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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Gallup reports President Obama's highest approval ratings ever. This is bad news...for Gary Johnson   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 66
    More: Spiffy, President Obama, Gallup, approval ratings  
•       •       •

2387 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Oct 2012 at 10:54 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-05 08:27:05 AM
That debate performance sure is hurting him...
 
2012-10-05 08:36:29 AM

xsive: That debate performance sure is hurting him...


This poll is based on a three-day average from Oct. 1-3 (i.e., before the debate), so it's virtually meaningless.
 
2012-10-05 08:37:55 AM

sigdiamond2000: so it's virtually meaningless


Please enlighten us more with your scientific insight in polling processes and statistics.
 
2012-10-05 08:41:45 AM

hinten: sigdiamond2000: so it's virtually meaningless

Please enlighten us more with your scientific insight in polling processes and statistics.


Someone sarcastically implied that this poll proves the debate performance didn't hurt Obama. This poll was taken before the debate. Therefore, this poll doesn't reflect public reaction to the debate.

What am I missing?
 
2012-10-05 08:44:10 AM

sigdiamond2000: xsive: That debate performance sure is hurting him...

This poll is based on a three-day average from Oct. 1-3 (i.e., before the debate), so it's virtually meaningless.


the poll is far from meaningless, its saying 54% of the country approve of the job he is doing.
 
2012-10-05 08:46:00 AM

xsive: sigdiamond2000: xsive: That debate performance sure is hurting him...

This poll is based on a three-day average from Oct. 1-3 (i.e., before the debate), so it's virtually meaningless.

the poll is far from meaningless, its saying 54% of the country approve of the job he is doing.



Maybe what I should've said was it's virtually meaningless with respect to any effect of the debate. That's what I meant.
 
2012-10-05 08:48:16 AM
Oh, snap.

sigdiamond2000: Maybe what I should've said was it's virtually meaningless with respect to any effect of the debate. That's what I meant.


As far as the debate, so people approved of the job he was doing as president before the debate, but the debate changed their opinion of how he has been doing his job up until now?
 
2012-10-05 08:48:29 AM

sigdiamond2000: xsive: sigdiamond2000: xsive: That debate performance sure is hurting him...

This poll is based on a three-day average from Oct. 1-3 (i.e., before the debate), so it's virtually meaningless.

the poll is far from meaningless, its saying 54% of the country approve of the job he is doing.


Maybe what I should've said was it's virtually meaningless with respect to any effect of the debate. That's what I meant.


yes, but what fun would that have been?
 
2012-10-05 08:51:58 AM
People mean a lot of things and say something completely different.
 
2012-10-05 08:57:50 AM
What an 'undecided' voter looks like

cache.ohinternet.com
 
2012-10-05 08:57:51 AM

WorldCitizen: Oh, snap.

sigdiamond2000: Maybe what I should've said was it's virtually meaningless with respect to any effect of the debate. That's what I meant.

As far as the debate, so people approved of the job he was doing as president before the debate, but the debate changed their opinion of how he has been doing his job up until now?


hinten: People mean a lot of things and say something completely different.



Jesus F*cking Christ.

I feel like I'm in a Miguel Cabrera/Mike Trout MVP discussion thread over in the Sports tab.

Did I f*cking say the debate changed people's opinion of Obama? I just pointed out the f*cking poll was taken before the debates happened. Is that statement of fact really that f*cking controversial? 

Would it make your tummies hurt less if I told you that I'm not voting for Mitt Romney?
 
2012-10-05 09:36:35 AM

sigdiamond2000: Would it make your tummies hurt less if I told you that I'm not voting for Mitt Romney?


No, thanks. You're good.
 
2012-10-05 10:00:14 AM

sigdiamond2000: it's virtually meaningless with respect to any effect of the debate


Agreed. Nate Silver is even saying it's too early to measure the effects of the debate. My guess is that it'll close the gap some, but not enough to change the outcome. Although stranger things have happened.
 
2012-10-05 10:19:32 AM

Introitus: What an 'undecided' voter looks like

[cache.ohinternet.com image 618x564]


Word. Worst AWs ever.
 
2012-10-05 10:35:18 AM

SmackLT: sigdiamond2000: it's virtually meaningless with respect to any effect of the debate

Agreed. Nate Silver is even saying it's too early to measure the effects of the debate. My guess is that it'll close the gap some, but not enough to change the outcome. Although stranger things have happened.


