Krugman on why the debates won't be a game changer for Romney

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Krugman is a Clark's medal recipient and a Princeton professor. Calling him an idiot only reflects poorly on you.

Kurgan is a democrat flack. His peers ignore him because his reputation has been demolished by his idiocy.

A scholarly rich as hell idiot but an idiot nonetheless.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Blow it out your ear, the only thing Crowley did was show that she is in Obamas hip pocket. It's just like Clinton arguing the definition of is. Obama went on for weeks blaming the video..pathetic excuse for a president.

At least chum was honest enough to admit being incorrect but your Obama tingle is so strong that you won't even admit that Kaufman was wrong.

KRUGMAN was wrong, but Obama will still sweep the electoral map.

And if anyone is deluded it is you. Rather than admit that Romney is a liar you are going after a highly respected reporter for merely pointing out the facts.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Kurgan is a democrat flack. His peers ignore him because his reputation has been demolished by his idiocy.

A scholarly rich as hell idiot but an idiot nonetheless.

They have a bizarre way of ignoring him by constantly awarding him with medals and prizes.

[dude1394]

Well.. Obama got a Nobel peace prize also.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Well.. Obama got a Nobel peace prize also.

I never mentioned anything about Krugman's Nobel prize. I was referring to his Clark's medal, which is awarded by a committee of American economists and is one of the most prestigious awards in the American economics community.

[dude1394]

And I was referring to obamas undeserved nobel prize...get it?

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dude1394

And I was referring to obamas undeserved nobel prize...get it?

So you admit you are establishing strawmen arguments? If you are going refer to one of my posts, then address the arguments I make within it.

[dude1394]

Let me respond.

"
Third — and this is prospective — people now invoking the 2004 debates as an example of game-changers (Kerry cut dramatically into a big Bush lead) are, I suspect, failing to remember what happened in that first debate, which was that Bush came across as a total idiot. I suppose this could happen to Obama, but it would certainly be out of character.

This post and krugman's assertion is full of crap.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Debates also showed Romney for what he is: a liar. Crowley calling him out on his lie will go down in the annals of debate history.

And the swing state polling has shown a bit of tightening, but not a whole lot. Obama will still probably sweep the electoral map. However, the popular vote may be tight because Romney will run up the score in the South, but that is inconsequential because the popular vote doesn't matter in our system.

And another worthless and wrong "point".

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dude1394

And another worthless and wrong "point".

Really? Well Intrade has Obama getting over 280 electoral votes:
http://www.intrade.com/v4/misc/electoral-map/

[aexchange]

I don't put much stock into what intrade says. I don't know if they are entirely accurate, but what I do find more interesting is fivethirtyeight.com which you referenced earlier. It project Obama to get 294 electoral votes while Romney still manages to take Florida.

I've found fivethirtyeight.com to be incredibly accurate and very objective, accounting for historical accuracy of the polls used as well as objectively accounting for bias or lean in each of the polls. Romney needs around 27 electoral votes to win and I have a hard time seeing how he will get that even conceding Florida to him.

[mcsluggo]

Dude... aside from the fact that it is wildly amusing to see YOU disdainfully attack someone else as a blindly biased political hack (pot, meet kettle) Krugman has credentials that are basically unassailable. He is EASILY in the top 5 of economists from his cohort (he published most actively from the late 70s to the late 90s) The nobel prizes for specific disciplines (physics, chemistry, econ, etc.... ) are very different from the nobel peace prize, and Krugman's editorial career (and associated politicizing of his viewpoint) actually served to DELAY Krugman getting the econ Nobel, rather than increase his liklihood. He was a shoe-in.

[dude1394]

Krugman is a hack... I'm sorry...but he's just a hack.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Krugman is a hack... I'm sorry...but he's just a hack.

Empirically that is a false assessment based on all his awards and credentials. You can't be a hack when you are widely considered to be one of the premier economists in the field by your own peers.

Sounds like you are creating this false image of him in your mind as a way of making an excuse for ignoring his arguments.

[MavsFTR]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Obamas sinking like the titanic.

Wrong.

[chumdawg]

The GOP is shrinking more and more at every election.

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

The GOP is shrinking more and more at every election.

Now that Obamacare is here to stay, think about the work the death panels will do on the GOP's aging base between now and 2016. I'm salivating.

[dude1394]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
Obamas sinking like the titanic.

Originally Posted by MavsFTR

Wrong.

Turds float.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

Now that Obamacare is here to stay, think about the work the death panels will do on the GOP's aging base between now and 2016. I'm salivating.

True dat, playa. True dat.

[MavsFTR]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
Obamas sinking like the titanic.




Turds float.

[SeanL]

Well it looks like Krugman turned out to be right... Again.