The Goat Pen

"A democrat has won the SGA mock poll at UA every year since 1988."

That seems shocking, but also is clearly in line with this deeply investigative article:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/colleg ... tys,29285/

On the orders of Kim Jong-un to leave "no trace of him behind, down to his hair," according to South Korean media, Kim Chol was forced to stand on a spot that had been zeroed in for a mortar round and "obliterated."

sounds like a James Bond villain

do you espect me to twolk?

no mista yung, I espect you die!

Analysts view on the future of banks after election scenarios...

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11746454 ... en=GOOGLEN

Good article on leadership and the changing military...

Generalship in combat is extraordinarily difficult, and many seasoned officers fail at it. During World War II, senior American commanders typically were given a few months to succeed, or they’d be replaced. Sixteen out of the 155 officers who commanded Army divisions in combat were relieved for cause, along with at least five corps commanders.

Since 9/11, the armed forces have played a central role in our national affairs, waging two long wars—each considerably longer than America’s involvement in World War II. Yet a major change in how our military operates has gone almost unnoticed. Relief of generals has become so rare that, as Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yingling noted during the Iraq War, a private who loses his rifle is now punished more than a general who loses his part of a war. In the wars of the past decade, hundreds of Army generals were deployed to the field, and the available evidence indicates that not one was relieved by the military brass for combat ineffectiveness. This change is arguably one of the most significant developments in our recent military history—and an important factor in the failure of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... _page=true

I read it with an eye to the corporate world, as well, in a way to apply some of this to my dealings with my upper management and as a decision maker myself.

I never would have imagined it 3 months ago but I think Romney is going to win this thing now.

I'm kinda non plussed by it - I'm not an Obama fan but I don't wake up with a seething hatred for the guy like many do, I don't particularly like all the bullshit I've seen in regard to disrespecting him as president - in terms of just out and out lying, and I've soured on watching any news coverage on the entire process.

I do wake up with a seething hatred for the GOP. I can understand not wanting Obama to be president, I do not understand associating with that slime ball party. I will celebrate the day the GOP dissolves and goes away.

The truth is I don't even know if Romney is capable of spending less, nor do I believe in his trickle down theories of growing the middle class by freeing up more money in reduced taxes, but I don't think he can be worse than Obama/Congress at deficit spending.

I'll be voting for Gary Johnson hoping that he pulls in an amazing number, like 10% of the popular vote.

I never would have imagined it 3 months ago but I think Romney is going to win this thing now.

Wut?

"I've be voting for Gary Johnson hoping that he pulls in an amazing number, like 10% of the popular vote."

Given that Ohio is likely going to be the key to the whole election, I wish you would vote for Obama, but I admire your adherence to principle. If NC wasn't in play (and I am probably being unrealistically optimistic to think that it is), I probably would've voted for Johnson, too. Or else just not voted at all. Again, I might be crazy, but I think NC is going to be a lot closer than some people think. And I won't be completely shocked if Obama pulls it off again in NC...

The election is Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa. If Romney doesn't win one of those, he's not winning. I don't see it happening.

I don't know - I've been kind of invested in RealClearPolitics lately and they keep a "collective" poll going and its clear that Obama is on a downward spiral. He's lost ground on women voters and there is nothing Obama can really say or do at this point to change the tide.

The first debate wasn't about Romney winning, it was about America wanting to see if Romney was presidential - and he pulled it off very well. I think alot of undecided voters were probably not heavily invested either way but have been worn down by the constant drumbeat of the media questioning what has Obama really accomplished in the last 4 years and are saying what I said above - Romney can't be worse on the economy and its such an overriding factor that abortion, foreign policy, SPOTUS appointments, etc just don't have enough influence. That's why Obama doing well in the last 2 debates hasn't given him a bump.

Also, recently there have been some fairly high profile endorsements from Romney that I didn't think we'd see.