Apparently it cost him %0.04
 
2012-10-05 10:59:13 AM

WorldCitizen: so people approved of the job he was doing as president before the debate, but the debate changed their opinion of how he has been doing his job up until now?


Very possibly, yes. People are fickle
 
2012-10-05 10:59:24 AM

sigdiamond2000: WorldCitizen: Oh, snap.

sigdiamond2000: Maybe what I should've said was it's virtually meaningless with respect to any effect of the debate. That's what I meant.

As far as the debate, so people approved of the job he was doing as president before the debate, but the debate changed their opinion of how he has been doing his job up until now?

hinten: People mean a lot of things and say something completely different.


Jesus F*cking Christ.

I feel like I'm in a Miguel Cabrera/Mike Trout MVP discussion thread over in the Sports tab.

Did I f*cking say the debate changed people's opinion of Obama? I just pointed out the f*cking poll was taken before the debates happened. Is that statement of fact really that f*cking controversial? 

Would it make your tummies hurt less if I told you that I'm not voting for Mitt Romney?


No, you're still favorited green
 
2012-10-05 11:02:18 AM

SmackLT: sigdiamond2000: it's virtually meaningless with respect to any effect of the debate

Agreed. Nate Silver is even saying it's too early to measure the effects of the debate. My guess is that it'll close the gap some, but not enough to change the outcome. Although stranger things have happened.


That is assuming that Obama doesn't come roaring back in the next two debates. I can't believe that he will allow Romney to get away with the same crap as Weds night. If Obama is strongest in the last debate, which is mere days before the election, it will likely be the last image undecided voters have of Romney before they cast a vote.
 
2012-10-05 11:02:25 AM

sigdiamond2000: WorldCitizen: Oh, snap.

sigdiamond2000: Maybe what I should've said was it's virtually meaningless with respect to any effect of the debate. That's what I meant.

As far as the debate, so people approved of the job he was doing as president before the debate, but the debate changed their opinion of how he has been doing his job up until now?

hinten: People mean a lot of things and say something completely different.


Jesus F*cking Christ.

I feel like I'm in a Miguel Cabrera/Mike Trout MVP discussion thread over in the Sports tab.

Did I f*cking say the debate changed people's opinion of Obama? I just pointed out the f*cking poll was taken before the debates happened. Is that statement of fact really that f*cking controversial? 

Would it make your tummies hurt less if I told you that I'm not voting for Mitt Romney?


I once opined that Sharron Angle did not appear to be particularly crazy in a 30 second video clip wherein she was asked two questions. I feel your pain sir.
 
2012-10-05 11:02:35 AM

WorldCitizen: As far as the debate, so people approved of the job he was doing as president before the debate, but the debate changed their opinion of how he has been doing his job up until now?


People can be amazingly stupid. I think the first 8 years of the millennium decisively proved that.
 
2012-10-05 11:03:08 AM
I think this thread is already over
 
2012-10-05 11:03:51 AM
Ipsos online poll after the debate gives Obama a lead of 5.

Link

some undecided voters broke to Romney, but Obama didn't lose any support.
 
2012-10-05 11:05:04 AM
Has anyone considered that Obama performed poorly on purpose? His debate performance all but ensured that Karl Rove's money will continue to go to Mitt Romney instead of being funneled to the nationwide races for Senate and House of Representatives.

I know it's a bit of a long shot -- Obama would have to be downright Machiavellian to do something like that...
 
2012-10-05 11:05:27 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: WorldCitizen: As far as the debate, so people approved of the job he was doing as president before the debate, but the debate changed their opinion of how he has been doing his job up until now?

People can be amazingly stupid. I think the first 8 years of the millennium decisively proved that.


Don't forget the 2010 elections. Those were far stupider than Dubya.
 
2012-10-05 11:05:44 AM

SmackLT: sigdiamond2000: it's virtually meaningless with respect to any effect of the debate

Agreed. Nate Silver is even saying it's too early to measure the effects of the debate. My guess is that it'll close the gap some, but not enough to change the outcome. Although stranger things have happened.


Also agreed. I don't think polls that aren't meaningless with respect to any effect the debate had will be available before Sunday or Monday. And even then, those polls may also take into account the jobs report that shows sub-8% unemployment, so any bump Romney might get will likely be well within the margin of error.
 
2012-10-05 11:05:56 AM
99.9% of the population had their choice made before the debate. So although many farks were given, none of them mattered a damn.
 
