If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WBUR Boston)   New NPR poll has Obama up 7% nationally, and 6% in the battleground states. Obviously, NPR hates America and Romey really has a shot of winning in a landslide of patriotism   (wbur.org) divider line 133
    More: Spiffy, President Obama, NPR, battleground state, exit polls, Stan Greenberg, swing vote, NPR poll  
•       •       •

949 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Oct 2012 at 8:51 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



133 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-03 10:27:11 AM

quatchi: It's what the moderates and independents make of the debate performance by both men that will count.


True. I remember watching CNN's coverage of the VP debate in '08. They had one of those focus group turn the knobby things for a group of independent voters in the studio. Everytime Biden talked, it went up over 50% and every time Palin talked... it'd bottom out. It's the independents that matter.
 
2012-10-03 10:27:23 AM
Heard this on NPR this morning, two things struck me as related and not talked about:
1. Lower numbers of voters are identifying as Republican
2. Romney has a 4 point lead with independents™
 
2012-10-03 10:28:42 AM

nyseattitude: MinatoArisato013: Anyone know who will be posting live streams of the debates tonight?


Youtube ABC News, Al Jazeera English, BuzzFeed, Larry King, New York Times, Phil DeFranco, Univision and the Wall Street Journal


Fox News also. I like to watch it on Fox News and open 7 or 8 windows to stream the video to they can pay for the extra data charges.
 
2012-10-03 10:29:49 AM

mrshowrules: nyseattitude: MinatoArisato013: Anyone know who will be posting live streams of the debates tonight?


Youtube ABC News, Al Jazeera English, BuzzFeed, Larry King, New York Times, Phil DeFranco, Univision and the Wall Street Journal

Fox News also. I like to watch it on Fox News and open 7 or 8 windows to stream the video to they can pay for the extra data charges.


Brilliant!
 
2012-10-03 10:32:33 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: This election is weird. Usually the side that's going to win in a blowout suffers from voter apathy, because why bother waiting in line if your guy is going to win anyways? Every Democrat I talk to seems more energetic the more likely it looks like Obama will win in a rout. It's this strange form of running up the score payback against Republicans.


I think that happens more on elections were economics are the key issues. Somehow the Republicans dropped the economic issues and went after every social issue not realizing it would fire up the Dem's base, push out women and Latino. Plus, those that vote conservative based on social issues are already a locked in constituency for the Republicans. Very few swing voters are going to be swayed by social issues as if those were their concerns they would be issue voters and not independents
 
2012-10-03 10:36:02 AM

Ernest T Bass: Minarets: vernonFL: Click / Clack 2012

Don't vote for my brother!
Don't vote for MY brother!

"Does your democracy not run as smoothly as it used to? Is your federal republic constantly being outperformed by lesser forms of government? Can't decide whether to junk it in or keep dumping money into it? Give us a call at 888-GOV-TALK, or write to us care of the Shameless Commerce Division here at the White House in our fair city." 

/got nuthin


www.threefingersofpolitics.com

Next up: Fox News investigates whether NPR has been infiltrated by Communist sleeper agents. They deny that they have been hiring Soviet spies, but wait until you hear what we learned about their recent hires for Car Talk: Chief Accountant Candace B. Rittenoff, Child Care Provider A. Hugh Nokitov, Customer Car Care Representative Haywood Jabuzoff, East Asian Used Car Expert Alexander Soldyernissan, Chauffeur Picov Andropov and Vacation Specialist Ivana Veekoff!

Up next, after the break!
 
2012-10-03 10:45:02 AM

Parthenogenetic: You know why NPR needs public funding? Because they suck. And don't say I should listen to them more, because I tried. Unlike liberals, conservatives are open-minded. So I decided to listen to them for just one day. They have a ridiculous affirmative action ethos that requires them to put people on the air that should never have a radio show. Like Tavis Smiley. Who's that, you say? Never heard of him? My point exactly. But he's got a talk show because he's black.