Obama has external forces working in his favor - lower gas prices, consumer sentiment is strong, interest rates are still low and unemployment appears to be lower but I think its too late for Americans to put it into context of changing their lives after 4 years.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1171.html

Romney aint winning.

I'm casting my vote for Johnson tomorrow morning.

eCat read Nate Silver's 585 blog on the NY Times.

aTm wrote:Romney aint winning.

I'm casting my vote for Johnson tomorrow morning.

I did that today. No way I'd vote for the other bozos. I'm glad this is the last time I ever have to see Obama's name on a ballot.

I'll put money on Obama winning it all if his lead in Ohio stays 5% or more.

Everything else is about whether he loses the popular vote or not. But he'll get 4 more years if he wins Ohio. That's why Romney can't leave Ohio because he HAS to win there if he has a shot at winning. Obama can lose Florida and find a path to 270, but Romney can only squeak above 270 if he gets Ohio. That's why Intrade is trending back to Obama and Silver's percentage of Obama getting 270 at 72%. Romney's is at 38%.

Cletus wrote:

aTm wrote:Romney aint winning.

I'm casting my vote for Johnson tomorrow morning.

I did that today. No way I'd vote for the other bozos. I'm glad this is the last time I ever have to see Obama's name on a ballot.

You get Hillary in '16 against Rubio.

"Romney can't be worse on the economy"

I disagree with that. It's hard to run on a negative, which is the only thing Obama can do at this point, i.e., "things might seem bad, but they would've been alot worse if we had done what Romney wanted to do in 2008." That's a hard sell, and nobody really knows what we'd be looking at right now if they had just let everything fail in 2008, but I think we'd be looking at 20+% unemployment right now and everything else would be much worse than it is now. No way to prove that, which is why Obama is stuck with having to fight against "look how bad things are now".

Personally, things are no different for me today than they were 4 years ago. If anything, things are better. And it seems like most of the people for whom things are worse are the exact people that the repubs whine about, i.e., the so-called "freeloaders" who are going to vote for Obama anyway (most of them). So for most people who still have their same job that they had in 2008, how are things worse? And for those don't have a job, I'm pretty sure they're not going to suddenly get on as soon as Romney is elected. If anything, he's going to cut off their benefits and they'll be even worse off than they are now...

eCat wrote:I don't know - I've been kind of invested in RealClearPolitics lately and they keep a "collective" poll going and its clear that Obama is on a downward spiral. He's lost ground on women voters and there is nothing Obama can really say or do at this point to change the tide.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1171.html

I stopped paying attention to national polls after the conventions. After then, it always comes down to about 7 or 8 states and how someone gets to 270. This year, I see it as only 3 states that will decide it all. Obama only has to defend a few states to stay in the house and he's ahead in all 3 states. Unless that changes, all the other polls are simply about creating a good narrative for the media to ramble on about for the next two weeks.

Bklyn wrote:

Cletus wrote:

aTm wrote:Romney aint winning.

I'm casting my vote for Johnson tomorrow morning.

I did that today. No way I'd vote for the other bozos. I'm glad this is the last time I ever have to see Obama's name on a ballot.

You get Hillary in '16 against Rubio.

I'd never in a million years vote for Rubio. I'd prefer Clinton in that scenario but I doubt I'd cast a vote for her. I just don't see myself voting for either major party candidate anytime soon.

" I'm glad this is the last time I ever have to see Obama's name on a ballot."

What if Obama loses this election and then runs again in 2016? Or can you not even be your party's candidate more than twice?

hedge wrote:I disagree with that. It's hard to run on a negative, which is the only thing Obama can do at this point, i.e., "things might seem bad, but they would've been alot worse if we had done what Romney wanted to do in 2008." That's a hard sell, and nobody really knows what we'd be looking at right now if they had just let everything fail in 2008...

I do. We've discussed it in my offices leading up to the socializing of capitalism and since. There are 3 or 4 clear items that the best case scenario still meant a lot of pain and huge hits to our economic structure.

No modern politcal party is going to throw out a candidate who's already lost a national election.