[QUOTE=chalsall;317611]Please don't misunderstand me.

I argue with everyone -- and I often lose.

But through argument we often find the truth.[/QUOTE]

I understand that, but I don't like to argue that much. I was starting to think that you might be RDS in disguise. :razz:

On a serious note, the conservative pundits would rather that the Republicans dig their heels in deeper (IMO digging a deeper hole) rather than work with the Obama administration. Whether the Republicans like it or not, the electorate thinks Obama is doing a good enough job to be president another four years.

[QUOTE=rogue;317608]My point was that this was an example of a tax loophole. If you want to characterize this loophole as a "good thing", that is your choice.

Your tone with me implies that I think that raising taxes on the wealthy is a bad thing. I've made no such statement. I honestly don't understand why you have to be so combative with me. Do you think that I'm a right wing racist? Do you think I'm a hard-core Republican? I would state that I have tried to be fairly non-partisan in this thread. It obviously irks you because our political beliefs do not align.[/QUOTE]

As a bystander, I have to say that your evidence does not support your contention that Democrats support business loopholes. For one, the author of the original article uses the term loophole very widely, including things such as tax credits to further a policy aim. They may reduce tax take but are unambiguously not loopholes. For most sane people a loophole is a bad thing. Not all tax credits are bad. Hence, a loophole is not the same as a tax credit.

Also, Schumer never said he supported loopholes. All he said was that higher taxes on the wealthy have to be part of the deal. So he will not support a deal that only closes loopholes without raising taxes on the wealthy. That is not the same as supporting loopholes.

[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-29/romney-avoids-taxes-via-loophole-cutting-mormon-donations.html[/url]

[QUOTE][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Arial]The [/FONT][/COLOR][URL="http://www.irs.gov/irb/2005-34_IRB/ar02.html"]charitable remainder unitrust[/URL][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Arial], as it is known, is one of several strategies Romney has adopted over his career to reduce his tax bill. While Romney’s tax avoidance is legal and common among high-net-worth individuals, it has become an issue in the campaign. President [/FONT][/COLOR][URL="http://topics.bloomberg.com/barack-obama/"]Barack Obama[/URL][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Arial] attacked him in their second debate for paying “lower tax rates than somebody who makes a lot less.”[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=chappy;317630]Lots of people will put their spin on "why Romney lost" so I'll do the same: I think the real failure of the right boils down to a failure of reality in their echo chamber. And that failure will continue until the conservatives demand better reporting from Fox News and the various online resources. You have to go 15 deep to find the first conservative pollster on the most accurate polling list. Ten thousand hours were spent spreading lies and mistruths (and an occasional truth) about Benghazi--and nobody outside the echo chamber cared or thought it was a real story. same thing for not-optimal-gate, or we-built-this, or any number of other non-issues.[/QUOTE]I agree that the conservative "echo chamber" is a big factor. That shows up not just in politics, but also in the Republican attitude toward science.

The reluctance of many conservatives to accept the scientific consensus that much of the current global warming is anthropogenic is just one recent example of a widespread conservative tendency not to accept the findings of science whenever they go against what conservatives want to believe (or, often, go against what wealthy conservative businessmen want their fellow conservatives to believe).

If you go to anti-AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) site "Watt's Up With That?" at [URL]http://wattsupwiththat.com/[/URL] you'll find a community of AGW-disbelivers who reinforce each other's self-deception that [I]they[/I] are on the side of true science, fighting against a worldwide conspiracy to foist an AGW hoax upon us all. I've left several comments there. Whenever my comment indicated that I was challenging their belief in the falsity of AGW, I've been accused of being one of a "team" dedicated to spreading AGW propaganda. When I challenged them to refute the way that items of evidence supported the AGW theory, I was ignored while the clientele continued their echoing.

Now that the vote counts are close enough to be final for the numbers to be no longer subject to major revisions, for me the most interesting statistic is that roughly 10 million fewer people voted in the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012]2012 election[/url] than did in [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008]2008[/url], despite the voting-age population having increased by a similar amount in the same time span. (I.e. had % turnout remained constant, we would have seen over 5 million *more* votes.) Some of this is surely the result of ongoing voter-suppression efforts by the GOP, but I cannot believe that accounts for most of it. Maybe much of the country finally got that neither of the 2 major parties differs materially on all but the media-beloved hot-button issues intended to distract folks from the hard existential questions which both candidates did their best to avoid discussing.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;317943]Some of this is surely the result of ongoing voter-suppression efforts by the GOP, but I cannot believe that accounts for most of it.[/QUOTE]

That might be true, but it also implies that a lot of conservatives did not vote in this election.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;317943]Maybe much of the country finally got that neither of the 2 major parties differs materially on all but the media-beloved hot-button issues intended to distract folks from the hard existential questions which both candidates did their best to avoid discussing.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=rogue;317944]That might be true, but it also implies that a lot of conservatives did not vote in this election.[/QUOTE]

I think you're both right. My dad was raised in a heavily Democratic family (my grandpa believes in a 90% income tax rate) but became a Republican during college (he got a degree in economics, is now one of those oh-so-talked about "small businesses", and loves to complain about Obamacare;). He told me about a month ago that this year would be the first in something like 20-30 years where he wouldn't vote; he really doesn't like either candidate.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;317948](my grandpa believes in a 90% income tax rate) ..... he really doesn't like either candidate.[/QUOTE]

On the first quote- A 90% [I]top marginal rate[/I] prevailed in the Eisenhower era. It was still something like 70% in the Reagan years. Which way did general prosperity move in the first period? Where has it gone since the second?

I must say that I am not that fond of President Obama. Warrantless wiretaps and extra-judicial killings do not sit well. However, there was no choice when it comes to SCOTUS appointments. Obama's appointments so far are acceptable. I have strong suspicions that I would not have liked a President Romney's appointments.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;317943]Now that the vote counts are close enough to be final for the numbers to be no longer subject to major revisions, for me the most interesting statistic is that roughly 10 million fewer people voted in the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012]2012 election[/url] than did in [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008]2008[/url], despite the voting-age population having increased by a similar amount in the same time span. (I.e. had % turnout remained constant, we would have seen over 5 million *more* votes.) Some of this is surely the result of ongoing voter-suppression efforts by the GOP, but I cannot believe that accounts for most of it. Maybe much of the country finally got that neither of the 2 major parties differs materially on all but the media-beloved hot-button issues intended to distract folks from the hard existential questions which both candidates did their best to avoid discussing.[/QUOTE]

Way too early to be making these kind of broad claims, mail-in ballots and provisional ballots are still being counted. while over-all numbers may be down a little bit (probably more like 4 million less than 2008), battleground states saw increases in voting.

Voter suppression may have played a small role--but most of those efforts were thwarted (some only temporarily unfortunately) by the courts. Superstorm Sandy played a much bigger role, as did the very fact that this election focused so much on battleground states that many 'safe' state voters probably stayed home.

Add to that an uninspiring challenger and an incumbent with serious economic and policy issues and voter turnout was good (for America). I guess I'm saying I somewhat agree with you, but the difference isn't so great as you make it out to be.

Failures of web application that was supposed to be a key part of the GOP get-out-the-vote effort:

"ORCA (computer system)"

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orca[/URL]

[quote]. . .

The ORCA system had not received extensive [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_testing"]beta testing[/URL] before election day, nor did the campaign know how it would interact with the data infrastructure in the TD Garden until the day itself. Ekdahl said that he had raised concerns about the lack of testing beforehand: “Working primarily as a web developer, I had some serious questions. Things like 'Has this been stress tested?', 'Is there redundancy in place?' and 'What steps have been taken to combat a coordinated DDOS attack or the like?', among others. These types of questions were brushed aside (truth be told, they never took one of my questions). They assured us that the system had been relentlessly tested and would be a tremendous success." ...

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_X._Cringely"]Robert X. Cringely[/URL], writing in [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InfoWorld"]InfoWorld[/URL], concluded that "Everything in the Orca rollout went great, except for a failure to do any quality assurance, proof its documentation, or beta test in the seven months from conception to implementation. Whoever was behind Orca apparently also failed to hire a competent Web designer, anticipate server loads, beef up its bandwidth, or notify its ISP to expect a bump in traffic." Sean Gallagher of Ars Technica commented that the key failure was the dependency on automated testing rigs, which "can't show what the system's performance will look like to the end user. And whatever testing environment Romney's campaign team and IT consultants used, it wasn't one that mimicked the conditions of Election Day. As a result, Orca's launch on Election Day was essentially a beta test of the software – not something most IT organizations would do in such a high-stakes environment.“

. . .[/quote](* snort *)

[QUOTE=cheesehead;318175]Failures of web application that was supposed to be a key part of the GOP get-out-the-vote effort:

"ORCA (computer system)"

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orca[/URL]

(* snort *)[/QUOTE]

Well-chosen name for such a "killer" (whale) app.