2012-10-05 11:09:02 AM

Peter von Nostrand: SmackLT: sigdiamond2000: it's virtually meaningless with respect to any effect of the debate

Agreed. Nate Silver is even saying it's too early to measure the effects of the debate. My guess is that it'll close the gap some, but not enough to change the outcome. Although stranger things have happened.

Apparently it cost him %0.04


you mean %0.047?
 
2012-10-05 11:10:43 AM

DeltaPunch: Has anyone considered that Obama performed poorly on purpose? His debate performance all but ensured that Karl Rove's money will continue to go to Mitt Romney instead of being funneled to the nationwide races for Senate and House of Representatives.

I know it's a bit of a long shot -- Obama would have to be downright Machiavellian to do something like that...


I don't think so. I think he prepared to debate the Mitt Romney that's been on the campaign trail and was just completely thrown for a loop when Romney got up on that stage and just completely lied out his ass for two hours straight.

I feel like that should be no excuse, but what do you do in that situation? It's too formal to just to turn to him and bluntly point to the fact that he's just blatantly lying non-stop, but it's not formal enough that there was any chance of any impartial slap-down of Romney from some third party.

I would really have liked to see the moderator hammer him for his lies... but... again... what are you going to do when your opponent shows up and just completely changes his entire story and acts like he didn't even exist for the prior 6 months? 

/ a good "have you no shame, sir" moment would have been awesome
 
2012-10-05 11:11:41 AM

DeltaPunch: Has anyone considered that Obama performed poorly on purpose? His debate performance all but ensured that Karl Rove's money will continue to go to Mitt Romney instead of being funneled to the nationwide races for Senate and House of Representatives.

I know it's a bit of a long shot -- Obama would have to be downright Machiavellian to do something like that...


They have, and it's a really dumb theory to think he threw the debate. The only argument of that nature I'd give any chance of merit is the reason Obama didn't bring up the 47 percent comments, Romney's time at Bain, or Romney's taxes in any shape or form is he might want to lay into those in the town hall debate and he thinks repeating those criticisms repeatedly makes them less effective. Unlikely still, but more likely than "he wanted to lose so he could rope-a-dope."
 
2012-10-05 11:11:48 AM

DeltaPunch: Has anyone considered that Obama performed poorly on purpose? .


congrats. you and Bill O'Reilly are on the same page.
 
2012-10-05 11:12:56 AM
imageshack.us
 
2012-10-05 11:14:07 AM

SmackLT: sigdiamond2000: it's virtually meaningless with respect to any effect of the debate

Agreed. Nate Silver is even saying it's too early to measure the effects of the debate. My guess is that it'll close the gap some, but not enough to change the outcome. Although stranger things have happened.


Nate's analysis says that insta-polls after the debate doesn't usually correspond with a big gain for the "winner." Clinton benefited from a big gain after his big debate win...but he was already ahead. Obama kicked McCain's ass but McCain got a bounce. Gore beat Bush twice, but Bush gained after both of those debates

Indeed, Mr. Clinton increased his margin over Mr. Bush by about four percentage points in head-to-head polls immediately after that debate. Although Mr. Clinton lost some of that advantage during the remainder of the campaign, this is still a favorable precedent for Mr. Romney, since his 38-point margin of victory in CNN's poll on Wednesday night is similar to Mr. Clinton's 42-point win in that 1992 debate.

In several other cases, however, the instant-reaction polls did not correlate with the change in head-to-head polls. Before Wednesday night, the second-clearest margin of victory for a challenging candidate in the CNN poll came in 2008, when Mr. Obama was declared the winner of the third presidential debate by a 27-point margin. However, his opponent John McCain actually gained slightly in the polls instead just after that debate.

In 2000, CNN instant polls deemed Al Gore the winner of both the first and third presidential debates. But he lost about three points to George W. Bush in head-to-head polls after each of them. In 1996, Mr. Clinton was declared the winner of the first presidential debate in the CNN poll, but Bob Dole gained slightly in the head-to-head polls after that.

Over all, the relationship between the winner of the instant-reaction poll and the change in head-to-head polls is positive, although not statistically significant.


I look forward to the town hall debate, because Mitt Romney is so comfortable, relaxed and believable when he's in proximity to the 47%.
 
2012-10-05 11:14:53 AM

TimSTP: [imageshack.us image 694x519]


Kenya should be blue.
 
2012-10-05 11:16:13 AM

sigdiamond2000: hinten: sigdiamond2000: so it's virtually meaningless

Please enlighten us more with your scientific insight in polling processes and statistics.

Someone sarcastically implied that this poll proves the debate performance didn't hurt Obama. This poll was taken before the debate. Therefore, this poll doesn't reflect public reaction to the debate.

What am I missing?


You're not missing anything.
 
2012-10-05 11:20:15 AM

DeltaPunch: Has anyone considered that Obama performed poorly on purpose? His debate performance all but ensured that Karl Rove's money will continue to go to Mitt Romney instead of being funneled to the nationwide races for Senate and House of Representatives.

I know it's a bit of a long shot -- Obama would have to be downright Machiavellian to do something like that...


Meh, he could have had a bad night. Mitt had no choice but be his complete best considering how bad he was going into it.

What drives me nuts is how some people are getting concerned that the debate cost Obama the election. After all mistakes Mitt has done leading up to the debate and yet he's still in it, one bad night from Obama shouldn't destroy his chances.
 
2012-10-05 11:20:40 AM

DeltaPunch: Has anyone considered that Obama performed poorly on purpose? His debate performance all but ensured that Karl Rove's money will continue to go to Mitt Romney instead of being funneled to the nationwide races for Senate and House of Representatives.

I know it's a bit of a long shot -- Obama would have to be downright Machiavellian to do something like that...


Having worked with many candidates over the years, i cannot imagine a single one who would agree to the strategy "Ok, we want you to go out on stage in front of millions people and look like an idiot on purpose. This the greatest plan of all time!"

It is certainly possible that the unintented consiquence of the bad debate has the effect of what you describe. I've also seen conspiracy theories that their plan was to take a dive now to raise expectations for future debates where Romney falls flat after Obama fights back. Again, possibly that outcome will happen, but not due to an initial strategy of "Obama, intentionally fail at a debate."

Candidates a humans like the rest of us. They don't want to look foolish just as much as we don't want to look foolish. Though just like us, sometimes they do anyway.
 
2012-10-05 11:21:36 AM

DeltaPunch: Has anyone considered that Obama performed poorly on purpose? His debate performance all but ensured that Karl Rove's money will continue to go to Mitt Romney instead of being funneled to the nationwide races for Senate and House of Representatives.

I know it's a bit of a long shot -- Obama would have to be downright Machiavellian to do something like that...


I'm not sure if the intent is to funnel money to Romney, but I said yesterday that I think he's pulling a rope-a-dope. The campaign now has dozens of soundbites to mashup against Quantum Romney's alternate positions. Obama's playing the long game.
 
2012-10-05 11:22:02 AM

rufus-t-firefly:
I look forward to the town hall debate, because Mitt Romney is so comfortable, relaxed and believable when he's in proximity to the 47%.


At least he won't be able to constantly demand the last point, or talk over the moderator or that format.
 
2012-10-05 11:22:08 AM
Going in the right direction for the President, at any rate...

I think a lot of folks are going to be disappointed when the post-debate polls come out... And those people will mostly be Romney supporters.

Could be wrong, though.
 
2012-10-05 11:23:53 AM

SmackLT: sigdiamond2000: it's virtually meaningless with respect to any effect of the debate

Agreed. Nate Silver is even saying it's too early to measure the effects of the debate. My guess is that it'll close the gap some, but not enough to change the outcome. Although stranger things have happened.


All the historical data shows that the debates ultimately don't change the poll numbers this late in the game.

Romney may go up a point or so, but that's likely from undecideds who were leaning his way finally committing, not Obama losing votes because of his poor performance.
 
2012-10-05 11:24:42 AM
Jack Welch, (another deranged old fart) believes the dems rigged the unemployment data.

Also, the democratic unemployed were told to pretend they all had jobs. It's an 8 million person democrat conspiracy.

Bring in the storm troopers from Utah. This election's a fraud and is hereby .

All power to the Draft Dodger in Chief, direct heir of Josiah Smith, true prophet of god.

(where's my white horse?)
 
2012-10-05 11:25:27 AM

Glenford: DeltaPunch: Has anyone considered that Obama performed poorly on purpose? His debate performance all but ensured that Karl Rove's money will continue to go to Mitt Romney instead of being funneled to the nationwide races for Senate and House of Representatives.

I know it's a bit of a long shot -- Obama would have to be downright Machiavellian to do something like that...

I'm not sure if the intent is to funnel money to Romney, but I said yesterday that I think he's pulling a rope-a-dope. The campaign now has dozens of soundbites to mashup against Quantum Romney's alternate positions. Obama's playing the long game.


static.someecards.com

All that looking down Obama was doing? Writing down every lie Romney told in the first debate so he can bring a clear, concise argument against them next time. He played the Long game against McCain last time, he was reserved while he took in McCain's debating style.

/GOBAMA
//WOO I'M A LIBBY LIB LIB LIBERAL
 
2012-10-05 11:26:10 AM
Not behaving like a desperate jackass will do that.

54%?!?!?!?

And holy shiat. I thought he was still sub 50...
 
2012-10-05 11:27:51 AM

Glenford: I'm not sure if the intent is to funnel money to Romney, but I said yesterday that I think he's pulling a rope-a-dope. The campaign now has dozens of soundbites to mashup against Quantum Romney's alternate positions. Obama's playing the long game.


Yes there was some strategy to it. He baited Romney into giving specifics, which can only hurt. Either they're too extreme or they're the opposite of what he's said in the past. Now he has a bunch of soundbites directly from the horse's mouth on policy issues, which I'm sure we'll start seeing in ads...
 
2012-10-05 11:30:28 AM

Expolaris: TimSTP: [imageshack.us image 694x519]

Kenya should be blue.


I'm amazed there are even other countries shown. These guys only begrudgingly admit the world exists outside of the US.
 
2012-10-05 11:31:07 AM
Personally I don't think the debate actually mattered very much at all.

First of all, I think it's stupid to think that someone "wins" a debate. What happens generally is one of two things:

1) Someone really crumbles and says/does something stupid which gets turned into a news cycle, which then potentially moves opinion. George H.W. Bush checking his watch/Al Gore rolling his eyes and sighing at George W. Bush.

2) Someone says something really snarky/pithy/charming that gets turned into a news cycle, which then potentially moves opinion. Just pretty much look at any of Ronald Reagans debate performances really. That dude freaking mangled facts left and right during debates, but still walked away with the polling bump.

Let's be real objective about this first debate here. The expectations going in was that Obama would do really well and Romney would stink on ice. What happend instead is that they both did pretty ordinary.

Neither one of them walked away with a sound bite that has any legs for their campaign, so ultimately it was kind of a fail for everyone - which means probably a "win" for Obama. Romney needed to have his "There you go again..," moment, like Reagan had vs. Carter to pull something out of this, because let's face it - Obama just needs a push in the debates because he's ahead pretty far in most polls.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if his strategy is to just go for pushes. Making the debates as boring as possible probably mitigates alot of the risk that Romney might get a good response in that could turn into a real soundbite.
 
2012-10-05 11:31:43 AM

xsive: That debate performance sure is hurting him...


He is finally shedding that crippling 'intelligent' tag and connecting with the American voter.
 
2012-10-05 11:32:24 AM
Expolaris:

All that looking down Obama was doing? Writing down every lie Romney told in the first debate so he can bring a clear, concise argument against them next time. He played the Long game against McCain last time, he was reserved while he took in McCain's debating style.




OK, so I wasn't the only one that noticed that. Romney would turn 180 on one of his positions, or lie about something, and then that Obama smirk would make a momentary appearance as he appeared to be writing something down. All I could think of while watching the debate was "maybe he's writing down all the lies and is going to bring the mayhem in the closing statement." But holding them for the next debate or for some fun advertising space between debates makes a little more sense, as he would have time to process the BS.
 
2012-10-05 11:32:52 AM

Glenford: I'm not sure if the intent is to funnel money to Romney, but I said yesterday that I think he's pulling a rope-a-dope. The campaign now has dozens of soundbites to mashup against Quantum Romney's alternate positions. Obama's playing the long game.


Again, I know we all like to rationalize that somehow losing the debate was a massive strategic move in the long run since Obama's campaign has been remarkably good over the last year in keeping Romney off balance. But in this case, they simply lost the battle. I still think they win the war, but you can't win every battle.

Obama went in with the 'prevent defense' strategy, they had the strategy to look calm and collected and not be aggressive in the hopes that Indy voters would find the non-partisan nature more appealing that vicious partisan attacks. It was a strategic choice that ended up not paying off.

They certainly have the skills to win the next many battles between now and election day and win the war. But no need to have grand conspiracy theories of some ubber genius pulling the shots here.
 
2012-10-05 11:33:48 AM
Why isnt the lamestream media reporting on Mitt Romneys cheating.
 
Displayed 50 of 66 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report