAVE ANYWAYS!!!!!!!!!! That's right. Even though he doesn't have the money and can tell you exactly why, Mr. Obama has spent nearly 5 TRILLION dollars that we don't have and guess what? WE STILL HAVE THE PROBLEMS INCREASED SPENDING IS PROMISED TO FIX. Period. End of story. You cannot deny that. Liberalism as it stands today does not work and now ALL Ahttp://politics.slashdot.org/story/11/10/10/1530246/The-Data-Crunching-Prowess-of-Barack-Obama?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed#mericans are on the hook for this money which means American Liberalism has done nothing but grow the lower class, shrink the upper class, and threatens to eliminate the middle class all because our President is using data crunching to get reelected rather than using common sense to help us like he so eloquently promised less than 36 months ago.

Yes there are way more dummies

[frist]

Alone among the major candidates running for president, the Obama campaign not only has a Facebook page with 23 million 'likes' (roughly 10 times the total of all the Republicans running), it has a Facebook app that is scooping up all kinds of juicy facts about his supporters and inside the Obama operation, his staff members are using a powerful social networking tool called NationalField,

I read that to mean that Republicans are 10x smarter than Obama supporters :)

History

[joeboomer628]

Let me think now, who are some of history's heads of state that had excellent propaganda machines, owned the press and sowed hatred of people for being successful in business?