Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Daily Mail)   This article from the Daily Fail says Mitt Romney has taken the lead in national polling, according to the "respected Rasmussen Reports"   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 474
    More: Fail, Mitt Romney, Daily Mail, Rasmussen Reports, lead in, Apopka, swing states, political satire, running mate  
•       •       •

2314 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Oct 2012 at 11:49 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-10-07 06:39:31 AM  
I bet Rasmussen's mom respects them.
 
2012-10-07 06:41:55 AM  
I only trust polls that were taken at the White House breakfast nook.
 
2012-10-07 07:00:24 AM  
Journalism 101: if the reporter uses the word "respected" without the prefix "once-" they need to go find themselves a job in public relations instead.
 
2012-10-07 10:26:13 AM  
 
2012-10-07 10:56:09 AM  
[Inigomontoya.jpg]
 
2012-10-07 11:11:46 AM  

aimtastic: Daily Mail Island


Excellent.
 
2012-10-07 11:37:20 AM  
They should ask Al Gore how much it means to have the popular vote lead.
 
2012-10-07 11:51:59 AM  
The media gets to pretend this is a close race, and the republicans get a brief moment of hope. It's nice for them, I guess.
 
2012-10-07 11:52:04 AM  
Dear Fark mods and members: stop submitting, approving and clicking Daily Mail links...

/Thanks
 
2012-10-07 11:52:06 AM  
So basically the poll from a couple days ago that told liberals what they wanted was fine but this poll is bad because it says the opposite.

By the way that would be Rasmussen which can say truthfully that they had the most accurate 2008 presidential poll.
 
2012-10-07 11:52:51 AM  

Girl From The North Country: They should ask Al Gore how much it means to have the popular vote lead.


Romney now up in most swing states but Ohio. Only down one there.
 
2012-10-07 11:53:50 AM  

randomjsa: So basically the poll from a couple days ago that told liberals what they wanted was fine but this poll is bad because it says the opposite.

By the way that would be Rasmussen which can say truthfully that they had the most accurate 2008 presidential poll.


Also most accurate for 2010 elections.
 
2012-10-07 11:53:52 AM  

Wolfy: Dear Fark mods and members: stop submitting, approving and clicking Daily Mail links...

/Thanks


Eh, pretty girls for the Entertainment tab are alright. As long as they stay away from politics.
 
2012-10-07 11:54:27 AM  
Which proves that with enough effort, you can manipulate any poll until you achieve the desired results
 
2012-10-07 11:55:32 AM  
you mean the same Rasmussen Reports that was one of the most accurate for the 2008 election?
Or from the 2004 election? " In 2004, Slate said they "publicly doubted and privately derided Rasmussen" polls because of the methodology. However, after the election, they concluded that Rasmussen's polls were the most accurate."

That one, or another one?
 
2012-10-07 11:55:37 AM  

MyRandomName: Romney now up in most swing states but Ohio. Only down one there.



Based on which polls?
 
2012-10-07 11:57:02 AM  

Wolfy: Dear Fark mods and members: stop submitting, approving and clicking Daily Mail links...

/Thanks


are you Drew, are you in charge of the content here? why don't you contact them directly vs. posting in the forum?
 
2012-10-07 11:57:43 AM  
To all the poll quoters: Mitt is at 35% on Intrade. Please go buy up a bunch of shares and get Obama down to 55% so I can make a bunch more money by Nov 7th. Thanks.
 
2012-10-07 11:58:40 AM  

MyRandomName: Also most accurate for 2010 elections.



LOL.

Nate Silver in 2010: On Tuesday, polls conducted by the firm Rasmussen Reports - which released more than 100 surveys in the final three weeks of the campaign, including some commissioned under a subsidiary on behalf of Fox News - badly missed the margin in many states, and also exhibited a considerable bias toward Republican candidates. ...Rasmussen's polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average

Hmmm, and 4 points is exactly the jump that they just gave Rmoney. What a farking coincidence.
 
2012-10-07 11:59:02 AM  

MyRandomName: Girl From The North Country: They should ask Al Gore how much it means to have the popular vote lead.

Romney now up in most swing states but Ohio. Only down one there.


oi46.tinypic.com
cache.ohinternet.com
 
2012-10-07 11:59:11 AM  

shower_in_my_socks: MyRandomName: Romney now up in most swing states but Ohio. Only down one there.


Based on which polls?


the left leaning "we ask America" polls.
 
2012-10-07 11:59:29 AM  
Many supporters of President Obama's re-election bid may be underestimating the damage caused by his performance in the debate last week, combined with the gains made by Mr. Romney due to his own performance.
 
2012-10-07 12:00:19 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: MyRandomName: Girl From The North Country: They should ask Al Gore how much it means to have the popular vote lead.

Romney now up in most swing states but Ohio. Only down one there.

[oi46.tinypic.com image 370x427]
[cache.ohinternet.com image 533x594]


How recently were the state polls conducted?
 
2012-10-07 12:00:31 PM  

aimtastic: Daily Mail Island


Amazing
 
2012-10-07 12:01:37 PM  
Assmunchin' Reports is the Fox News of polling agencies. You could get a survey that states 95% of blacks want the 13th Amendment overturned if you pay Assmunchin' their fee.
 
2012-10-07 12:01:53 PM  

Dimensio: How recently were the state polls conducted?



Someone is pulling state polling out of their asses. He's up just barely in Florida and Virginia. Everywhere else is still in Obama's corner until reliable polls show otherwise.
 
2012-10-07 12:02:09 PM  
I know this thread is completely toxic, because 5 out of 18 posts are highlighted in Troll Gray.
 
2012-10-07 12:02:31 PM  
That reminds me that I have money in my checking account now to spend on Obama merchandise.
 
2012-10-07 12:02:49 PM  
And Nate Silver correctly predicted 49 out or 50 state results in the 2008 election, only missing Indiana by giving it to McCain, and, obviously, correctly predicted the Obama win in the electoral college, which is the only win that matters..

Yet, somehow, the cons have been calling him a fraud since Obama has been his predicted winner all this election cycle.

Funny how that works.
 
2012-10-07 12:02:59 PM  

Dimensio: Many supporters of President Obama's re-election bid may be underestimating the damage caused by his performance in the debate last week, combined with the gains made by Mr. Romney due to his own performance.


That "47%" video is still out there. Romney's debate performance hasn't erased that from the Internet.
 
2012-10-07 12:03:21 PM  

Dimensio: Don't Troll Me Bro!: MyRandomName: Girl From The North Country: They should ask Al Gore how much it means to have the popular vote lead.

Romney now up in most swing states but Ohio. Only down one there.

[oi46.tinypic.com image 370x427]
[cache.ohinternet.com image 533x594]

How recently were the state polls conducted?


That's the current now-cast, updated last night. It's a conglomerate of state polls ranging up to 7 days, depending on the agency conducting them.
 
2012-10-07 12:03:36 PM  

Dimensio: Many supporters of President Obama's re-election bid may be underestimating the damage caused by his performance in the debate last week, combined with the gains made by Mr. Romney due to his own performance.


I'm mystified that anyone thinks Romney's performance was acceptable, let alone good.
 
2012-10-07 12:03:41 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: shower_in_my_socks: MyRandomName: Romney now up in most swing states but Ohio. Only down one there.


Based on which polls?

the left leaning "we ask America" polls.


Wiki:
"The Illinois Manufacturers' Association owns the for-profit subsidiary Xpress Professional Services, which conducts opinion polls through its polling organization, We Ask America.[25][26] The firm conducts automated polls and has been described as conservative leaning[27] and has received criticism for its methodology.[28][29]"
 
2012-10-07 12:04:21 PM  

BMulligan: I know this thread is completely toxic, because 5 out of 18 posts are highlighted in Troll Gray.


Lulz
 
2012-10-07 12:05:45 PM  

RyogaM: And Nate Silver correctly predicted 49 out or 50 state results in the 2008 election, only missing Indiana by giving it to McCain, and, obviously, correctly predicted the Obama win in the electoral college, which is the only win that matters..

Yet, somehow, the cons have been calling him a fraud since Obama has been his predicted winner all this election cycle.

Funny how that works.


At the time I went to bed the night of the 2010 elections he had also correctly predicted over 390 out of 398 HoR races that had been called.
 
2012-10-07 12:05:46 PM  
Things we can tell from this article:

--Rasmussen has a few more weeks before they start showing accurate results so they're not drummed out as being complete shills for the Republicans.

--Whatever debate victory (that was declared seconds after the debate ended) is now gone for Romney, lasting under twelve hours.

--The lowering of the unemployment rates pretty much destroyed the faux Republican confidence outright, resulting in bullshiat articles that bring up the debate 'victory' (again, that was immediately decided by the same Media that holds down Republicans) as the Republicans scramble madly for any foothold for their lies about the economy doing poorly.

In short, when we start seeing articles like this, the Republicans are trying to spin their way out of something. And that something is that their spin is badly out of date. Apparently their purity tests removed everybody with an ounce of ability and competence from their party.
 
2012-10-07 12:06:01 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: Based on which polls?


I'm going to guess these ones.

/NSFBrainCells.
 
2012-10-07 12:06:03 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: MyRandomName: Also most accurate for 2010 elections.


LOL.

Nate Silver in 2010: blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Hmmm, and 4 points is exactly the jump that they just gave Rmoney. What a farking coincidence.
vs. all the polls that oversample democrats?


hmmmm, one pollster criticizing another pollster. Go figure...
 
2012-10-07 12:06:04 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-07 12:06:32 PM  
Republicans and their forecasts are always so unbiased.

\
 
2012-10-07 12:06:47 PM  
Romney has found the sweet spot. An inverse correlation between truth and popularity is what makes conservatives candidates succeed. The more you lie and the bigger they are, the more popular you get with conservatives. Why? Because they don't live in the same reality as everyone else.

Their glass are so rose-covered trying to return 'Merica to "her former glory days" that they will deny all facts that don't fit their reality. It's making for good entertainment watching desperate cons scrambling for crumbs. Keep clawin', plebs.
 
2012-10-07 12:07:13 PM  
I love watching the cons get all excited. It'll only make election day that much bigger of a blow for them.
 
2012-10-07 12:08:01 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: hmmmm, one pollster criticizing another pollster. Go figure...


Silver isn't a 'pollster'. But you know this.
 
2012-10-07 12:08:16 PM  
What the hell is this crap about Rasmussen being accurate in 2008? Their polls were highly skewed towards McCain until right before the election. Anyone can predict the likely outcome the night before the election, but we aren't there yet and Rasmussen is still saying something completely different than all the other polling agencies. If Rasmussen comes out with a poll on November 4th or 5th saying Romney is ahead, then I'll worry, until then I really don't care what Rasmussen polls report.
 
2012-10-07 12:08:22 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: RyogaM: And Nate Silver correctly predicted 49 out or 50 state results in the 2008 election, only missing Indiana by giving it to McCain, and, obviously, correctly predicted the Obama win in the electoral college, which is the only win that matters..

Yet, somehow, the cons have been calling him a fraud since Obama has been his predicted winner all this election cycle.

Funny how that works.

At the time I went to bed the night of the 2010 elections he had also correctly predicted over 390 out of 398 HoR races that had been called.


Tonight, however, is not the "night of the 2012 elections". Mr. Silver has predicted a significant "bump" for Mr. Romney, though how significant that "bump" will be will not be evident until later this week.
 
2012-10-07 12:08:31 PM  

Alphax: Dimensio: Many supporters of President Obama's re-election bid may be underestimating the damage caused by his performance in the debate last week, combined with the gains made by Mr. Romney due to his own performance.

I'm mystified that anyone thinks Romney's performance was acceptable, let alone good.


They were going to declare victory in the first debate literally no matter what.
 
2012-10-07 12:08:56 PM  
Daily Mail has more hope for Romney becoming President than Romney's political strategist Ed Gillespie.

On This Week with George Stephanopoulos this morning in the middle of rambling on his talking points Gillespie started getting Freudian.

Gillespie stopped saying what they would do when Romney wins the election he started sayin IF they win the election. 

Nate Silvers latest poll numbers do show an incredible hit for the a President.
Obama will still win the Presidency. I am more concerned with the momentum.
The Congress will stay Republican. I was looking for the Presidents popularity to help keep the Senate. This is an incredible election.
 
2012-10-07 12:09:53 PM  
cdn.sportsmemorabilia.com

RIP Blair Rasmussen
 
2012-10-07 12:10:35 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Dimensio: Many supporters of President Obama's re-election bid may be underestimating the damage caused by his performance in the debate last week, combined with the gains made by Mr. Romney due to his own performance.

That "47%" video is still out there. Romney's debate performance hasn't erased that from the Internet.


I've been wondering about that. I remember before the debate when the Obama campaign put out that devastating ad that was essentially just playing the video back. Are they still airing it in swing states (I'm not in a swing state)?

It seems odd that Americans, who were apparently SO outraged at the 47% video that they practically gave the election to Obama in the polls, now appear to be handing their support back to Romney because he out-bullied in a debate.
 
2012-10-07 12:11:10 PM  

Dimensio: Many supporters of President Obama's re-election bid may be underestimating the damage caused by his performance in the debate last week, combined with the gains made by Mr. Romney due to his own performance.


Absolutely. But, Nate Silver continues to give Obama a 80% chance of winning in his forecast and a 90% chance of winning in his Nowcast. The Democrats optimism is still based in reality, whatever the results of the debate.

Yet, Cons wish us to believe we should be in some sort of panic, that the sky is falling, based on one poll, of popular vote, from a polling firm with questionable prior results. And their overwhelmingly irrational response to the new unemployment numbers is just icing on the cake. The Republican optimism at this point is unbelievably irrational.
 
2012-10-07 12:11:20 PM  

farkityfarker: I love watching the cons get all excited. It'll only make election day that much bigger of a blow for them.


This. So much this.
 
2012-10-07 12:11:23 PM  

Party Boy: [i.imgur.com image 383x810]



Silver has been saying that his model is probably too conservative right now in predicting the effect of Romney's debate "win." However, he's also not saying that his model is going to get blown apart by it once the polls have caught up with the debate impact next week. I think the race will get tighter still, but at the same time his model has always predicted things would get closer, but Obama still wins.

I think this one victory for Romney is too little too late.
 
2012-10-07 12:11:36 PM  

farkityfarker: I love watching the cons get all excited. It'll only make election day that much bigger of a blow for them.


THIS'd! Back in my pre-Internet days, I'd tune in to The 700 Club to watch Pat Robertson sh*t kittens the day after the election about Clinton winning in 1992. Now these days, I tune into Freepublic to read all of the HerpaDerps scream and wail.
 
2012-10-07 12:12:26 PM  

The Great EZE: TV's Vinnie: Dimensio: Many supporters of President Obama's re-election bid may be underestimating the damage caused by his performance in the debate last week, combined with the gains made by Mr. Romney due to his own performance.

That "47%" video is still out there. Romney's debate performance hasn't erased that from the Internet.

I've been wondering about that. I remember before the debate when the Obama campaign put out that devastating ad that was essentially just playing the video back. Are they still airing it in swing states (I'm not in a swing state)?

It seems odd that Americans, who were apparently SO outraged at the 47% video that they practically gave the election to Obama in the polls, now appear to be handing their support back to Romney because he out-bullied in a debate.


Yep. I'm in Florida. Still seeing it 4-5 times a day. They play it over a photo montage of "american heroes"...cops, soldiers, blue collar workers, and the like.
 
2012-10-07 12:12:28 PM  
BTW, any bettors know how much the official odds have changed since that debate? I know Obama's still winning, but I'm hoping he fell enough for a bet to be worth my time.
 
2012-10-07 12:12:28 PM  
My economist heart prefers to monitor Intrade and the Iowa Election Markets, which have been moving towards Romney since the debates. They tend to trail a little, as information filters through the electorate, but when money is on the line, people's true feelings tend to come out.

(Hey Drew - we should start a Fark election market, open to totalfarkers, with prizes being months of free TF!)
 
2012-10-07 12:12:55 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: ...they concluded that Rasmussen's polls were the most accurate."


Nate Silver has addressed this before. Rasmussen initially throws out garbage that supports their agenda and, as the election actually approaches, begins to show the reality of the situation. But their far-flung narratives in the week before? There's no excuse for their polls being so consistently different from everyone else.
 
2012-10-07 12:13:04 PM  

MyRandomName: Girl From The North Country: They should ask Al Gore how much it means to have the popular vote lead.

Romney now up in most swing states but Ohio. Only down one there.


Not according to 538.

Mitt moved from a 15% chance of winning to a 20% of winning.
According to my not GOP math that puts Obama at 80%. I am ok with those odds.

But Mitt did get a debate bounce. Good for him.
 
2012-10-07 12:14:31 PM  

Zoophagous: MyRandomName: Girl From The North Country: They should ask Al Gore how much it means to have the popular vote lead.

Romney now up in most swing states but Ohio. Only down one there.

Not according to 538.

Mitt moved from a 15% chance of winning to a 20% of winning.
According to my not GOP math that puts Obama at 80%. I am ok with those odds.

But Mitt did get a debate bounce. Good for him.


Mr. Silver has already stated that insufficient time has elapsed to accurately assess the significant bounce of Mr. Romney's chances of victory.
 
2012-10-07 12:15:10 PM  

Dimensio: Tonight, however, is not the "night of the 2012 elections". Mr. Silver has predicted a significant "bump" for Mr. Romney, though how significant that "bump" will be will not be evident until later this week.


Here's a clip from what he had to say yesterday:

More broadly, although it is clear that Mr. Romney has made gains, it is still too early to tell how long-lasting they might be. Many of the polls that showed the sharpest swing toward Mr. Romney were conducted on Thursday, immediately after the debate and on a very unfavorable day of news coverage for Mr. Obama, and will not yet reflect any change in voter sentiment from Friday morning's favorable jobs report.

Read the whole article and it explains a lot about any temporary bump and how Mr. Silver is doubtful that the bump that was seen was permanent, or how the shift in polls was even caused completely by the debate.
 
2012-10-07 12:15:51 PM  

Ricardo Klement: My economist heart prefers to monitor Intrade and the Iowa Election Markets, which have been moving towards Romney since the debates. They tend to trail a little, as information filters through the electorate, but when money is on the line, people's true feelings tend to come out.

(Hey Drew - we should start a Fark election market, open to totalfarkers, with prizes being months of free TF!)


Intrade Market Prices for General Election: Romney vs. Obama
Obama- 63.9 Romney- 35.8

huh?
 
2012-10-07 12:16:32 PM  

Dimensio: Many supporters of President Obama's re-election bid may be underestimating the damage caused by his performance in the debate last week, combined with the gains made by Mr. Romney due to his own performance.


The problem is that people always think they're a proper representative of a group. Because everyone the know is voting for Obama and because so many Farkers like Obama it means the guy is popular. Meanwhile the polling firm that is very accurate though slightly more supportive of Republicans is less accurate than the people who are highly inaccurate and always toward the Democratic candidate.
 
2012-10-07 12:18:52 PM  

Mrbogey: Dimensio: Many supporters of President Obama's re-election bid may be underestimating the damage caused by his performance in the debate last week, combined with the gains made by Mr. Romney due to his own performance.

The problem is that people always think they're a proper representative of a group. Because everyone the know is voting for Obama and because so many Farkers like Obama it means the guy is popular. Meanwhile the polling firm that is very accurate though slightly more supportive of Republicans is less accurate than the people who are highly inaccurate and always toward the Democratic candidate.


You missed Nate Silver's analysis on Rasmussen did you?
 
2012-10-07 12:19:51 PM  

Dimensio: Zoophagous: MyRandomName: Girl From The North Country: They should ask Al Gore how much it means to have the popular vote lead.

Romney now up in most swing states but Ohio. Only down one there.

Not according to 538.

Mitt moved from a 15% chance of winning to a 20% of winning.
According to my not GOP math that puts Obama at 80%. I am ok with those odds.

But Mitt did get a debate bounce. Good for him.

Mr. Silver has already stated that insufficient time has elapsed to accurately assess the significant bounce of Mr. Romney's chances of victory.


Right. So, why are the cons acting like this is some sort of significant win? Unless and until that 30% advantage of Obama is erased, and the lines cross, all the cons have is wishful thinking. And those lines have never even come close to crossing this election, ever. The cons are continuing to live in their own unreality.

And, why, now the Nate Silver is saying Romney will get a bump, is Nate Silver some sort of bellwether for the cons? They've been calling him a hack all election. One of them even did it in this thread.
 
2012-10-07 12:20:43 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: Party Boy: [i.imgur.com image 383x810]


Silver has been saying that his model is probably too conservative right now in predicting the effect of Romney's debate "win." However, he's also not saying that his model is going to get blown apart by it once the polls have caught up with the debate impact next week. I think the race will get tighter still, but at the same time his model has always predicted things would get closer, but Obama still wins.

I think this one victory for Romney is too little too late.


thanks for the update.

link and ill read it later.
 
2012-10-07 12:20:48 PM  

Mrtraveler01: You missed avoided Nate Silver's analysis on Rasmussen did you?


FTFY
 
2012-10-07 12:21:49 PM  

randomjsa: So basically the poll from a couple days ago that told liberals what they wanted was fine but this poll is bad because it says the opposite.

By the way that would be Rasmussen which can say truthfully that they had the most accurate 2008 presidential poll.


By the way, Rasmussen's last poll on the 2010 HI senate race had Inouye ahead by 13. He won by 53. That error of 40 points is the worst error in any poll ever recorded on 538 since 1998.

You are bad and you should feel bad.
 
2012-10-07 12:21:52 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Because everyone the know is voting for Obama and because so many Farkers like Obama it means the guy is popular. Meanwhile the polling firm that is very accurate though slightly more supportive of Republicans is less accurate than the people who are highly inaccurate and always toward the Democratic candidate.

You missed Nate Silver's analysis on Rasmussen did you?



Someone needs to explain math to Mrbogey. 538: "Rasmussen's polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average." That's not "4 points over Dem-biased polls" -- that's "4 points over REALITY." As in, when compared to the actual voting results.
 
2012-10-07 12:22:05 PM  
We also haven't seen polls taken after the new jobs numbers.
 
2012-10-07 12:22:13 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: Party Boy: [i.imgur.com image 383x810]


Silver has been saying that his model is probably too conservative right now in predicting the effect of Romney's debate "win." However, he's also not saying that his model is going to get blown apart by it once the polls have caught up with the debate impact next week. I think the race will get tighter still, but at the same time his model has always predicted things would get closer, but Obama still wins.

I think this one victory for Romney is too little too late.


Mr. Silver himself included a hypothetical "tightening" of polling in his November 6. prediction forecast, however the disparity of performances at the debate may cause poll adjustments beyond those anticipated.
 
2012-10-07 12:22:16 PM  
I can't believe we are this far into the comments and no one has mentioned the photo in TFA looks like Rmoney has ripped a big fart, is saying "Wow, did you hear THAT one?," and his wife has just smelled it.
 
2012-10-07 12:22:39 PM  
I heard that Mittens personally karate-chopped al Qaeda.
 
2012-10-07 12:22:39 PM  

Mrbogey: The problem is that people always think they're a proper representative of a group. Because everyone the know is voting for Obama and because so many Farkers like Obama it means the guy is popular. Meanwhile the polling firm that is very accurate though slightly more supportive of Republicans is less accurate than the people who are highly inaccurate and always toward the Democratic candidate.


Who was comparing Rasmussen's polling numbers just to their own peer group? I thought the more damning evidence was that every other polling number said something different, unless you are suggesting that the polling firm which is "slightly more supportive of Republicans" is accurate while all the other polling data isn't. And what exactly would you be making that judgement based on, your peer group?
 
2012-10-07 12:23:26 PM  
What I find ironic is Mitt's big line of the debate that the president isn't entitled to "his own facts" applies almost entirely to today's GOP which seems to think by biased polling, conspiracy theories and junk science that they're entiltled to their own reality. The farkin' GOP bubble is something to behold.
 
2012-10-07 12:23:45 PM  

Mrbogey: Dimensio: Many supporters of President Obama's re-election bid may be underestimating the damage caused by his performance in the debate last week, combined with the gains made by Mr. Romney due to his own performance.

The problem is that people always think they're a proper representative of a group. Because everyone the know is voting for Obama and because so many Farkers like Obama it means the guy is popular. Meanwhile the polling firm that is very accurate though slightly more supportive of Republicans is less accurate than the people who are highly inaccurate and always toward the Democratic candidate.


That would explain Rasmussen is the outlier in every poll. 

bigbaddie.com
 
2012-10-07 12:23:52 PM  
Next debate: Obama fires back at Romney.

Media and pundits: "Obama was just peevish and a bully. Romney wins again!"
 
2012-10-07 12:24:07 PM  

MontanaDave: I can't believe we are this far into the comments and no one has mentioned the photo in TFA looks like Rmoney has ripped a big fart, is saying "Wow, did you hear THAT one?," and his wife has just smelled it.


In our defense we didn't RTFA
 
2012-10-07 12:24:31 PM  

TV's Vinnie: farkityfarker: I love watching the cons get all excited. It'll only make election day that much bigger of a blow for them.

THIS'd! Back in my pre-Internet days, I'd tune in to The 700 Club to watch Pat Robertson sh*t kittens the day after the election about Clinton winning in 1992. Now these days, I tune into Freepublic to read all of the HerpaDerps scream and wail.


As someone that has spend years studying the herpaderp in its natural environment, what have you seen them offer as a reason that the world continues to fail to end, despite their predictions?
 
2012-10-07 12:24:33 PM  

Zoophagous: But Mitt did get a debate bounce. Good for him.


If you extrapolate the last week freefall from now to the election Obama will lose. Better hope Barry-O actually shows up for the next debate.
 
2012-10-07 12:25:25 PM  
E-C=F^2

Where

E= emperor
C= clothes
F= fail
 
2012-10-07 12:25:47 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: The media gets to pretend this is a close race, and the republicans get a brief moment of hope. It's nice for them, I guess.


It terrifies me. The narrative that the right has set up and the extremes they've pushed themselves to over the past decade or two have me worried that there will be a lot of misdirected rage and violence when they lose the election.
 
2012-10-07 12:26:36 PM  

MontanaDave: I can't believe we are this far into the comments and no one has mentioned the photo in TFA looks like Rmoney has ripped a big fart, is saying "Wow, did you hear THAT one?," and his wife has just smelled it.


She's just looking out at all the unwashed
 
2012-10-07 12:26:50 PM  
First time posting here. I always considered myself an independent but after 8 years with Bushiat, I decided to register Democrat and stay true to the blue. Will never go back.

I've been lurking on this forum, and I can promise all of you that you're fretting way too much and too soon. Yes, Obama blew it the other night, and not because he gave a less than stellar performance (and seem checked out), but because he and his staff underestimated the insane dissemination of information via social networks. It's a different arena than when he first competed and I'm sure he is smarting from the realization of this. After all, all he (his staff) has to do is go on Twitter and read what's trending to know this.

If you'll recall, back in 2008, Twitter was still in diapers. Now, everyone who is anyone has an account and even though many of them claim twitter is silly, they know it most certainly isn't. We are witnessing first hand how influential Twitter (FB, Reddit, PinInterest, etc.) are. In lieu of the media shaping our collective narrative (which they often do), now we have ourselves shaping how media shapes us, especially in an election year. I.e. - it's all one big continuous daily conversation in which information is spread faster than it can be gathered.

My point? Stop fretting. Tomorrow, it will be a different story. Tuesday, another and so on...until November 6th. We are riding a beast that we have taken part in creating and, yet, we seem to hide our eyes when we don't like what the beast is growling. Obama's performance wasn't up to par, a fact. Romney showed he could walk and talk without farting his usual gaffe, but only by lying through his teeth, a fact. In reality, where you know? - when you debate, you don't just lie, interrupt and speak rapidly? - he did not win. In reality, neither did Obama. But the beast has bellowed and we can't do anything about that now. Until something else catches all of our collective thoughts and opinions, shifting the beast back in the other direction, we Dems just have to suck it up and stay focused. Think positive and keep your conversations positive. If you do not, the beast may just decide to bite you this time. Think about that, especially when having any conversation on Twitter, Facebook, and, yes, even this forum.

So, to use the words of Ann Romney - "Stop it!!" (sorry, just had to go there).

President Obama will win reelection on November 6th. Think it. Believe it. Say it. Write it. Spread it.

Got it?
 
2012-10-07 12:26:52 PM  

Shaggy_C: Zoophagous: But Mitt did get a debate bounce. Good for him.

If you extrapolate the last week freefall from now to the election Obama will lose. Better hope Barry-O actually shows up for the next debate.


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2012-10-07 12:27:12 PM  

Dimensio: shower_in_my_socks: Party Boy: [i.imgur.com image 383x810]


Silver has been saying that his model is probably too conservative right now in predicting the effect of Romney's debate "win." However, he's also not saying that his model is going to get blown apart by it once the polls have caught up with the debate impact next week. I think the race will get tighter still, but at the same time his model has always predicted things would get closer, but Obama still wins.

I think this one victory for Romney is too little too late.

Mr. Silver himself included a hypothetical "tightening" of polling in his November 6. prediction forecast, however the disparity of performances at the debate may cause poll adjustments beyond those anticipated.


And so will the new jobs numbers. If you are thinking Romney is going to erase a major part of the 30% advantage to Obama, just say so. If you think the advantage will disappear, then say so. You are saying nothing while typing a lot. The reality is, Democratic optimism at this point, is based on reality, and con optimism is based on wishful thinking.
 
2012-10-07 12:27:27 PM  

RyogaM: And, why, now the Nate Silver is saying Romney will get a bump, is Nate Silver some sort of bellwether for the cons? They've been calling him a hack all election. One of them even did it in this thread.


It's like the BLS numbers.

The cons were so excited and gleeful when the numbers were in their favor like they were last month when job growth was less than expected (ie: the unemployment numbers were higher than anticipated).

But the second they disagree with their narrative, they're automatically discredited as biased and skewed.
 
2012-10-07 12:27:52 PM  

Blathering Idjut: What I find ironic is Mitt's big line of the debate that the president isn't entitled to "his own facts" applies almost entirely to today's GOP which seems to think by biased polling, conspiracy theories and junk science that they're entiltled to their own reality. The farkin' GOP bubble is something to behold.


That "your own facts" line was presumably one of those "Zingers™" that were scripted for Mitt. It was lame sauce.
 
2012-10-07 12:28:28 PM  

The Great EZE: TV's Vinnie: Dimensio: Many supporters of President Obama's re-election bid may be underestimating the damage caused by his performance in the debate last week, combined with the gains made by Mr. Romney due to his own performance.

That "47%" video is still out there. Romney's debate performance hasn't erased that from the Internet.

I've been wondering about that. I remember before the debate when the Obama campaign put out that devastating ad that was essentially just playing the video back. Are they still airing it in swing states (I'm not in a swing state)?

It seems odd that Americans, who were apparently SO outraged at the 47% video that they practically gave the election to Obama in the polls, now appear to be handing their support back to Romney because he out-bullied in a debate.


Its like the country is constantly destined to go right, like the right side is some zero energy default state. No matter how many mistakes Romney makes, it only slightly moves people further away. But Obama has a bad debate and people act like the election is lost.
 
2012-10-07 12:28:38 PM  

Blathering Idjut: What I find ironic is Mitt's big line of the debate that the president isn't entitled to "his own facts" applies almost entirely to today's GOP which seems to think by biased polling, conspiracy theories and junk science that they're entiltled to their own reality. The farkin' GOP bubble is something to behold.


Yes. It would be hilarious if there wasn't a good chance they were about to seize full control of the most powerful country on Earth.
 
2012-10-07 12:28:54 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: shower_in_my_socks: MyRandomName: Also most accurate for 2010 elections.


LOL.

Nate Silver in 2010: blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Hmmm, and 4 points is exactly the jump that they just gave Rmoney. What a farking coincidence.
vs. all the polls that oversample democrats?

hmmmm, one pollster criticizing another pollster. Go figure...


Nate Silver is not a pollster. Holy hell can you get anything right ever?
 
2012-10-07 12:29:25 PM  

RyogaM: Dimensio: shower_in_my_socks: Party Boy: [i.imgur.com image 383x810]


Silver has been saying that his model is probably too conservative right now in predicting the effect of Romney's debate "win." However, he's also not saying that his model is going to get blown apart by it once the polls have caught up with the debate impact next week. I think the race will get tighter still, but at the same time his model has always predicted things would get closer, but Obama still wins.

I think this one victory for Romney is too little too late.

Mr. Silver himself included a hypothetical "tightening" of polling in his November 6. prediction forecast, however the disparity of performances at the debate may cause poll adjustments beyond those anticipated.

And so will the new jobs numbers. If you are thinking Romney is going to erase a major part of the 30% advantage to Obama, just say so. If you think the advantage will disappear, then say so. You are saying nothing while typing a lot. The reality is, Democratic optimism at this point, is based on reality, and con optimism is based on wishful thinking.


I have never trusted myself to accurately predict outcomes of multi-variable scenarios. Prior to the debate, I had expected President Obama to be re-elected. Following the debate and the observation of recent poll data, I am less certain, though I do not necessarily expect a victory for Mr. Romney to be a certainty.
 
2012-10-07 12:29:39 PM  
images.enstarz.com

this is all people seem to remember from the debate.
 
2012-10-07 12:29:57 PM  
First time posting here. I always considered myself an independent but after 8 years with Bushiat, I decided to register Democrat and stay true to the blue. Will never go back.

I've been lurking on this forum, and I can promise all of you that you're fretting way too much and too soon. Yes, Obama blew it the other night, and not because he gave a less than stellar performance (and seem checked out), but because he and his staff underestimated the insane dissemination of information via social networks. It's a different arena than when he first competed and I'm sure he is smarting from the realization of this. After all, all he (his staff) has to do is go on Twitter and read what's trending to know this.

If you'll recall, back in 2008, Twitter was still in diapers. Now, everyone who is anyone has an account and even though many of them claim twitter is silly, they know it most certainly isn't. We are witnessing first hand how influential Twitter (FB, Reddit, PinInterest, etc.) are. In lieu of the media shaping our collective narrative (which they often do), now we have ourselves shaping how media shapes us, especially in an election year. I.e. - it's all one big continuous daily conversation in which information is spread faster than it can be gathered.

My point? Stop fretting. Tomorrow, it will be a different story. Tuesday, another and so on...until November 6th. We are riding a beast that we have taken part in creating and, yet, we seem to hide our eyes when we don't like what the beast is growling. Obama's performance wasn't up to par, a fact. Romney showed he could walk and talk without farting his usual gaffe, but only by lying through his teeth, a fact. In reality, where you know? - when you debate, you don't just lie, interrupt and speak rapidly? - he did not win. In reality, neither did Obama. But the beast has bellowed and we can't do anything about that now. Until something else catches all of our collective thoughts and opinions, shifting the beast back in the other direction, we Dems just have to suck it up and stay focused. Think positive and keep your conversations positive. If you do not, the beast may just decide to bite you this time. Think about that, especially when having any conversation on Twitter, Facebook, and, yes, even this forum.

So, to use the words of Ann Romney - "Stop it!!" (sorry, just had to go there).

President Obama will win reelection on November 6th. Think it. Believe it. Say it. Write it. Spread it.

Got it?
 
2012-10-07 12:30:16 PM  

MyRandomName: randomjsa: So basically the poll from a couple days ago that told liberals what they wanted was fine but this poll is bad because it says the opposite.

By the way that would be Rasmussen which can say truthfully that they had the most accurate 2008 presidential poll.

Also most accurate for 2010 elections.


You mean the year they were off by 40 points in the Hawaiian Senate race?
 
2012-10-07 12:30:32 PM  

RyogaM: Right. So, why are the cons acting like this is some sort of significant win?


Rightards think that even a win by a fraction of 1% is still not just a win, but a crushing mandate for their brutal policies. And believe me, they will be most eager to inflict those policies the very moment that they can.

They don't care if they're liked. All they care about is being in power. To them, the rabble can hate all they want, but they will be forced to obey.
 
2012-10-07 12:31:53 PM  
Sorry, I did the forum-newb thing and posted twice. If someone knows how to erase one, please let me know :)
 
2012-10-07 12:32:07 PM  
Romney's Big Bird assassination attempt negated any boost his lie-a-thon achieved.
 
2012-10-07 12:32:50 PM  

NeverDrunk23: The Great EZE: TV's Vinnie: Dimensio: Many supporters of President Obama's re-election bid may be underestimating the damage caused by his performance in the debate last week, combined with the gains made by Mr. Romney due to his own performance.

That "47%" video is still out there. Romney's debate performance hasn't erased that from the Internet.

I've been wondering about that. I remember before the debate when the Obama campaign put out that devastating ad that was essentially just playing the video back. Are they still airing it in swing states (I'm not in a swing state)?

It seems odd that Americans, who were apparently SO outraged at the 47% video that they practically gave the election to Obama in the polls, now appear to be handing their support back to Romney because he out-bullied in a debate.

Its like the country is constantly destined to go right, like the right side is some zero energy default state. No matter how many mistakes Romney makes, it only slightly moves people further away. But Obama has a bad debate and people act like the election is lost.


hollywoodhatesme.files.wordpress.com
"Your guilty consciences may force you to vote Democratic, but secretly you yearn for a cold-hearted Republican who'll cut taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king!"
 
2012-10-07 12:33:06 PM  

Charlotte Little: First time posting here. I always considered myself an independent but after 8 years with Bushiat, I decided to register Democrat and stay true to the blue. Will never go back.

I've been lurking on this forum, and I can promise all of you that you're fretting way too much and too soon. Yes, Obama blew it the other night, and not because he gave a less than stellar performance (and seem checked out), but because he and his staff underestimated the insane dissemination of information via social networks. It's a different arena than when he first competed and I'm sure he is smarting from the realization of this. After all, all he (his staff) has to do is go on Twitter and read what's trending to know this.

If you'll recall, back in 2008, Twitter was still in diapers. Now, everyone who is anyone has an account and even though many of them claim twitter is silly, they know it most certainly isn't. We are witnessing first hand how influential Twitter (FB, Reddit, PinInterest, etc.) are. In lieu of the media shaping our collective narrative (which they often do), now we have ourselves shaping how media shapes us, especially in an election year. I.e. - it's all one big continuous daily conversation in which information is spread faster than it can be gathered.

My point? Stop fretting. Tomorrow, it will be a different story. Tuesday, another and so on...until November 6th. We are riding a beast that we have taken part in creating and, yet, we seem to hide our eyes when we don't like what the beast is growling. Obama's performance wasn't up to par, a fact. Romney showed he could walk and talk without farting his usual gaffe, but only by lying through his teeth, a fact. In reality, where you know? - when you debate, you don't just lie, interrupt and speak rapidly? - he did not win. In reality, neither did Obama. But the beast has bellowed and we can't do anything about that now. Until something else catches all of our collective thoughts and opinions, shifting the beast bac ...


You can say THAT again.
 
2012-10-07 12:33:28 PM  

Charlotte Little: First time posting here.


Welcome to the politics tab. Have a beer:

www.scientificamerican.com

Though I'm not sure I agree with your premise - the election is not won and lost because of social media and the intarwebs. It's about people on the ground on election day.
 
2012-10-07 12:35:16 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Ricardo Klement: My economist heart prefers to monitor Intrade and the Iowa Election Markets, which have been moving towards Romney since the debates. They tend to trail a little, as information filters through the electorate, but when money is on the line, people's true feelings tend to come out.

(Hey Drew - we should start a Fark election market, open to totalfarkers, with prizes being months of free TF!)

Intrade Market Prices for General Election: Romney vs. Obama
Obama- 63.9 Romney- 35.8

huh?


I said they've moved towards Romney, not that they are now for Romney. Look at the price history.
 
2012-10-07 12:35:48 PM  

Mrtraveler01: RyogaM: And, why, now the Nate Silver is saying Romney will get a bump, is Nate Silver some sort of bellwether for the cons? They've been calling him a hack all election. One of them even did it in this thread.

It's like the BLS numbers.

The cons were so excited and gleeful when the numbers were in their favor like they were last month when job growth was less than expected (ie: the unemployment numbers were higher than anticipated).

But the second they disagree with their narrative, they're automatically discredited as biased and skewed.


Yep. I really don't get it. I've never defended Obama's debate performance. Reality is polling taken afterward said he lost. I've never said Romney didn't lie his ass off, the political factcheckers said that is reality. I don't doubt Romney got a bump, or that the job numbers are what they are, or that those numbers will effect the the election. That's reality. Obama can still lose, that is also reality. But, at this point, Nate Silver's numbers say that is not going to happen. To say otherwise, is to deny reality. Why people get off on pretending to deny reality just to play around on the internet is beyond my understanding. There is something wrong with people. Something very, very wrong with them.
 
2012-10-07 12:38:10 PM  

Gwyrddu: Who was comparing Rasmussen's polling numbers just to their own peer group? I thought the more damning evidence was that every other polling number said something different, unless you are suggesting that the polling firm which is "slightly more supportive of Republicans" is accurate while all the other polling data isn't. And what exactly would you be making that judgement based on, your peer group?


I'm making that judgement based upon past accuracy.
 
2012-10-07 12:38:14 PM  

Charlotte Little:
President Obama will win reelection on November 6th. Think it. Believe it. Say it. Write it. Spread it.>


"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." - Joseph Goebbels


Reiterated time and again by his protege - David Axelrod
 
2012-10-07 12:41:14 PM  

RyogaM: Dimensio: Zoophagous: MyRandomName: Girl From The North Country: They should ask Al Gore how much it means to have the popular vote lead.

Romney now up in most swing states but Ohio. Only down one there.

Not according to 538.

Mitt moved from a 15% chance of winning to a 20% of winning.
According to my not GOP math that puts Obama at 80%. I am ok with those odds.

But Mitt did get a debate bounce. Good for him.

Mr. Silver has already stated that insufficient time has elapsed to accurately assess the significant bounce of Mr. Romney's chances of victory.

Right. So, why are the cons acting like this is some sort of significant win? Unless and until that 30% advantage of Obama is erased, and the lines cross, all the cons have is wishful thinking. And those lines have never even come close to crossing this election, ever. The cons are continuing to live in their own unreality.

And, why, now the Nate Silver is saying Romney will get a bump, is Nate Silver some sort of bellwether for the cons? They've been calling him a hack all election. One of them even did it in this thread.


You won't see me doing that. Nate Silver is a very, very smart guy, and if you read his posts, he seems to me to be a man who loves polling for the science and values getting it right. His posts even suggest that Romney's bounce isn't done developing and his forecast for Obama has dropped significantly and he suggests could easily continue to drop. Nate Silver won't mind being wrong if he can identify what he missed before. He's a fanatic. God Bless him.
 
2012-10-07 12:41:26 PM  

Dimensio: I have never trusted myself to accurately predict outcomes of multi-variable scenarios. Prior to the debate, I had expected President Obama to be re-elected. Following the debate and the observation of recent poll data, I am less certain, though I do not necessarily expect a victory for Mr. Romney to be a certainty.


What do you want to happen? Seriously.

Because, if you are hoping for one outcome over the other, then your perception of data will be skewed and make you believe that event is more likely to happen. That is why you take your hopes out of it, and just look at the numbers. When Nate Silver comes back with a 55-45% chance of one or the other winning, then you make your prediction. until then, leave the predictions to those who have a 98% track record for accuracy. To expect a win or loss for your guy is irrational when the numbers are 80-20. That's reality. Now, if you don't want to live in reality, that's an option, too. No one will force you. But at least be honest about it.
 
2012-10-07 12:41:28 PM  
Romney not having a set persona and always changing positions is bizarrely creative way to pivot away when caught lying.

Romney's new political advertising use creative words to desensitize the Republicans and swing voters from Republican economic way of doing things

Republicans now say "Obamas trickle down approach to government"
to confuse the argument and neutralize the words.

This has Frank Luntz fingerprints all over it.
 
2012-10-07 12:43:24 PM  

Spanky_McFarksalot: [images.enstarz.com image 420x322]

this is all people seem to remember from the debate.


Generally this. Day one after the debate was Romney more or less cleaned Obama's clock. (Note we're not going into veracity of statements or anything here, just pure if these two guys are fighting it out up there who do you think won?)

But Romney decided to zing Big Bird. It was an unforced error, and more or less is the story that has legs, frankly the farther we get away from the debate the more likely people will believe Obama must have won because the only thing anyone remembers is Big Bird. (Why Mitt didn't take this opportunity to just flat out pick the 'we're not going to cut the subsidy because it's less than a drop in the bucket, I have no idea. Honestly I think the rabid "defund NPR and PBS" crowd are significantly smaller than the other wingnuts groups in the republican party. Hell I'd even suggest that even in that group, half of them only want to defund NPR.)

The fact that is the only thing everyone will remember is frightening.
 
2012-10-07 12:46:03 PM  

Ricardo Klement: You won't see me doing that. Nate Silver is a very, very smart guy, and if you read his posts, he seems to me to be a man who loves polling for the science and values getting it right. His posts even suggest that Romney's bounce isn't done developing and his forecast for Obama has dropped significantly and he suggests could easily continue to drop. Nate Silver won't mind being wrong if he can identify what he missed before. He's a fanatic. God Bless him.


And bless you as well. I agree totally. When and if Nate Silver shows a 5-10% advantage to Obama, I will be seriously unhappy. Not because I think Nate Silver is doing something wrong or fudging numbers, but because I fear he is right and I want my guy to win. I want to live in reality, even if it makes me unhappy. And you won't see me in here or anywhere pretending that Obama's chances are much greater than whatever Nate puts them at.
 
2012-10-07 12:46:33 PM  

Mrbogey: I'm making that judgement based upon past accuracy.


But Rasmussen wasn't accurate in the past, I remember their polls being highly skewed for Republicans in 2008 election as well. Just because they corrected by election night doesn't mean anything before that was in any way trustworthy.
 
2012-10-07 12:46:52 PM  

Charlotte Little: First time posting here. I always considered myself an independent but after 8 years with Bushiat, I decided to register Democrat and stay true to the blue. Will never go back.

I've been lurking on this forum, and I can promise all of you that you're fretting way too much and too soon. Yes, Obama blew it the other night, and not because he gave a less than stellar performance (and seem checked out), but because he and his staff underestimated the insane dissemination of information via social networks. It's a different arena than when he first competed and I'm sure he is smarting from the realization of this. After all, all he (his staff) has to do is go on Twitter and read what's trending to know this.

If you'll recall, back in 2008, Twitter was still in diapers. Now, everyone who is anyone has an account and even though many of them claim twitter is silly, they know it most certainly isn't. We are witnessing first hand how influential Twitter (FB, Reddit, PinInterest, etc.) are. In lieu of the media shaping our collective narrative (which they often do), now we have ourselves shaping how media shapes us, especially in an election year. I.e. - it's all one big continuous daily conversation in which information is spread faster than it can be gathered.

My point? Stop fretting. Tomorrow, it will be a different story. Tuesday, another and so on...until November 6th. We are riding a beast that we have taken part in creating and, yet, we seem to hide our eyes when we don't like what the beast is growling. Obama's performance wasn't up to par, a fact. Romney showed he could walk and talk without farting his usual gaffe, but only by lying through his teeth, a fact. In reality, where you know? - when you debate, you don't just lie, interrupt and speak rapidly? - he did not win. In reality, neither did Obama. But the beast has bellowed and we can't do anything about that now. Until something else catches all of our collective thoughts and opinions, shifting the beast bac ...


Farkin' Aye. "Forward."

/and Damn the Torpedos!

//Torpedoes? To-mate-to, To-matt-o...
 
2012-10-07 12:47:46 PM  
Shaggy C: the election is not won and lost because of social media and the intarwebs. It's about people on the ground on election day.

I concur. However, leading up to the election, social conversations help inform the MSM (a have a buddy who works at Google who has ensured me that there are full time positions created to scout trending news/opinions on Twitter before it ever reaches the MSM). In turn, the MSM can/does/will have an impact with the less informed in this country. I'm from the south where many people aren't on the web or if they are, they are reading forums less than social networks, so they simply eat up what the MSM tells them. Many of them likely didn't even watch the debate, but they have been hearing over and over and over again how Romney kicked Obama's ass (as if!) and so they believe it. Why do you think Romney is experiencing a bump in the polls?

We should never underestimate the stupid/uneducated/uniformed in this country. And don't even get me started on the racist/bigoted/sexist...
 
2012-10-07 12:48:21 PM  

Gwyrddu: Mrbogey: I'm making that judgement based upon past accuracy.

But Rasmussen wasn't accurate in the past, I remember their polls being highly skewed for Republicans in 2008 election as well. Just because they corrected by election night doesn't mean anything before that was in any way trustworthy.


I forgot about the election for Senate in Hawaii in 2010 but I now remember that one being off by 40 points in favor of the GOP candidate.

That's pretty skewed if you ask me (see what I did there?)
 
2012-10-07 12:48:42 PM  
These are the general election polling numbers which mean squat. I'll wait until the (non-Rasmussen) swing state numbers come out.
 
2012-10-07 12:49:08 PM  

RyogaM: Dimensio: I have never trusted myself to accurately predict outcomes of multi-variable scenarios. Prior to the debate, I had expected President Obama to be re-elected. Following the debate and the observation of recent poll data, I am less certain, though I do not necessarily expect a victory for Mr. Romney to be a certainty.

What do you want to happen? Seriously.


I want election season to end, as election seasons always cause my to suffer intense and irrational anxiety that I am able to mitigate only through excessive alcohol consumption.
 
2012-10-07 12:49:24 PM  
Rasmussen is the ONLY poll that Free Republic pays attention to. I love to put my waders on and go over there to read the poll threads. Quite amusing. 😀
 
2012-10-07 12:50:13 PM  

SithLord: Charlotte Little:
President Obama will win reelection on November 6th. Think it. Believe it. Say it. Write it. Spread it.>

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." - Joseph Goebbels


Reiterated time and again by his protege - David Axelrod


The Nazi card came out so quick , whole lot of Sith lord
 
2012-10-07 12:50:58 PM  

Charlotte Little: President Obama will win reelection on November 6th. Think it. Believe it. Say it. Write it. Vote it. Spread it.

Got it?


You forgot one really important one.
 
2012-10-07 12:51:22 PM  

Gwyrddu: Mrbogey: I'm making that judgement based upon past accuracy.

But Rasmussen wasn't accurate in the past, I remember their polls being highly skewed for Republicans in 2008 election as well. Just because they corrected by election night doesn't mean anything before that was in any way trustworthy.


Their exit polling was spot on.
 
2012-10-07 12:51:51 PM  

RyogaM: Nate Silver's numbers say that is not going to happen. To say otherwise, is to deny reality. Why people get off on pretending to deny reality just to play around on the internet is beyond my understanding. There is something wrong with people. Something very, very wrong with them.


wow. someone thinks Nate Silver is god.
 
2012-10-07 12:52:09 PM  

Whiskey Pete: These are the general election polling numbers which mean squat. I'll wait until the (non-Rasmussen) swing state numbers come out.


Same. 

Although I do expect the gap to close up a little, I think the jobs numbers from Friday might've slowed down the bleeding from the Obama campaign and hopefully Biden does a good job on Thursday and Obama does a good job on the last 2 debates to help make up for his lackluster performance last Wednesday.

/my two cents
 
2012-10-07 12:52:30 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Charlotte Little: President Obama will win reelection on November 6th. Think it. Believe it. Say it. Write it. Vote it. Spread it.

Got it?

You forgot one really important one.


That was the subliminal message I was sending. ;)
 
2012-10-07 12:53:02 PM  
lh6.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-10-07 12:55:21 PM  

colon_pow: RyogaM: Nate Silver's numbers say that is not going to happen. To say otherwise, is to deny reality. Why people get off on pretending to deny reality just to play around on the internet is beyond my understanding. There is something wrong with people. Something very, very wrong with them.

wow. someone thinks Nate Silver is god.


When one person has stood out for the last 4 years as the most accurate person in terms of predicting election outcomes, it makes sense to weight his word heavier than the word of someone else.
 
2012-10-07 12:56:19 PM  

colon_pow: RyogaM: Nate Silver's numbers say that is not going to happen. To say otherwise, is to deny reality. Why people get off on pretending to deny reality just to play around on the internet is beyond my understanding. There is something wrong with people. Something very, very wrong with them.

wow. someone thinks Nate Silver is god.


Why is it that anytime a conservative doesn't understand something scientific, they think a deity is involved?
 
2012-10-07 12:56:25 PM  

SithLord: Charlotte Little:
President Obama will win reelection on November 6th. Think it. Believe it. Say it. Write it. Spread it.>

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." - Joseph Goebbels


Reiterated time and again by his protege - David Axelrod


www.bitlogic.com
 
2012-10-07 12:57:13 PM  
Political junkies tend to fret and over analyze things like debates. My wife doesn't follow politics all that much and the only thing she knows about the debate is that Romney is gonna kill PBS. "That's retarded, why would I vote for someone that stupid". Romney "won" the debate but made the one soundbite worthy thing that will be said over and over again

The one thing Romney did do (but won't help him that much) is re-energize the right which will have a trickle down effect on the down ballot races
 
2012-10-07 12:58:37 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: colon_pow: RyogaM: Nate Silver's numbers say that is not going to happen. To say otherwise, is to deny reality. Why people get off on pretending to deny reality just to play around on the internet is beyond my understanding. There is something wrong with people. Something very, very wrong with them.

wow. someone thinks Nate Silver is god.

When one person has stood out for the last 4 years as the most accurate person in terms of predicting election outcomes, it makes sense to weight his word heavier than the word of someone else.


That's where you lose them. Sense has nothing to do with it.
 
2012-10-07 01:00:17 PM  

Blathering Idjut: What I find ironic is Mitt's big line of the debate that the president isn't entitled to "his own facts"....


It's not ironic, it's the standard operating procedure of the Republican campaign. You see it here incessantly: deny fact, aggressively assert untruths (without backing proof of course, leaving it to ''biased fact checkers'), but most importantly paint your opponents as deniers of facts and 'liers' They've taken politics beyond question of the best course of action for the nation to 'by any means necessary' for the party, once ironically the clarion call of furthest fringe left wing radicals.
 
2012-10-07 01:00:41 PM  

Girl From The North Country: That's where you lose them. Sense has nothing to do with it.


[sigh] I know. 

I'm more talking any sane people that may be easily influenced. I'm not really arguing with the person it appears.
 
2012-10-07 01:00:57 PM  

Charlotte Little: Don't Troll Me Bro!: Charlotte Little: President Obama will win reelection on November 6th. Think it. Believe it. Say it. Write it. Vote it. Spread it.

Got it?

You forgot one really important one.

That was the subliminal message I was sending. ;)


You have been favorited as a someone who actually has a brain in their head... Welcome to Fark!
 
2012-10-07 01:03:22 PM  
So Sarah Palin now presidunt?
 
2012-10-07 01:03:40 PM  

Charlotte Little: .....


Oh yes, and welcome.
 
2012-10-07 01:04:10 PM  
Big turn out: On Saturday Romney's campaign rally in Apopka, Florida is seen where hundreds turned out to hear the Republican presidential candidate speak

hundreds? you're a presidential candidate two days after winning your first debate and hundreds turn out at your rally. color me unimpressed.

and Rasmussen is a joke.
 
2012-10-07 01:04:28 PM  

Dimensio: RyogaM: Dimensio: I have never trusted myself to accurately predict outcomes of multi-variable scenarios. Prior to the debate, I had expected President Obama to be re-elected. Following the debate and the observation of recent poll data, I am less certain, though I do not necessarily expect a victory for Mr. Romney to be a certainty.

What do you want to happen? Seriously.

I want election season to end, as election seasons always cause my to suffer intense and irrational anxiety that I am able to mitigate only through excessive alcohol consumption.


Ah, well, carry on then. I'll continue to drink, minus the anxiety.

For now.
 
2012-10-07 01:04:28 PM  

Spanky_McFarksalot: [images.enstarz.com image 420x322]

this is all people seem to remember from the debate.


Good, cause that sums the whole thing up.
 
2012-10-07 01:04:39 PM  

Dimensio: Many supporters of President Obama's re-election bid may be underestimating the damage caused by his performance in the debate last week, combined with the gains made by Mr. Romney due to his own performance.


Given that most politicos have solid evidence that debates are just a tiny blip and haven't made much difference in the past, why should anyone be quick to assume this time is different?
 
2012-10-07 01:05:47 PM  

Smackledorfer: Dimensio: Many supporters of President Obama's re-election bid may be underestimating the damage caused by his performance in the debate last week, combined with the gains made by Mr. Romney due to his own performance.

Given that most politicos have solid evidence that debates are just a tiny blip and haven't made much difference in the past, why should anyone be quick to assume this time is different?


Well, he needs something to fap to.
 
2012-10-07 01:06:32 PM  
Well it's the exception, that's for sure...

Alphax: Dimensio: Many supporters of President Obama's re-election bid may be underestimating the damage caused by his performance in the debate last week, combined with the gains made by Mr. Romney due to his own performance.

I'm mystified that anyone thinks Romney's performance was acceptable, let alone good.


Because maybe 2% of the country knows how debates actually work/are scored, so Mitt going there and basically following none of the rules (including making stuff up on the spot) "looked" a lot better to the average uninformed voter.

What I can't believe is that people seem to forget there are two more of these. And that debates have rarely, if ever, made a tangible difference come election time.
 
2012-10-07 01:07:22 PM  
I remember a few of the talking heads saying that with only a few exceptions, that historically the debates have little impact on the election. Dunno if this is true or not.
 
2012-10-07 01:07:52 PM  

silo123j:

You have been favorited as a someone who actually has a brain in HERhead... Welcome to Fark!


Why thank you for the welcome - appreciate it. :) But I fixed the above for you. I wanted to point out that I'm a woman, and if you'd like some good news, we overwhelming prefer Obama according to most polls. I've been working my tail off trying to convince the females in my family, friends, co-workers, etc. to vote. Mostly, I get a strong "hell yes, I'm voting and not for that Romney!" back. In fact, just about every woman I know calls him "THAT" Romney (along with a few other choice words). Maybe it's a female thing?
 
2012-10-07 01:10:19 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Rightards think that even a win by a fraction of 1% is still not just a win, but a crushing mandate....


Unlikely, but they do think the correct marketing response is to create despair and disengagement by asserting it. Cheap and effective.
 
2012-10-07 01:11:30 PM  
Ah...

Charlotte Little: silo123j:

You have been favorited as a someone who actually has a brain in HERhead... Welcome to Fark!

Why thank you for the welcome - appreciate it. :) But I fixed the above for you. I wanted to point out that I'm a woman, and if you'd like some good news, we overwhelming prefer Obama according to most polls. I've been working my tail off trying to convince the females in my family, friends, co-workers, etc. to vote. Mostly, I get a strong "hell yes, I'm voting and not for that Romney!" back. In fact, just about every woman I know calls him "THAT" Romney (along with a few other choice words). Maybe it's a female thing?


I was speaking collectively from my farky...

But I am with you sister...

\pet peave?
\\ LOL
 
2012-10-07 01:11:51 PM  

MontanaDave: I can't believe we are this far into the comments and no one has mentioned the photo in TFA looks like Rmoney has ripped a big fart, is saying "Wow, did you hear THAT one?," and his wife has just smelled it.


Oh my god...her feet are HUGE!!!!

/and you are so very right
//thanks for the laugh!
 
2012-10-07 01:12:18 PM  
Well the popular vote is likely to be significantly closer than it was in 2008. I personally expect the EC to be significantly closer as well. That having been said, cooler heads will wait until about Tuesday afternoon before trying to gauge how much Romney's debate performance tightened the race. The real cool kids will wait until next Friday or so in order to ascertain how much the encouraging jobs data buffers Romney's gains.
 
2012-10-07 01:12:56 PM  

Charlotte Little: In fact, just about every woman I know calls him "THAT" Romney (along with a few other choice words). Maybe it's a female thing?


But I was told that women voters can't help fawning over sexist GOP
 
2012-10-07 01:13:33 PM  

Girl From The North Country: Don't Troll Me Bro!: colon_pow: RyogaM: Nate Silver's numbers say that is not going to happen. To say otherwise, is to deny reality. Why people get off on pretending to deny reality just to play around on the internet is beyond my understanding. There is something wrong with people. Something very, very wrong with them.

wow. someone thinks Nate Silver is god.

When one person has stood out for the last 4 years as the most accurate person in terms of predicting election outcomes, it makes sense to weight his word heavier than the word of someone else.

That's where you lose them. Sense has nothing to do with it.


To deny nate silvers numbers is to deny reality.

Cant you see how that sounds?
Cannot you hear how that looks?
 
2012-10-07 01:16:44 PM  
That's Absurd. Romney will not take the lead until Wed/Thur next week
 
2012-10-07 01:17:28 PM  

Charlotte Little: First time posting here. I always considered myself an independent but after 8 years with Bushiat, I decided to register Democrat and stay true to the blue. Will never go back.

I've been lurking on this forum, and I can promise all of you that you're fretting way too much and too soon. Yes, Obama blew it the other night, and not because he gave a less than stellar performance (and seem checked out), but because he and his staff underestimated the insane dissemination of information via social networks. It's a different arena than when he first competed and I'm sure he is smarting from the realization of this. After all, all he (his staff) has to do is go on Twitter and read what's trending to know this.

If you'll recall, back in 2008, Twitter was still in diapers. Now, everyone who is anyone has an account and even though many of them claim twitter is silly, they know it most certainly isn't. We are witnessing first hand how influential Twitter (FB, Reddit, PinInterest, etc.) are. In lieu of the media shaping our collective narrative (which they often do), now we have ourselves shaping how media shapes us, especially in an election year. I.e. - it's all one big continuous daily conversation in which information is spread faster than it can be gathered.

My point? Stop fretting. Tomorrow, it will be a different story. Tuesday, another and so on...until November 6th. We are riding a beast that we have taken part in creating and, yet, we seem to hide our eyes when we don't like what the beast is growling. Obama's performance wasn't up to par, a fact. Romney showed he could walk and talk without farting his usual gaffe, but only by lying through his teeth, a fact. In reality, where you know? - when you debate, you don't just lie, interrupt and speak rapidly? - he did not win. In reality, neither did Obama. But the beast has bellowed and we can't do anything about that now. Until something else catches all of our collective thoughts and opinions, shifting the beast bac ...


Wow...well said. My students and I just had this very same discussion last week about how the media is dealing with the Twitterverse and Facebook. The kids, many of whom have multiple Twitter/FB/Reddit/Pinterest accounts, were extremely uneasy about how fast things moved now. We compared how the interwebs reacted to the last election compared to this one, and they were completely flabbergasted at the amount of information that is out there and is growing.

Should we have been talking about commas and semicolons? Yeah, but they asked and honestly, I wanted to educate them because they will be voting in the next election.

/sometimes, being a teacher is a cool gig
//especially when you're a teacher and history happens right before you
 
2012-10-07 01:18:17 PM  

colon_pow: Girl From The North Country: Don't Troll Me Bro!: colon_pow: RyogaM: Nate Silver's numbers say that is not going to happen. To say otherwise, is to deny reality. Why people get off on pretending to deny reality just to play around on the internet is beyond my understanding. There is something wrong with people. Something very, very wrong with them.

wow. someone thinks Nate Silver is god.

When one person has stood out for the last 4 years as the most accurate person in terms of predicting election outcomes, it makes sense to weight his word heavier than the word of someone else.

That's where you lose them. Sense has nothing to do with it.

To deny nate silvers numbers is to deny reality.

Cant you see how that sounds?
Cannot you hear how that looks?


His numbers have been pretty reliable.

I have more trust in his work than I do "unskewedpolls.com" or some other fringe website.

Does that make me crazy?
 
2012-10-07 01:18:37 PM  

Spanky_McFarksalot: [images.enstarz.com image 420x322]

this is all people seem to remember from the debate.


Uh

/Big Bird makes more money than Romney and pays less in taxes...
//~$70 million per year with his buddies on the street.
 
2012-10-07 01:18:47 PM  

colon_pow: Girl From The North Country: Don't Troll Me Bro!: colon_pow: RyogaM: Nate Silver's numbers say that is not going to happen. To say otherwise, is to deny reality. Why people get off on pretending to deny reality just to play around on the internet is beyond my understanding. There is something wrong with people. Something very, very wrong with them.

wow. someone thinks Nate Silver is god.

When one person has stood out for the last 4 years as the most accurate person in terms of predicting election outcomes, it makes sense to weight his word heavier than the word of someone else.

That's where you lose them. Sense has nothing to do with it.

To deny nate silvers numbers is to deny reality.

Cant you see how that sounds?
Cannot you hear how that looks?


You sound like a tired shill, so of course you are misrepresenting what was said.
 
2012-10-07 01:19:04 PM  

colon_pow: RyogaM: Nate Silver's numbers say that is not going to happen. To say otherwise, is to deny reality. Why people get off on pretending to deny reality just to play around on the internet is beyond my understanding. There is something wrong with people. Something very, very wrong with them.

wow. someone thinks Nate Silver is god.


I know you're trolling, and go on with your bad self, and won't respond, but I'll bite.

My father told me a story about being alive in the 60's. See, when he was a young guy, there was all this debate about the Big Bang Theory and Steady State Theory, what was it real, how'd it occur, that sort of thing. Well, the thing was, if the Big Bang theory was right, there should be a way we could tell. The theory predicted that we should be able to find background radiation left over from the Big Bang, just hanging out there in the universe. Well, lo and behold, in about 1965, two guys found the background radiation, just as the theory predicted. And that, my father said, decided the debate for him. You make a prediction based on a theory, the prediction comes true, and your theory is validated. Nothing else needs to be said.

See, Nate Silver has a theory. He theorized that he could accurately predict the last presidential election results based on his formula. And, he correctly predicted 49 out of 50 state presidential elections in the last election, only missing Indiana, which he incorrectly gave to McCain. Just like the proponents of the Big Bang made a prediction that turned out to be correct, Nate Silver made 50 predictions, and only missed 1!

So, no, not god, but a guy with a theory that has been validated to such an extant that you have to be a sad individual to pretend it doesn't matter.
 
2012-10-07 01:19:42 PM  

colon_pow: Girl From The North Country: Don't Troll Me Bro!: colon_pow: RyogaM: Nate Silver's numbers say that is not going to happen. To say otherwise, is to deny reality. Why people get off on pretending to deny reality just to play around on the internet is beyond my understanding. There is something wrong with people. Something very, very wrong with them.

wow. someone thinks Nate Silver is god.

When one person has stood out for the last 4 years as the most accurate person in terms of predicting election outcomes, it makes sense to weight his word heavier than the word of someone else.

That's where you lose them. Sense has nothing to do with it.

To deny nate silvers numbers is to deny reality.

Cant you see how that sounds?
Cannot you hear how that looks?


As much as I like Nate Silver, Colop-Pow is right that it comes across as a little too much like Ex-Cathedra.
 
2012-10-07 01:19:48 PM  

Gwyrddu: Mrbogey: I'm making that judgement based upon past accuracy.

But Rasmussen wasn't accurate in the past, I remember their polls being highly skewed for Republicans in 2008 election as well. Just because they corrected by election night doesn't mean anything before that was in any way trustworthy.


It's still real to him dammit.
 
2012-10-07 01:20:30 PM  

Charlotte Little: silo123j:

You have been favorited as a someone who actually has a brain in HERhead... Welcome to Fark!

Why thank you for the welcome - appreciate it. :) But I fixed the above for you. I wanted to point out that I'm a woman, and if you'd like some good news, we overwhelming prefer Obama according to most polls. I've been working my tail off trying to convince the females in my family, friends, co-workers, etc. to vote. Mostly, I get a strong "hell yes, I'm voting and not for that Romney!" back. In fact, just about every woman I know calls him "THAT" Romney (along with a few other choice words). Maybe it's a female thing?


You have been labeled Awesomesauce Green and farkeyed "farking. AWESOME."

:o) Welcome to the Farks! Hope you've had your shots!
 
2012-10-07 01:20:44 PM  

Whiskey Pete: I remember a few of the talking heads saying that with only a few exceptions, that historically the debates have little impact on the election. Dunno if this is true or not.


When you consider that debates are really for undecided votes and there are never really as many undecided voters as it seems, there's credence to that.

BTW, isn't one of these debates going to be a town hall? I don't like the chances of sociopathic plutocrats in town hall debates. Bullying a housewife from Omaha won't play as well as bullying some PBS guy. Town halls also favor the candidate with the most capacity for sympathy. Didn't Clinton first "feel your pain" in a town hall?
 
2012-10-07 01:20:45 PM  

Ricardo Klement: colon_pow: Girl From The North Country: Don't Troll Me Bro!: colon_pow: RyogaM: Nate Silver's numbers say that is not going to happen. To say otherwise, is to deny reality. Why people get off on pretending to deny reality just to play around on the internet is beyond my understanding. There is something wrong with people. Something very, very wrong with them.

wow. someone thinks Nate Silver is god.

When one person has stood out for the last 4 years as the most accurate person in terms of predicting election outcomes, it makes sense to weight his word heavier than the word of someone else.

That's where you lose them. Sense has nothing to do with it.

To deny nate silvers numbers is to deny reality.

Cant you see how that sounds?
Cannot you hear how that looks?

As much as I like Nate Silver, Colon-Pow is right that it comes across as a little too much like Ex-Cathedra.


FTFM
 
2012-10-07 01:20:49 PM  

soy_bomb: I have no idea what the government contribution to the Corporation of Public Broadcasting goes to


FTFY

It doesn't go to Sesame Street, it goes to PBS affiliates so that people can get easy access to Sesame Street.
 
2012-10-07 01:21:35 PM  

soy_bomb: Spanky_McFarksalot: [images.enstarz.com image 420x322]

this is all people seem to remember from the debate.

Uh

/Big Bird makes more money than Romney and pays less in taxes...
//~$70 million per year with his buddies on the street.


That is just silly. You think puppets take in income?
 
2012-10-07 01:22:17 PM  

colon_pow: To deny nate silvers numbers is to deny reality.

Cant you see how that sounds?
Cannot you hear how that looks?


That there are a few well respected experts in a field of statistics who understand the math behind the polling numbers and have access to all the relevant data and have done numerous simulations to come up with a more accurate assessment of the odds in an election than most anyone else will, among the most prominent of them being Nate Silver.

It is sort of like how I trust the weather man to give an accurate prediction of the weather. The weather man isn't always right, but he is still more accurate than what anyone is going to guess on average by looking outside or reading a barometer.
 
2012-10-07 01:24:14 PM  

Bocasio: This has Frank Luntz fingerprints all over it.


Apologies if this had already been posted somewhere on this forum, but Luntz thinks Obama will win, even after the first debate results.

Bill Maher Battles Frank Luntz Over Obama, Romney, And 'Low-Information Voters' Posted to mediaite by Mediaite TV on October 05, 2012 s3.amazonaws.com Click to Play | View Details

(If the video doesn't work, here is a link: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-maher-battles-frank-luntz-over-obama-r omney-and-low-information-voters/ )
 
2012-10-07 01:24:24 PM  

coyo: colon_pow: Girl From The North Country: Don't Troll Me Bro!: colon_pow: RyogaM: Nate Silver's numbers say that is not going to happen. To say otherwise, is to deny reality. Why people get off on pretending to deny reality just to play around on the internet is beyond my understanding. There is something wrong with people. Something very, very wrong with them.

wow. someone thinks Nate Silver is god.

When one person has stood out for the last 4 years as the most accurate person in terms of predicting election outcomes, it makes sense to weight his word heavier than the word of someone else.

That's where you lose them. Sense has nothing to do with it.

To deny nate silvers numbers is to deny reality.

Cant you see how that sounds?
Cannot you hear how that looks?

You sound like a tired shill, so of course you are misrepresenting what was said.

Well, that was knee jerk of me. I had not read the very top part.
 
2012-10-07 01:24:25 PM  
Thread needs classic SNL quote:

"What's all this about a Presidential erection?"

/"Oh. Never mind!"

//Obscure? Not here
 
2012-10-07 01:27:18 PM  
Poll Tracker has Obama at 294 electoral votes, Romney at 191.
Republicans would dispute this by saying the polls are skewed.
Fark: By 103 electoral votes.
 
2012-10-07 01:29:10 PM  

The Great EZE: BTW, isn't one of these debates going to be a town hall? I don't like the chances of sociopathic plutocrats in town hall debates. Bullying a housewife from Omaha won't play as well as bullying some PBS guy. Town halls also favor the candidate with the most capacity for sympathy. Didn't Clinton first "feel your pain" in a town hall?


This. Romney's lack of sincerity and phony demeanor will kill him. Especially with the voters who vote viscerally.
 
2012-10-07 01:32:18 PM  

Altitude5280: Rasmussen is the ONLY poll that Free Republic pays attention to. I love to put my waders on and go over there to read the poll threads. Quite amusing. 😀


Isn't unskewed polls usurping Rasmussen over there?
 
2012-10-07 01:32:53 PM  
So is this the thread where we start taking bets?
 
2012-10-07 01:32:58 PM  

Mrtraveler01: soy_bomb: I have no idea what the government contribution to the Corporation of Public Broadcasting goes to

FTFY

It doesn't go to Sesame Street, it goes to PBS affiliates so that people can get easy access to Sesame Street.


So Mitt Romney is not going to kill Big Bird. Thanks for clearing that up. 

/If there was only another way to get easy access to Sesame Street
 
2012-10-07 01:36:42 PM  

soy_bomb: It doesn't go to Sesame Street, it goes to PBS affiliates so that people can get easy access to Sesame Street


The free market will solve all our problems, but most importantly, it will level the playing field between the very rich and the very poor.
 
2012-10-07 01:36:48 PM  

soy_bomb: /If there was only another way to get easy access to Sesame Street


Post on YouTube, use proceeds for new episodes. Economics as solid as Ryan's tax plan.
 
2012-10-07 01:40:31 PM  
"Not me, Mitt, the flag..."

i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2012-10-07 01:41:09 PM  

Gwyrddu: But Rasmussen wasn't accurate in the past, I remember their polls being highly skewed for Republicans in 2008 election as well. Just because they corrected by election night doesn't mean anything before that was in any way trustworthy.


They were tied for the most accurate in 2008. And hey, look at how national polling firms are starting to show a tightening in the race. They must be correcting themselves to better accurately reflect the statistical evenness of this race!
 
2012-10-07 01:41:34 PM  

tudorgurl: Should we have been talking about commas and semicolons? Yeah, but they asked and honestly, I wanted to educate them because they will be voting in the next election.


The teachers that actually impacted me were then ones that went against the rules a lot. Keep fighting the good fight.
 
2012-10-07 01:41:51 PM  

MSFT: soy_bomb: It doesn't go to Sesame Street, it goes to PBS affiliates so that people can get easy access to Sesame Street

The free market will solve all our problems, but most importantly, it will level the playing field between the very rich and the very poor.


And somehow, in spite of everything, there's people who actually believe this is true.
 
2012-10-07 01:42:55 PM  
Are these 'Rasmussen Reports" as non-partisan as the American Enterprise Institute, which a Romney ad I just saw portrayed as . . . wait for it . . . non-partisan?
 
2012-10-07 01:43:02 PM  

Mrbogey: They were tied for the most accurate in 2008


I like how liars keep selling this completely untrue line (since 2008 was much longer than a single week). It really shows you for the pathetic shill that you are.
 
2012-10-07 01:44:24 PM  

MSFT: soy_bomb: It doesn't go to Sesame Street, it goes to PBS affiliates so that people can get easy access to Sesame Street

The free market will solve all our problems, but most importantly, it will level the playing field between the very rich and the very poor.


img2-2.timeinc.net
 
2012-10-07 01:44:56 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: MSFT: soy_bomb: It doesn't go to Sesame Street, it goes to PBS affiliates so that people can get easy access to Sesame Street

The free market will solve all our problems, but most importantly, it will level the playing field between the very rich and the very poor.

And somehow, in spite of everything, there's people who actually believe this is true.


I don't know what to tell you, brother. We elected a doctor to the senate who believes the earth is ~6000 years old.
 
2012-10-07 01:47:21 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: I like how liars keep selling this completely untrue line (since 2008 was much longer than a single week). It really shows you for the pathetic shill that you are.


And yet facts directly contradict you.

www.rove.com

You must be a huge embarrassment for your parents. But luckily you have no shame so you crap you spew doesn't phase you one bit.
 
2012-10-07 01:48:06 PM  

Gwyrddu: That there are a few well respected experts in a field of statistics who understand the math behind the polling numbers and have access to all the relevant data and have done numerous simulations to come up with a more accurate assessment of the odds in an election than most anyone else will, among the most prominent of them being Nate Silver.

It is sort of like how I trust the weather man to give an accurate prediction of the weather. The weather man isn't always right, but he is still more accurate than what anyone is going to guess on average by looking outside or reading a barometer.


The current glut of willfully ignorant "conservatives" are masters of projection. They claim lefties "worship" people like Silver or Stewart because they themselves worship their politicians (Reagan) and talking heads (Limbaugh/Hannity/O'RLY/etc/etc/etc/itreallyisamazinghowmanythereare). They claim lefties are full of "hate" because they themselves are full of hate (for gays/liberals/illegals/etc/etc/etc/alsoamazingnumberofthings).

And since this particular slice of the right has completely detached themselves from reality, you can't pin them down because they'll either claim your source is in on the "conspiracy" (I can't tell you how many times I've seen Nate Silver referred to as a "partisan hack") or they'll just make up some crap then shout it over and over and over until you give up out of bewildered frustration.
 
2012-10-07 01:48:54 PM  

Bocasio: Republicans now say "Obamas trickle down approach to government"
to confuse the argument and neutralize the words.

This has Frank Luntz fingerprints all over it.


I'm glad I wasn't the only one to have caught that. Though, I wouldn't necessarily say it was Luntz- or Rove-ian, it was entirely too inelegant and forced. It was a savvy attempt, but thus far hasn't (and as far as I can predict, won't) gain traction as a meme, even without having been overshadowed by Big Bird and Romney's otherwise forgettable performance. It ought to say something that almost a week out, people still parrot that Romney won the debate but still can't really elucidate why, beyond Romney projecting a 'forceful' personality which was in itself more a function of Lehrer's poor moderation than anything relating to the candidates themselves.
 
2012-10-07 01:49:04 PM  
Obama is up 1.4% in RCP's poll average, down from about 3.4% before the debate.

On this day in 2004, Bush was up 1.8% in RCP's poll average, down from about 6% before the debate.

We all know what happened in 2004.
 
2012-10-07 01:49:19 PM  

soy_bomb: Mrtraveler01: soy_bomb: I have no idea what the government contribution to the Corporation of Public Broadcasting goes to

FTFY

It doesn't go to Sesame Street, it goes to PBS affiliates so that people can get easy access to Sesame Street.

So Mitt Romney is not going to kill Big Bird. Thanks for clearing that up. 

/If there was only another way to get easy access to Sesame Street


Well thank God we have people like you who aren't afraid to get tough on the budget (by cutting 0.012% of it).
 
2012-10-07 01:49:48 PM  
Mitt Romney's commanding performance in Wednesday night's first presidential debate...

Seriously, if THIS is what excites us about a debate, we're in trouble, Romney was Romney. It looks like his emotion firmware was updated, but he still seems to be running on on obsolete version. He did nothing but deny the very things he has been campaigning on for the last 6 months, and continually talked over the moderator.

Obama, on the other hand, was a little flat. He didn't "bomb", he just didn't come out and wipe the floor with Romney like many expected, there's a huge difference. For the most part, Obama seems to have left HIS emotional response in his other pants, which is why he came across as flat. He was as far from being "dominated" as Mitt was from "dominating" anything, though.

Neither candidate was anything to writ home about, and if the only reason the MittBotts are claiming that their man one is because he finally let personality slip through, then it just reinforces my opinion of the low bar they've set for Mitt to "impress" them.
 
2012-10-07 01:49:53 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Not me, Mitt, the flag..."

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x429]


Let's see the Right Wing get outraged over this.... oh wait, they only get outraged if a Democrat does something
 
2012-10-07 01:50:03 PM  

Mrbogey: A Dark Evil Omen: I like how liars keep selling this completely untrue line (since 2008 was much longer than a single week). It really shows you for the pathetic shill that you are.

And yet facts directly contradict you.

[www.rove.com image 500x403]

You must be a huge embarrassment for your parents. But luckily you have no shame so you crap you spew doesn't phase you one bit.


And yet, 2008 was much longer than a single week and every other poll they did was massively off. But you know that, you pathetic shill.
 
2012-10-07 01:50:24 PM  

Mrbogey: A Dark Evil Omen: I like how liars keep selling this completely untrue line (since 2008 was much longer than a single week). It really shows you for the pathetic shill that you are.

And yet facts directly contradict you.

[www.rove.com image 500x403]

You must be a huge embarrassment for your parents. But luckily you have no shame so you crap you spew doesn't phase you one bit.


You know that's based on one poll right?

You do know that prior to that, the polls heavily skewed toward the Republican in comparison with their counterparts in the polling industry right?
 
2012-10-07 01:50:42 PM  

aimtastic: Daily Mail Island


wow, just wow. that's hilarious!!!
 
2012-10-07 01:51:04 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: picture of the human thumb


Pretty much sums up our society. Shallow, self-indulgent and intellectually incurious.
 
2012-10-07 01:51:09 PM  

Girl From The North Country: They should ask Al Gore how much it means to have the popular vote lead.


If the Republicans win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote, I wouldn't put it past them to find a way to dismiss the electoral vote and install their guy. Remember, 5 out of 4 SC justices are largely conservative.
 
2012-10-07 01:51:12 PM  
i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-10-07 01:51:54 PM  

elchip: Obama is up 1.4% in RCP's poll average, down from about 3.4% before the debate.

On this day in 2004, Bush was up 1.8% in RCP's poll average, down from about 6% before the debate.

We all know what happened in 2004.


there you go with that b.b.b.Bush crap. is there anything you libs won't blame him for?
 
2012-10-07 01:52:13 PM  
And, sorry to double post here, but I thought I'd make another comment here.

Obama still has a lead in Ohio well outside the margin of error. There is no plausible electoral college outcome that has Romney winning without Ohio. That is all that matters.
 
2012-10-07 01:53:25 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: And yet, 2008 was much longer than a single week and every other poll they did was massively off. But you know that, you pathetic shill.


Hey, dumbass, elections are a single day. They're a snapshot of a current mood. Before and after that, the mood shifts. It's not static across the entire year. As campaigns run their course they pick up and lose voters.

And you're surprised that polls shift? I know you're dumb. I know you're a partisan. And I'm sure pointing out this fact will not shift your view a single bit. You're a shining testament to online stupidity.
 
2012-10-07 01:53:48 PM  

Seabon: Remember, 5 out of 4 SC justices are largely conservative.


yeah, that really worked for striking down Obamacare.
 
2012-10-07 01:54:03 PM  

that bosnian sniper: And, sorry to double post here, but I thought I'd make another comment here.

Obama still has a lead in Ohio well outside the margin of error. There is no plausible electoral college outcome that has Romney winning without Ohio. That is all that matters.


He could win PA instead, right?

Which, granted, is probably harder than Ohio.
 
2012-10-07 01:54:33 PM  
Republicans are lying about the poll numbers (while also insisting polls don't matter), lying about Mitt's Romney's debate lying, lying about the economic numbers released late last week and lying about Barack Obama.

I think, for the first time in history, we're seeing a presidential campaign that is fueled exclusively by lies. It really is something to behold. The republicans have gone from being dishonest to being seemingly outright allergic to the truth. Amazing. A campaign that has become nothing but lies. 

If you are a republican, the only safe assumption we can make anymore is that you are devoted to doing nothing but lying when talking about politics or the economy. Republicans are all liars, exclusively liars. It's insane.
 
2012-10-07 01:54:33 PM  
You know, before this "debate" I was worried about a shortage of schadenfreude on election night.

Now I see that will not be a problem.
 
2012-10-07 01:54:48 PM  

elchip:
We all know what happened in 2004.


I certainly do.
graphics8.nytimes.com
 
2012-10-07 01:54:56 PM  

RyogaM: colon_pow: RyogaM: Nate Silver's numbers say that is not going to happen. To say otherwise, is to deny reality. Why people get off on pretending to deny reality just to play around on the internet is beyond my understanding. There is something wrong with people. Something very, very wrong with them.

wow. someone thinks Nate Silver is god.

I know you're trolling, and go on with your bad self, and won't respond, but I'll bite.

My father told me a story about being alive in the 60's. See, when he was a young guy, there was all this debate about the Big Bang Theory and Steady State Theory, what was it real, how'd it occur, that sort of thing. Well, the thing was, if the Big Bang theory was right, there should be a way we could tell. The theory predicted that we should be able to find background radiation left over from the Big Bang, just hanging out there in the universe. Well, lo and behold, in about 1965, two guys found the background radiation, just as the theory predicted. And that, my father said, decided the debate for him. You make a prediction based on a theory, the prediction comes true, and your theory is validated. Nothing else needs to be said.

See, Nate Silver has a theory. He theorized that he could accurately predict the last presidential election results based on his formula. And, he correctly predicted 49 out of 50 state presidential elections in the last election, only missing Indiana, which he incorrectly gave to McCain. Just like the proponents of the Big Bang made a prediction that turned out to be correct, Nate Silver made 50 predictions, and only missed 1!

So, no, not god, but a guy with a theory that has been validated to such an extant that you have to be a sad individual to pretend it doesn't matter.


A study after the 2008 elections showed that Silver's analysis was just as accurate as an average of pre-election polls (which were pretty darn accurate)

Thus, although I read him, it's also important to read things like RCP's poll average as well.
 
2012-10-07 01:56:16 PM  

Dafatone: that bosnian sniper: And, sorry to double post here, but I thought I'd make another comment here.

Obama still has a lead in Ohio well outside the margin of error. There is no plausible electoral college outcome that has Romney winning without Ohio. That is all that matters.

He could win PA instead, right?

Which, granted, is probably definately harder than Ohio.


FTFY

PA turned blue a long time ago. I still think FL is Romney's last chance for success. Without FL, he's done.
 
2012-10-07 01:56:47 PM  

SithLord: Charlotte Little:
President Obama will win reelection on November 6th. Think it. Believe it. Say it. Write it. Spread it.>

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." - Joseph Goebbels

Reiterated time and again by his protege - David Axelrod


No, no, no, you're doing it all wrong.

Obama isn't Hitler, he's Stalin. How may times do you have to have this pounded into you!!???

You really need to pay attention to your Tea Party Flash Cards.

Now go and find the equivalent quote from the Soviet era and try again.
 
2012-10-07 01:57:11 PM  
Can someone tell me about We Ask America I have never heard of them before friday and now it seems like someone brings them up in every thread.

The only thing on wiki about them is that they are funded by the Illinois Manufacturers' Association. Not sure how a polling firm that is owned by an orginization that was founded to fight AGAINST sweatshop legislation turned out to be left leaning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Manufacturers'_Association#Histo ry



I don't think I have every seen one of their polls being the focus on any news article either here on fark or anything I have read, heard or seen elswhere. So did Rush just start talking about them or what.
 
2012-10-07 01:57:23 PM  

Mrtraveler01: You do know that prior to that, the polls heavily skewed toward the Republican in comparison with their counterparts in the polling industry right?


Link

Yea, Obama had momentum going into the election as McCain voters lost their enthusiasm and stayed home. Now say something dumb in response so you can maintain your perfect score you herpaderp spewing shill.
 
2012-10-07 01:58:02 PM  

Mrbogey: They're a snapshot of a current mood.


Except when they're deliberately skewed to try to influence the national mood, like Rasmussen. But I like how calling you out on your blatant and obvious bullshiat sends you into a froth.
 
2012-10-07 01:58:35 PM  

Mrbogey: Gwyrddu: But Rasmussen wasn't accurate in the past, I remember their polls being highly skewed for Republicans in 2008 election as well. Just because they corrected by election night doesn't mean anything before that was in any way trustworthy.

They were tied for the most accurate in 2008. And hey, look at how national polling firms are starting to show a tightening in the race. They must be correcting themselves to better accurately reflect the statistical evenness of this race!


citation for them being tied as most accurate in 2008
 
2012-10-07 01:58:58 PM  

Dimensio: Many supporters of President Obama's re-election bid may be underestimating the damage caused by his performance in the debate last week, combined with the gains made by Mr. Romney due to his own performance.


I think it's a combination. The 7 day rolling average polls haven't completely taken the debate into account and half the battle isn't the actual polls, it's the narrative drawn from the analysis of the debates over the next few days afterwards.

I think assuming that Obama wasn't hurt is foolish, but it is equally foolish to engage in Romney triumphalism at this point.
 
2012-10-07 01:59:18 PM  
Luck totally smacked - but - helmet-to-helmet.

/welcome to the NFL
 
2012-10-07 01:59:33 PM  

spongeboob: Mrbogey: Gwyrddu: But Rasmussen wasn't accurate in the past, I remember their polls being highly skewed for Republicans in 2008 election as well. Just because they corrected by election night doesn't mean anything before that was in any way trustworthy.

They were tied for the most accurate in 2008. And hey, look at how national polling firms are starting to show a tightening in the race. They must be correcting themselves to better accurately reflect the statistical evenness of this race!

citation for them being tied as most accurate in 2008


He posted above. They lose their Republican bias sharply right before the election, it's how they maintain "credibility".
 
2012-10-07 01:59:47 PM  

Dafatone: He could win PA instead, right?


That will probably depend on whether or not the judge's half-assed ruling in the republican election stealing trial has a confounding effect on the outcome. Even though voters aren't required to show ID, the poll workers will still ask to see it. Between confused poll workers incorrectly (or maliciously) turning away voters without ID and voters themselves not showing up or leaving when asked for ID the PA vote could very well still turn into the pro-republican clusterfark the governor and his cronies intended when they intentionally attacked the foundation of American freedom.

Romney has a long shot at winning legitimately, but when you consider the attempts made by republicans to steal this election and destroy American democracy, this race could still be a dead heat.
 
2012-10-07 02:00:12 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: Luck totally smacked - but - helmet-to-helmet.

/welcome to the NFL


and that may have nothing to do with the Rasmussen Report - sorry wrong thread :(
 
2012-10-07 02:00:49 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Except when they're deliberately skewed to try to influence the national mood, like Rasmussen. But I like how calling you out on your blatant and obvious bullshiat sends you into a froth.


You're full of shiat you stupid bastard.

As if the poll that are inaccurate and tilted towards the Democrats aren't trying to influence the mood? Yea, the guy that nails the election is the one trying to influence the mood. Oh, if only there weren't guys like Rassmussen Obama would have won by 10 points! No, 20!

Have you ever thought that maybe the world would be smarter if you were quieter?
 
2012-10-07 02:01:39 PM  

spongeboob: Mrbogey: Gwyrddu: But Rasmussen wasn't accurate in the past, I remember their polls being highly skewed for Republicans in 2008 election as well. Just because they corrected by election night doesn't mean anything before that was in any way trustworthy.

They were tied for the most accurate in 2008. And hey, look at how national polling firms are starting to show a tightening in the race. They must be correcting themselves to better accurately reflect the statistical evenness of this race!

citation for them being tied as most accurate in 2008


Look, Obama gave it his best shot. It's time for us to be good sports, admit defeat and just move on. We'll have another chance in 8 years.
 
2012-10-07 02:02:04 PM  

Mrbogey: A Dark Evil Omen: Except when they're deliberately skewed to try to influence the national mood, like Rasmussen. But I like how calling you out on your blatant and obvious bullshiat sends you into a froth.

You're full of shiat you stupid bastard.

As if the poll that are inaccurate and tilted towards the Democrats aren't trying to influence the mood? Yea, the guy that nails the election is the one trying to influence the mood. Oh, if only there weren't guys like Rassmussen Obama would have won by 10 points! No, 20!

Have you ever thought that maybe the world would be smarter if you were quieter?


You're cute when you get angry.
 
2012-10-07 02:02:06 PM  

Mrbogey: As if the poll that are inaccurate and tilted towards the Democrats aren't trying to influence the mood?


You mean the polls that are more accurate to reality than Rasmussen in all cases until the week before the election? You're adorable.
 
2012-10-07 02:02:09 PM  

Mrbogey: Hey, dumbass, elections are a single day.


Not any more they are not. half of the people voting will vote before election day. In 2008 that number was smaller, but it was still significant. You're trying to do the "technically correct" thing and you're not even managing that correctly.
 
2012-10-07 02:03:23 PM  

Mrbogey: Hey, dumbass, elections are a single day. They're a snapshot of a current mood. Before and after that, the mood shifts. It's not static across the entire year. As campaigns run their course they pick up and lose voters.

And you're surprised that polls shift? I know you're dumb. I know you're a partisan. And I'm sure pointing out this fact will not shift your view a single bit. You're a shining testament to online stupidity.


A Dark Evil Omen: spongeboob: Mrbogey: Gwyrddu: But Rasmussen wasn't accurate in the past, I remember their polls being highly skewed for Republicans in 2008 election as well. Just because they corrected by election night doesn't mean anything before that was in any way trustworthy.

They were tied for the most accurate in 2008. And hey, look at how national polling firms are starting to show a tightening in the race. They must be correcting themselves to better accurately reflect the statistical evenness of this race!

citation for them being tied as most accurate in 2008

He posted above. They lose their Republican bias sharply right before the election, it's how they maintain "credibility".


Damn, I nailed that. Knew that pointing out that going into the 2008 election all polls were dropping McCain would get ignored by you in exchange for you posting more inane (probably paid) talking points.
 
2012-10-07 02:03:40 PM  

Mrbogey: [moronic bullshiat redacted]


Have you tried switching to No More Tears? Might help with that blubbering crybaby problem you seem to have.
 
2012-10-07 02:03:54 PM  

Mrbogey: A Dark Evil Omen: Except when they're deliberately skewed to try to influence the national mood, like Rasmussen. But I like how calling you out on your blatant and obvious bullshiat sends you into a froth.

You're full of shiat you stupid bastard.

As if the poll that are inaccurate and tilted towards the Democrats aren't trying to influence the mood? Yea, the guy that nails the election is the one trying to influence the mood. Oh, if only there weren't guys like Rassmussen Obama would have won by 10 points! No, 20!

Have you ever thought that maybe the world would be smarter if you were quieter?


Honest question: Do you think Romney will win?
 
2012-10-07 02:04:59 PM  

BSABSVR: Not any more they are not. half of the people voting will vote before election day. In 2008 that number was smaller, but it was still significant. You're trying to do the "technically correct" thing and you're not even managing that correctly.


And yet elections are tallied on a single day and the vast majority of votes will be cast on a single day.

YOU'RE the one trying to do the technically correct (because technically elections aren't a "single" day) and failing at it.
 
2012-10-07 02:06:29 PM  

MSFT: Honest question: Do you think Romney will win?


I think it's within a point either way. I think the general trend will hold towards election. The days of a candidate taking more than 51-52% of the vote are over.
 
2012-10-07 02:07:06 PM  

Flaming Yawn: SithLord: Charlotte Little:
President Obama will win reelection on November 6th. Think it. Believe it. Say it. Write it. Spread it.>

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." - Joseph Goebbels

Reiterated time and again by his protege - David Axelrod

No, no, no, you're doing it all wrong.

Obama isn't Hitler, he's Stalin. How may times do you have to have this pounded into you!!???

You really need to pay attention to your Tea Party Flash Cards.

Now go and find the equivalent quote from the Soviet era and try again.


You're right, I'm sorry. I should have called Charlotte Little just another one of Marx's "useful idiots".
 
2012-10-07 02:08:16 PM  
The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight's database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.

Moreover, Rasmussen's polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen's polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases - that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.


Link
So why are we supposed to trust Rasmussen again?
 
2012-10-07 02:08:22 PM  

Seabon: If the Republicans win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote, I wouldn't put it past them to find a way to dismiss the electoral vote and install their guy. Remember, 5 out of 4 SC justices are largely conservative.


I wouldn't be terribly shocked if they try it even if they lose both. It's the natural progression from assuming that the polls are unfairly skewed, the BLS is lying about unemployment and the 53%-47% argument.
 
2012-10-07 02:08:51 PM  

SithLord: Flaming Yawn: SithLord: Charlotte Little:
President Obama will win reelection on November 6th. Think it. Believe it. Say it. Write it. Spread it.>

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." - Joseph Goebbels

Reiterated time and again by his protege - David Axelrod

No, no, no, you're doing it all wrong.

Obama isn't Hitler, he's Stalin. How may times do you have to have this pounded into you!!???

You really need to pay attention to your Tea Party Flash Cards.

Now go and find the equivalent quote from the Soviet era and try again.

You're right, I'm sorry. I should have called Charlotte Little just another one of Marx's "useful idiots".


0/10

You're coming on too strong.
 
2012-10-07 02:09:26 PM  

SithLord: You're right, I'm sorry. I should have called Charlotte Little just another one of Marx's "useful idiots".


Oh, look, Democrats - that is to say, centrist capitalists - are Marxists. Between you and Bogey you guys are really trying to earn your Maverick Points in this one, huh?
 
2012-10-07 02:09:43 PM  

colon_pow: Girl From The North Country: Don't Troll Me Bro!: colon_pow:
Cant you see how that sounds?
Cannot you hear how that looks?


Like someone who understands data and methodology and trusts in the scientific method?
 
2012-10-07 02:09:46 PM  
Last week: polls show Obama is ahead of Romney, therefore you cant trust poll numbers.

This week: the Republican pollster Rassmussen says that Romney is ahead, therefore poll numbers are very trusty and we should all believe what polls say now.
 
2012-10-07 02:10:30 PM  

Mrbogey: A Dark Evil Omen: Except when they're deliberately skewed to try to influence the national mood, like Rasmussen. But I like how calling you out on your blatant and obvious bullshiat sends you into a froth.

You're full of shiat you stupid bastard.

As if the poll that are inaccurate and tilted towards the Democrats aren't trying to influence the mood? Yea, the guy that nails the election is the one trying to influence the mood. Oh, if only there weren't guys like Rassmussen Obama would have won by 10 points! No, 20!

Have you ever thought that maybe the world would be smarter if you were quieter?


i1162.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-07 02:10:30 PM  

Mrbogey: BSABSVR: Not any more they are not. half of the people voting will vote before election day. In 2008 that number was smaller, but it was still significant. You're trying to do the "technically correct" thing and you're not even managing that correctly.

And yet elections are tallied on a single day and the vast majority of votes will be cast on a single day.

YOU'RE the one trying to do the technically correct (because technically elections aren't a "single" day) and failing at it.


That was a long time to "NO U" and to drop multiple lies in the process.

Have fun with yourself. I'm over engaging liars today. There's football on.
 
2012-10-07 02:10:36 PM  

Mrtraveler01: So why are we supposed to trust Rasmussen again?


Because he's the only Party-approved pollster, of course.
 
2012-10-07 02:10:37 PM  

SithLord: You're right, I'm sorry. I should have called Charlotte Little just another one of Marx's "useful idiots".


In 1996, President Clinton signed bipartisan legislation to reform welfare by requiring work. Sixteen years later, President Obama quietly gutted this landmark law.


If Axlerod is the protege, why is the Romney/Ryan campaign the one spending tens of millions of dollars putting into action all over the country?

Don't bother responding. You'll just lie anyway.
 
2012-10-07 02:10:38 PM  

Mrtraveler01: So why are we supposed to trust Rasmussen again?


Because they are the mostest accuratest ever (once every four years)!
 
2012-10-07 02:10:49 PM  

Mrbogey: MSFT: Honest question: Do you think Romney will win?

I think it's within a point either way. I think the general trend will hold towards election. The days of a candidate taking more than 51-52% of the vote are over.


Reagan slaughtered Carter but only took 51% of the popular vote, so I'm not sure what your point is.
 
2012-10-07 02:11:34 PM  

Goodfella: Last week: polls show Obama is ahead of Romney, therefore you cant trust poll numbers.

This week: the Republican pollster Rassmussen says that Romney is ahead, therefore poll numbers are very trusty and we should all believe what polls say now.


You're surprised?

I'm just waiting for these same people who were crying about over-sampled polls to take them as gospel as the gap between Obama and Romney closes up.
 
2012-10-07 02:12:18 PM  

Mrtraveler01: He could win PA instead, right?

Which, granted, is probably definately harder than Ohio.

FTFY

PA turned blue a long time ago. I still think FL is Romney's last chance for success. Without FL, he's done.


As it stands, without Ohio Romney has to win every single swing state to win the election, including Iowa, Nevada, Virginia, and Florida. Pennsylvania, which was Romney's last hope of a plausible victory without Ohio, went blue some time ago and shows no probability of going red; the same could be said of Wisconsin, which was also a key gateway to a Romney win without Ohio.

All four of those states are blue-leaning at the moment, Nevada most heavily so, and it's improbable that Romney wins all four of those. Therefore, it's still a solid call to say if Ohio goes to Obama, so goes the election.
 
2012-10-07 02:13:17 PM  

Mrbogey: MSFT: Honest question: Do you think Romney will win?

I think it's within a point either way. I think the general trend will hold towards election. The days of a candidate taking more than 51-52% of the vote are over.


Well Obama only had 52.9% of the vote in 2008, but it was enough to get a landslide of electoral votes. Right now it looks like the only difference in electoral maps this time is that Obama will lose North Carolina, Indiana and that one electoral vote in Nebraska from the 2008 map.
 
2012-10-07 02:13:32 PM  
Gotta admit, I'm getting a kick out of the ads leading up to the election:

pagead2.googlesyndication.com
 
2012-10-07 02:14:18 PM  
Did not the 2000 election show that the national numbers are pretty meaningless. Ignoring the 5-4 vote that really decided that election and using the 271-266 number, makes knowing what is happening in the swing states relevant but the nationwide number essential just an interesting side show. The Ohio, Florida, Virginia and to a much lesser extent Pa. and NC. numbers being critical.
 
2012-10-07 02:15:24 PM  

sdd2000: The Ohio, Florida, Virginia and to a much lesser extent Pa. and NC. numbers being critical.


Exactly.

That's why these nationwide polls are meaningless to me.

I won't make a judgement call until I see the polls from OH and FL.
 
2012-10-07 02:16:29 PM  

Gwyrddu: Well Obama only had 52.9% of the vote in 2008, but it was enough to get a landslide of electoral votes.


That's a fairly standard margin, actually. Most popular vote margins since 1900 have been > 5%.
 
2012-10-07 02:17:05 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: spongeboob: Mrbogey: Gwyrddu: But Rasmussen wasn't accurate in the past, I remember their polls being highly skewed for Republicans in 2008 election as well. Just because they corrected by election night doesn't mean anything before that was in any way trustworthy.

They were tied for the most accurate in 2008. And hey, look at how national polling firms are starting to show a tightening in the race. They must be correcting themselves to better accurately reflect the statistical evenness of this race!

citation for them being tied as most accurate in 2008

He posted above. They lose their Republican bias sharply right before the election, it's how they maintain "credibility".


Yeah should have read farther, so if Rassmussen had the wrong prediction in October of 2008 why should we care what numbers they have in October 2012?
 
2012-10-07 02:18:08 PM  

Goodfella: Last week: polls show Obama is ahead of Romney, therefore you cant trust poll numbers.

This week: the Republican pollster Rassmussen says that Romney is ahead, therefore poll numbers are very trusty and we should all believe what polls say now.


No one is saying that. What folks are saying is that it is the aggregate of poll data that matters not one or 2 right leaning polls. If in the aggregate Mitt Romney jumps ahead in the swing states in Silver's or RCP's model even us libby-libs will concede that Romney got a real and sustained bounce. But spiking the football over a single data point is silly. Equating "all polls are skewed because they have Romney losing" and "the job report numbers are fixed" with "it's too soon to tell whats happening base don 1 or 2 right leaning polls" is pants on head retarded.

But this has been pretty much the Republican MO for the past decade, latch on to some minor point where you can draw a parallel, hype up the false equivalency and then profit. But honestly its getting tired, and I doubt it will work this time.
 
2012-10-07 02:18:15 PM  

SithLord: Flaming Yawn: SithLord: Charlotte Little:
President Obama will win reelection on November 6th. Think it. Believe it. Say it. Write it. Spread it.>

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." - Joseph Goebbels

Reiterated time and again by his protege - David Axelrod

No, no, no, you're doing it all wrong.

Obama isn't Hitler, he's Stalin. How may times do you have to have this pounded into you!!???

You really need to pay attention to your Tea Party Flash Cards.

Now go and find the equivalent quote from the Soviet era and try again.

You're right, I'm sorry. I should have called Charlotte Little just another one of Marx's "useful idiots".


That was Lenin.
 
2012-10-07 02:19:05 PM  
One of our friends on the right mentioned upthread that the RCP Poll of Polls tightening, and the popular vote is tightening. However, R&R are going to have to run the table of swing states to win the election (an unlikely scenario).

Here are RCP's tossup states and their electoral votes:

Colorado (9)
Florida (29)
Iowa (6)
Missouri (10)
Nevada (6)
North Carolina (15)
Ohio (18)
Virginia (13)

Here are the electoral votes that RCP says are likely or lean toward each candidate:
Obama: 251
Romney:181

So, Obama can win any combination of swing states that get him 29 electoral votes. Romney has to win every swing state except for Iowa or Nevada. It's Real Clear that Romney and Ryan have a nuch tougher path to 280 EV's.
 
2012-10-07 02:19:07 PM  

Gwyrddu: Mrbogey: MSFT: Honest question: Do you think Romney will win?

I think it's within a point either way. I think the general trend will hold towards election. The days of a candidate taking more than 51-52% of the vote are over.

Well Obama only had 52.9% of the vote in 2008, but it was enough to get a landslide of electoral votes. Right now it looks like the only difference in electoral maps this time is that Obama will lose North Carolina, Indiana and that one electoral vote in Nebraska from the 2008 map.


For some reason people continue to focus on this irrelevant metric and I'm not sure why. Any candidate that runs their campaign based on this metric deserves to lose (and that includes you, Gore; seriously, you couldn't carry your own f*cking state?!).
 
2012-10-07 02:19:44 PM  
The republicans on this thread are good at selling the R brand,
Just as affective as sending th Alabama (R)ebs to Ohio to motivate them Ohioans to vote R.

Favorite Republican quotes this week:

"Liberals control 90% of the media so yes you can lump the media as liberal and their reporting is suspect if not down right propaganda!!!"

"You Obama supporters won't ever let logic and facts get in the way of your emotional love affair. The sad thing for me is your vote counts just as much!"

"Some people live longer than others; and that's not fair. Shouldn't the government take a role in redistrbuting lifespans to the poor in some way? Look, artificial equalization---whether financial or otherwise---leads to barbarities like Logan's Run."
 
2012-10-07 02:19:51 PM  

MSFT: spongeboob: Mrbogey: Gwyrddu: But Rasmussen wasn't accurate in the past, I remember their polls being highly skewed for Republicans in 2008 election as well. Just because they corrected by election night doesn't mean anything before that was in any way trustworthy.

They were tied for the most accurate in 2008. And hey, look at how national polling firms are starting to show a tightening in the race. They must be correcting themselves to better accurately reflect the statistical evenness of this race!

citation for them being tied as most accurate in 2008

Look, Obama gave it his best shot. It's time for us to be good sports, admit defeat and just move on. We'll have another chance in 8 years.


The presidential term is now 8 years or Republicans never lose re-election

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT8ewh8fd1dx3ZOu q 9UD_pnWXtuup3JgqF3ZfOh0nceJSZRBUcw
 
2012-10-07 02:21:05 PM  
Mrbogey: ... You must be a huge embarrassment for your parents. ...

Mrbogey: Hey, dumbass... I know you're dumb. I know you're a partisan... You're a shining testament to online stupidity.

Mrbogey: Now say something dumb in response so you can maintain your perfect score you herpaderp spewing shill.

Mrbogey: You're full of shiat you stupid bastard... Have you ever thought that maybe the world would be smarter if you were quieter?

If you're trying to get us to take you seriously, perhaps refraining from name-calling and cursing at people would help.
 
2012-10-07 02:21:42 PM  

Goodfella: Last week: polls show Obama is ahead of Romney, therefore you cant trust poll numbers.

This week: the Republican pollster Rassmussen says that Romney is ahead, therefore poll numbers are very trusty and we should all believe what polls say now.


you see, Polls that favor republicans are God's Honest Truth. polls that favor democrats are cooked to make the messiah Barack HUSSAIN Obama look good.
 
2012-10-07 02:23:03 PM  

amiable: No one is saying that. What folks are saying is that it is the aggregate of poll data that matters not one or 2 right leaning polls.


Well, let's not also forget a healthy number of poll aggregators actually discard Rasmussen as an outlier, and due to their systemic, god-awful, bias-ridden methodologies.
 
2012-10-07 02:24:29 PM  

ManateeGag: you see, