Craig Helf
-
The Basics
-
Craig on Patch
-
More Stuff
Comments
-
On the Blog Post Presidential Promise Keepers
-
On the Blog Post Presidential Promise Keepers
Craig Helf
10:13 am on Sunday, September 23, 2012
I wouldn't take Morris too seriously. At this same point in 2008 Morris said McCain was poised to overtake Obama and would win by a huge margin. His assessment was way off. Pollsters know much better the mood of the voter. The live call pollsters can gauge the pulse and account for this in their numbers. Any pollster worth their weight will adjust for swaying. Pollsters do use 2008 but also figure in demographic changes as well as how cells have caused these changes. Robo/autodial pollsters do not reach the cell voters. Even Rasmussen shows Obama on a higher number in swing states than Romney. Unless the Republicans are now turning on the one pollster they always use as the example of correct polling, this should bode ill for Romney.
In this election most independents are already committed. They may swing back based on what happens between now and election day but are already picking their sides based on how things are today.
Morris' track record over the past few cycles leaves a lot to be desired. He is great at calling the obvious but has a horrible grasp of the fine details. We have a lot of time left on the clock and based on how things are now and the results of Romney to date, Republicans should be nervous - even on down ballots.
-
On the Blog Post Presidential Promise Keepers
Craig Helf
9:49 am on Friday, September 21, 2012
Tammy - come on be honest here. Romney is not an idiot. He used a number from several studies out there. The number refers to 46.4% of households in this country who do not pay income tax. He mischaracterized them as being dependent on government and therefore no hope for their vote. But when you look at the facts of the number he used, these people he referred to as not paying taxes do so because of the deductions and credits - many passed by Republican Congresses and signed into law by a Republican President. Go one further to see every Republican pundit that supported Romney's comments ran with this same logic and attacked this 46.4% as the reason we are in trouble and many more ran with the 'moocher' comment.
If you go back to the actual studies, half of that 46.4% are elderly households receiving breaks and deductions. Many more are households receiving credits and deductions from charitable, education, mortgage, and child credits. This actually includes me. I get back far more than I put in. I am a middle class producer working 60+ hours a week making a median income. I am very conservative. But according to the comments made by many on my side, I am a moocher. Well then if you take any deductions and credits out on your taxes, you are in this category as a moocher and a cause of America's financial problems as well. But no one wants to hear that. His point was clear. The source of his number is clear. He was appealing to the base but the base is part of the 46%.
-
On the Blog Post Presidential Promise Keepers
Craig Helf
2:23 pm on Thursday, September 20, 2012
Larry - the issue with those undecideds and those in the middle is that many are detached from the partisan side of things as well as the extremes of both sides. They typically vote for their self-interests - not necessarily "selfISH" but about their current state of affairs - jobs, education, healthcare, etc. They put things like marriage, abortion, Fast and Furious, foreign policy events in Iran and Libya, etc. all aside to a lower level of importance. Many live in the now. If they have no job or healthcare NOW, they are not too concerned with telling grandchildren 10, 20, or 30 years down the road why they voted a certain way.
I will also say that trying to pin down the 'undecideds' and those in the middle has become one of the most difficult things to do in politics. I know high pay 'experts' who cannot do this. Ideologies shift. Priorities shift. Circumstances shift. And then you have regional, cultural, etc. shifts as well. We can make broad generalizations on this group but it is foolish to do so. Some people who are deeply patriotic, flag-waving Americans are facing hard times and put paying bills and putting food on the table much higher than "Obama is turning us into a Marxist utopia" in a set of priorities. When they compare the two candidates, as I said before, they have the devil they know and one they do not - one who has done a poor job of selling his product - not good for a top notch businessman.
-
On the Blog Post Presidential Promise Keepers
Craig Helf
1:05 pm on Thursday, September 20, 2012
ReplyThe greatest problem with this election is how much is riding both economically and foreign policy-wise and you have campaigns more concerned with how evil the other side is. Mitt's problem is a campaign based on how bad/evil/corrupt/fill in the blank Obama is. Well with so much riding on it, people want to actually hear solutions rather than attacks. Maybe two cycles ago a strategy of "how bad the other guy is" might have worked. But the voter is a little more concerned about "can you do better?" than Obama has 666 tattooed on his scalp. Many of my clients are pollsters. They all see the middle as really wanting to hear specifics. They really do not want to gamble on someone who cannot articulate a solution. With many, they at least know what they are getting with Obama. They are unsure with Romney. Romney has talked tough, almost warlike, on Iran, Syria, Russia, and China. People are fatigued on war and sending troops all over the globe. Romney favors the tax breaks to companies to spur job creation - but these same breaks have been given since W's first term and have done very little. So people question continuing to do what has shown little effects. Many on my side will bring up the social issues - the middle is not really concerned about those...at least putting them on a lower tier. Most voters vote based on the wallet. And right now it looks like more vote for the devil they know rather than the one they don't. That is if Romney does little to spell out specifics.
-
On the Blog Post Quid Est Veritas? (What Is Truth?)
Craig Helf
1:44 pm on Thursday, April 12, 2012
ReplyAnother concern is a lack of desire to seek the truth. No one waited for facts to determine the truth before coming to their own conclusions. Little nuggets, most later proven untrue, trickled out. People took those nuggets that had no substance or credibility and determined their own truth. People had no care for facts. There was no "oops, I misinterpreted that info". It was complete bias coming in with what info they chose to cling to and then ranted based on that.
Even to this day, no one in the public arena has a clue what all happened. We have part of the story. But part can easily lead someone down the wrong path. And clearly, again, people don't care. The irony here is that people are screaming for justice. But those same voices have already convicted Zimmerman of murder and sat him in a virtual electric chair. Sadly the same voices convicting him are the ones in other instances that will cry "innocent until proven guilty". Without the full facts presented and due process of the courts, people have thrown out "innocent until proven guilty" and went the lynch mob route.
So yes there are two crises here: no one wants the truth to be known and no one desires to seek the truth - broad generalizations of course.
-
On the Blog Post What's a Christian to Do?
Craig Helf
6:52 pm on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
ReplySharon - to a certain extent that is true. But the issue with vouchers and religious schools is that once you accept federal or state money your institution must then comply with federal or state regulations. This means often having to accept policies that are counter to what your school believes. This means hiring, curriculum, etc. Any time religious universities accept federal grants or loans they have to comply with policies that are counter to their beliefs. Some of these schools have chosen to not accept money from these sources for that reason. So vouchers are not the fix-all solution to this issue. It just moves it into a new domain - a dangerous domain of what once was sheltered from "intrusion" to one "intrusion" that allows for imposing of the same ideas one may be fleeing from.
-
On the Blog Post Less Perfect. Less Valuable?
Craig Helf
3:56 pm on Monday, April 2, 2012
ReplyA personal decision. I hate to bring up the obvious here but someone is being left out of this personal decision. No voice. No protections. No due process. Worth of another human being is NOT subject to definition by another human being. For someone always ranting about imposing values, morals, etc. on others, it seems quite odd to say others, even if blood related, can say you are not worth living. Some of these tests are inconclusive and many cannot detect anything later in a pregnancy. So where are the exceptions? You see, there has to be some principle applied here. You can't just say "leave it up to the family". What in the case of a husband wanting birth and the wife not? Whether you like it or not Grant, this is an issue society has to take a stand on. I stand on the side that all life is precious. I stand on the side that all life should have equal protection under the law. You give this view on letting a family decide. How far along can they make this decision? ten weeks? Three months? Six months? Just before birth? After birth? What if the couple was poor and did not have access to elaborate testing but found out after birth this child had some disease they thought not worth living for the child? I can go on and on here. It's really easy to just say "let the family decide a private issue but in reality there are standards society MUST apply and this requires concrete examples and situations.
-
On the Blog Post Less Perfect. Less Valuable?
Craig Helf
1:13 pm on Monday, April 2, 2012
ReplyGodwin's Law gets a mention. Hurray! Sorry if it offends but this is in fact no different than the eugenics science espoused by Nazi doctors during the Third Reich. Feel free to rant on about the mention but it's cold, hard fact. David, I would suggest doing more research on what this science espoused. your assertion is inaccurate. What you've stated above as "burdens" are what many Nazi doctors experimented on and worked to "eradicate". Anyone with physical impairments, genetic defects, etc. would be eliminated. This science is far from just getting rid of Jews which in itself if horrendous. Downs, CP, and untold numbers of other diseases and impairments were a focus of Nazi science. Your views are in line with the views of these same doctors. So while you and Grant get a good laugh out of the term for Godwin's Law, it applies to you based on history and your own statements.
-
On the Blog Post Less Perfect. Less Valuable?
Craig Helf
10:42 am on Monday, April 2, 2012
"Unwanted children"...you do realize how many children are unwanted right? Are you sure you were a planned, wanted child yourself? This is where I get very testy to say the least on the whole "poor" argument. Margaret Sanger and the many other proponents of eugenics took the argument well beyond a biological burden due to disabilities. They added that poor families and single women who were pregnant required abortions because of the less desirables and burdens on society. I personally would fall into both of those groupings. Fortunately, my mother did not give in to the pressures placed upon her by her medical professional shortly after the Roe decision. And if this very flawed logic were applied, endless numbers of people who have IN FACT contributed to society would not be here.
As for your source Freakanomics I would beg to differ with this conclusion. It is difficult to say "what might have been" based on what did not happen in the first place. When there are no people to deduce stats on, it is hard to base a conclusion on that.
Again, I would like to ask for specifics from you David. You mention the affluent find ways to take care of their children. Please define poor and then ways to take care of their children.
Craig Helf
1:10 pm on Sunday, September 23, 2012
Well right now the hopes of the GOP taking the Senate are slipping. With poor candidates and a link to Romney, many races that were GOP givens have now flipped. A lot of polling on the House side shows Dems probably making gains and holding seats they were potentially losing in earlier in the Summer. Some of the pollsters I've spoken with are saying that independents and undecideds are not thrilled with Obama but Romney offers little more than how bad Obama is. As I've said before, people are not sure about taking a chance with Romney. It's the devil they know versus the one they don't.