Your FACE needs funding.
 
2012-10-03 10:45:04 AM

Parthenogenetic: Lost Thought 00: This is why the GOP must outlaw public radio, to save us from partisan witch hunts like this.

It is literally unbelievable that anybody would trust National Public Radio as a news source. They are a government-run, union-infested, ultra-leftist, communist propaganda machine.

Of course they are going to support the Big Government candidate. They need a never-ending flow of funding from the government, paid for by taxes levied on the 53% of productive citizens they despise, in order to keep their stable of aging hippie "journalists" supplied with caviar, lattes, limousines, and marijuana.

You know why Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh don't need public funding? Because people like listening to them. Advertisers are willing to pay them good money to reach their massive audiences. They succeed because of the free market.

You know why NPR needs public funding? Because they suck. And don't say I should listen to them more, because I tried. Unlike liberals, conservatives are open-minded. So I decided to listen to them for just one day. They have a ridiculous affirmative action ethos that requires them to put people on the air that should never have a radio show. Like Tavis Smiley. Who's that, you say? Never heard of him? My point exactly. But he's got a talk show because he's black.

But the worst example of political correctness is that NPR actually allows a retarded person to have a radio show. AN ACTUAL RETARDED PERSON. I am referring, of course, to Diane Rehm, who would never survive in a free market environment. Give her a ten minute redeye slot on a local public access channel to make her feel empowered or something, but why put an ACTUAL RETARDED PERSON on a nationally aired program? I could only listen to her for about ten seconds before I burst out laughing and changed the channel to Neal Boortz, never to return.

Furthermore, thanks to an Income At Home.com ad I heard on Hannity, I now have a hugely successful distributorship ...


I blame my relatives for the fact that I suffered from Poe's law until I got to the bit about Income At Home. Well done.
 
2012-10-03 10:52:42 AM

Girion47: coeyagi: Girion47: Seeing as my state will be going Romney no matter what I do, I'm voting for Gary Johnson.


These debates are bullshiat until we get at least one third party in them.

Third party, yes, tard party, no. Voting Libertarian is like voting for a stoned version of Corky from Life Goes On.

Which one do you suggest? The Green Party? Nader tried and failed. At least if the Libertarian party can get 5% and it might, it can start making inroads against the major 2. Therefore, since my vote doesn't matter as far as the major 2 are concerned, I'm going to try and help a 3rd party out.


"Start making inroads"

The electoral college, how does it work?

"How'd we do?"
"We're up to zero EC votes"
"Inroads!"
 
2012-10-03 10:56:52 AM

Parthenogenetic: Suck it libs!


Absolutely fabulous!

\(^_^)/
 
2012-10-03 11:01:20 AM

Parthenogenetic: Lost Thought 00: This is why the GOP must outlaw public radio, to save us from partisan witch hunts like this.

It is literally unbelievable that anybody would trust National Public Radio as a news source. They are a government-run, union-infested, ultra-leftist, communist propaganda machine.

Of course they are going to support the Big Government candidate. They need a never-ending flow of funding from the government, paid for by taxes levied on the 53% of productive citizens they despise, in order to keep their stable of aging hippie "journalists" supplied with caviar, lattes, limousines, and marijuana.

You know why Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh don't need public funding? Because people like listening to them. Advertisers are willing to pay them good money to reach their massive audiences. They succeed because of the free market.

You know why NPR needs public funding? Because they suck. And don't say I should listen to them more, because I tried. Unlike liberals, conservatives are open-minded. So I decided to listen to them for just one day. They have a ridiculous affirmative action ethos that requires them to put people on the air that should never have a radio show. Like Tavis Smiley. Who's that, you say? Never heard of him? My point exactly. But he's got a talk show because he's black.

But the worst example of political correctness is that NPR actually allows a retarded person to have a radio show. AN ACTUAL RETARDED PERSON. I am referring, of course, to Diane Rehm, who would never survive in a free market environment. Give her a ten minute redeye slot on a local public access channel to make her feel empowered or something, but why put an ACTUAL RETARDED PERSON on a nationally aired program? I could only listen to her for about ten seconds before I burst out laughing and changed the channel to Neal Boortz, never to return.

Furthermore, thanks to an Income At Home.com ad I heard on Hannity, I now have a hugely successful distributorship ...


IT'S ALL THERE, BLACK AND WHITE, CLEAR AS CRYSTAL! YOU GET EVERYTHING! YOU WIN! GOOD DAY SIR! 

/ also, I read that last line as a "hugely successful dictatorship" and I was kind of confused at first
 
2012-10-03 11:04:50 AM

Parthenogenetic: Lost Thought 00: This is why the GOP must outlaw public radio, to save us from partisan witch hunts like this.

It is literally unbelievable that anybody would trust National Public Radio as a news source. They are a government-run, union-infested, ultra-leftist, communist propaganda machine.

Of course they are going to support the Big Government candidate. They need a never-ending flow of funding from the government, paid for by taxes levied on the 53% of productive citizens they despise, in order to keep their stable of aging hippie "journalists" supplied with caviar, lattes, limousines, and marijuana.

You know why Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh don't need public funding? Because people like listening to them. Advertisers are willing to pay them good money to reach their massive audiences. They succeed because of the free market.

You know why NPR needs public funding? Because they suck. And don't say I should listen to them more, because I tried. Unlike liberals, conservatives are open-minded. So I decided to listen to them for just one day. They have a ridiculous affirmative action ethos that requires them to put people on the air that should never have a radio show. Like Tavis Smiley. Who's that, you say? Never heard of him? My point exactly. But he's got a talk show because he's black.

But the worst example of political correctness is that NPR actually allows a retarded person to have a radio show. AN ACTUAL RETARDED PERSON. I am referring, of course, to Diane Rehm, who would never survive in a free market environment. Give her a ten minute redeye slot on a local public access channel to make her feel empowered or something, but why put an ACTUAL RETARDED PERSON on a nationally aired program? I could only listen to her for about ten seconds before I burst out laughing and changed the channel to Neal Boortz, never to return.

Furthermore, thanks to an Income At Home.com ad I heard on Hannity, I now have a hugely successful distributorship ...


www.memecreator.net
 
2012-10-03 11:08:07 AM

zedster: Heard this on NPR this morning, two things struck me as related and not talked about:
1. Lower numbers of voters are identifying as Republican
2. Romney has a 4 point lead with independents™


i865.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-03 11:32:38 AM

Parthenogenetic: Lost Thought 00: This is why the GOP must outlaw public radio, to save us from partisan witch hunts like this.

It is literally unbelievable that anybody would trust National Public Radio as a news source. They are a government-run, union-infested, ultra-leftist, communist propaganda machine.

Of course they are going to support the Big Government candidate. They need a never-ending flow of funding from the government, paid for by taxes levied on the 53% of productive citizens they despise, in order to keep their stable of aging hippie "journalists" supplied with caviar, lattes, limousines, and marijuana.

You know why Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh don't need public funding? Because people like listening to them. Advertisers are willing to pay them good money to reach their massive audiences. They succeed because of the free market.

You know why NPR needs public funding? Because they suck. And don't say I should listen to them more, because I tried. Unlike liberals, conservatives are open-minded. So I decided to listen to them for just one day. They have a ridiculous affirmative action ethos that requires them to put people on the air that should never have a radio show. Like Tavis Smiley. Who's that, you say? Never heard of him? My point exactly. But he's got a talk show because he's black.

But the worst example of political correctness is that NPR actually allows a retarded person to have a radio show. AN ACTUAL RETARDED PERSON. I am referring, of course, to Diane Rehm, who would never survive in a free market environment. Give her a ten minute redeye slot on a local public access channel to make her feel empowered or something, but why put an ACTUAL RETARDED PERSON on a nationally aired program? I could only listen to her for about ten seconds before I burst out laughing and changed the channel to Neal Boortz, never to return.

Furthermore, thanks to an Income At Home.com ad I heard on Hannity, I now have a hugely successful distributorship ...


7/10. Overplayed your hand in the past paragraph or two. Don't give up the game.
 
2012-10-03 11:59:05 AM

MisterRonbo: Girion47: coeyagi: Girion47: Seeing as my state will be going Romney no matter what I do, I'm voting for Gary Johnson.


These debates are bullshiat until we get at least one third party in them.

Third party, yes, tard party, no. Voting Libertarian is like voting for a stoned version of Corky from Life Goes On.

Which one do you suggest? The Green Party? Nader tried and failed. At least if the Libertarian party can get 5% and it might, it can start making inroads against the major 2. Therefore, since my vote doesn't matter as far as the major 2 are concerned, I'm going to try and help a 3rd party out.

"Start making inroads"

The electoral college, how does it work?

"How'd we do?"
"We're up to zero EC votes"
"Inroads!"


Any third party that is serious about becoming a contender needs to start in local elections, state elections, and House Representatives / potentially Senators.

You can't rocket straight to the Presidency, you have to lay the ground work. That takes decades of dedicated work, a populist agenda, and support - financial, voters, and volunteers.
 
2012-10-03 12:11:01 PM

EighthDay: MisterRonbo: Girion47: coeyagi: Girion47: Seeing as my state will be going Romney no matter what I do, I'm voting for Gary Johnson.


These debates are bullshiat until we get at least one third party in them.

Third party, yes, tard party, no. Voting Libertarian is like voting for a stoned version of Corky from Life Goes On.

Which one do you suggest? The Green Party? Nader tried and failed. At least if the Libertarian party can get 5% and it might, it can start making inroads against the major 2. Therefore, since my vote doesn't matter as far as the major 2 are concerned, I'm going to try and help a 3rd party out.

"Start making inroads"

The electoral college, how does it work?

"How'd we do?"
"We're up to zero EC votes"
"Inroads!"

Any third party that is serious about becoming a contender needs to start in local elections, state elections, and House Representatives / potentially Senators.

You can't rocket straight to the Presidency, you have to lay the ground work. That takes decades of dedicated work, a populist agenda, and support - financial, voters, and volunteers.


Or we could just get rid of the heavily flawed Electoral College
 
2012-10-03 12:27:34 PM

Girion47: Or we could just get rid of the heavily flawed Electoral College


Ahh, but then underpopulated states wouldn't be over-represented. The founding fathers would be aghast... unless of course today's America bore little resemblence to their America.
 
2012-10-03 12:47:34 PM

Girion47: if NPR would get rid of Diane Rehms I'd defend it as being more neutral than most, but that dryed up old coont biatch shouts down anyone's ideas that wouldn't be considered too liberal for San Francisco.

fark her.


She does what? Not in my hearing.
 
2012-10-03 12:52:53 PM

Alphax: She does what? Not in my hearing.


Yeah that Rehm has a voice like a mountain falling down, and doesn't hesitate to use it if you say something conservative.
 
2012-10-03 12:58:48 PM

nyseattitude: MinatoArisato013: Anyone know who will be posting live streams of the debates tonight?


Youtube ABC News, Al Jazeera English, BuzzFeed, Larry King, New York Times, Phil DeFranco, Univision and the Wall Street Journal


Thank you for that.

/really
 
2012-10-03 01:00:41 PM

Parthenogenetic: Lost Thought 00: This is why the GOP must outlaw public radio, to save us from partisan witch hunts like this.

It is literally unbelievable that anybody would trust National Public Radio as a news source. They are a government-run, union-infested, ultra-leftist, communist propaganda machine.

Of course they are going to support the Big Government candidate. They need a never-ending flow of funding from the government, paid for by taxes levied on the 53% of productive citizens they despise, in order to keep their stable of aging hippie "journalists" supplied with caviar, lattes, limousines, and marijuana.

You know why Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh don't need public funding? Because people like listening to them. Advertisers are willing to pay them good money to reach their massive audiences. They succeed because of the free market.

You know why NPR needs public funding? Because they suck. And don't say I should listen to them more, because I tried. Unlike liberals, conservatives are open-minded. So I decided to listen to them for just one day. They have a ridiculous affirmative action ethos that requires them to put people on the air that should never have a radio show. Like Tavis Smiley. Who's that, you say? Never heard of him? My point exactly. But he's got a talk show because he's black.

But the worst example of political correctness is that NPR actually allows a retarded person to have a radio show. AN ACTUAL RETARDED PERSON. I am referring, of course, to Diane Rehm, who would never survive in a free market environment. Give her a ten minute redeye slot on a local public access channel to make her feel empowered or something, but why put an ACTUAL RETARDED PERSON on a nationally aired program? I could only listen to her for about ten seconds before I burst out laughing and changed the channel to Neal Boortz, never to return.

Furthermore, thanks to an Income At Home.com ad I heard on Hannity, I now have a hugely successful distributorship ...


Is that a Star of David in one of those eagles or am I mixing up my stars again?

/it's a conspiracy I tells ya
 
2012-10-03 01:10:43 PM

Alphax: Girion47: if NPR would get rid of Diane Rehms I'd defend it as being more neutral than most, but that dryed up old coont biatch shouts down anyone's ideas that wouldn't be considered too liberal for San Francisco.

fark her.

She does what? Not in my hearing.


It was back during the 08 election. There was a very centrist republican on her show and he made what I felt was a very neutral statement, that happened to contradict some harebrained power play being made by Nancy Pelosi and Diane absolutely lost her shiat, ranted against the guy for a solid 5 minutes, and then disconnected him from the discussion. It was sickening. I haven't heard her go off like that in a while, but there are times where she just goes moonbat derptard liberal.

/I'm neither (R) or (D), just want a neutral source of news.
 
2012-10-03 01:12:37 PM

Parthenogenetic: i.imgur.com


Why doesn't that eagle have a tear in his eye you commie?
 
2012-10-03 01:13:01 PM

Gonz: Romey?


I roam around and round and round and round....
 
2012-10-03 01:46:40 PM

theknuckler_33: hillbillypharmacist: Phil Moskowitz: I wonder at what point they can say democratic voters got "complacent" and "didn't show up to the polls" and all electronic voting went for Romney.

Considering that in North Carolina Obama has a twenty point lead in early voting, that is pretty much going to have to happen for Romney to win.

To be clear, that is not ACTUAL results, but a poll of people who say that will cast early ballots. Just trying to keep things in perspective and avoid overconfidence in folks.


Cassandra here. I predict two possible things could happen between now and November:

1. The Republicans play up Mittens inevitable defeat so much that the Democrats become complacent and don't hit the polls in sufficient numbers to make a decisive Obama victory. Unlikely, because the electoral vote is not close; but it plays into:
2. The popular vote is very close and the Republicans, having laid the foundation for massive widespread voter fraud, demand suspension of the election until a national recount can be held, DESPITE the overwhelming electoral victory.

To keep that from happening, it's essential that there not only be a decisive electoral win, but also a decisive popular win, so that there is no repeat of the 2000 Florida debacle. For #2 to be possible, #1 has to happen, and the only way the Republicans can possibly do that is to play up the inevitability of Romney's defeat so much that Dems don't even bother voting. Now is not the time for certainty. Now is the time to bury them once and for all.
 
2012-10-03 01:47:10 PM

Girion47: Alphax: Girion47: if NPR would get rid of Diane Rehms I'd defend it as being more neutral than most, but that dryed up old coont biatch shouts down anyone's ideas that wouldn't be considered too liberal for San Francisco.

fark her.

She does what? Not in my hearing.

It was back during the 08 election. There was a very centrist republican on her show and he made what I felt was a very neutral statement, that happened to contradict some harebrained power play being made by Nancy Pelosi and Diane absolutely lost her shiat, ranted against the guy for a solid 5 minutes, and then disconnected him from the discussion. It was sickening. I haven't heard her go off like that in a while, but there are times where she just goes moonbat derptard liberal.

/I'm neither (R) or (D), just want a neutral source of news.


Odd. Her and most NPR hosts tend to follow the unwritten rule when I listen. If a Democrat says something, be skeptical. If a Republican says something, swallow it whole.
 
2012-10-03 01:52:56 PM

Mercutio74: Girion47: Or we could just get rid of the heavily flawed Electoral College

Ahh, but then underpopulated states wouldn't be over-represented. The founding fathers would be aghast... unless of course today's America bore little resemblence to their America.


The electoral college really is a f*cking disgrace. Let's see what the 2012 Republican platform has to say about it:

"The Continuing Importance of Protecting the Electoral College

We oppose the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or any other scheme to abolish or distort the procedures of the Electoral College. We recognize that an unconstitutional effort to impose "national popular vote" would be a mortal threat to our federal system and a guarantee of corruption as every ballot box in every state would become a chance to steal the presidency."


I love Hendrik Hertzberg's comment on this in the New Yorker:

"What's striking about this is, frankly, its stupidity. You don't have to be a mathematical genius to understand that it's easier to steal a little election than a big one. Under the status quo of ten battleground states and forty foregone-conclusion states, a few hundred or a few thousand finagled votes in a single state could be enough to flip the entire nation."


Link
 
2012-10-03 02:54:24 PM
Wow. Intrade just dropped 4 points to a 70% win for Obama. That's a big one day drop. Did they find the real "kill whitey" tape or are people thinking Romney's going to kick ass at the debate?
 
2012-10-03 03:28:06 PM

mrshowrules: Wow. Intrade just dropped 4 points to a 70% win for Obama. That's a big one day drop. Did they find the real "kill whitey" tape or are people thinking Romney's going to kick ass at the debate?


Profit taking. There's not much to be gained by holding on through the debate, but a whole lot could be lost. It's like selling the day earnings are announced after-hours when the stock price has been running up pretty solidly for a few weeks.
 
2012-10-03 03:33:54 PM

mrshowrules: Wow. Intrade just dropped 4 points to a 70% win for Obama. That's a big one day drop. Did they find the real "kill whitey" tape or are people thinking Romney's going to kick ass at the debate?


The media is going to declare Romney the winner if he doesn't barf on the podium.
 
2012-10-03 03:34:14 PM

incendi: mrshowrules: Wow. Intrade just dropped 4 points to a 70% win for Obama. That's a big one day drop. Did they find the real "kill whitey" tape or are people thinking Romney's going to kick ass at the debate?

Profit taking. There's not much to be gained by holding on through the debate, but a whole lot could be lost. It's like selling the day earnings are announced after-hours when the stock price has been running up pretty solidly for a few weeks.


Makes sense.
 
2012-10-03 05:28:59 PM

imontheinternet: FTFA: "When you sample voters over time, you inevitably get varying proportions of Democrats and Republicans in the sample. It's nothing nefarious, just the vagaries of sampling," Ayres said. "This sample ended up with seven points more Democrats than Republicans. In 2008, there were seven points more Democrats than Republicans in the electorate, according to exit polls. But in 2004, there were equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans."

Skewed, "scientific" polling techniques strike again.


The argument from the derp brigade is that "of course" turn out from Democrats is going to be lower this year than in 2012 for...some reason or another.
 
2012-10-04 05:35:41 PM
NPR is Pravda with nicer ties and more money. About as communist as Joe Stalin was and you expect me to not know they are lying as usual for their hand picked boy? Same red lies, different year.
 
Displayed 33 of 133 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report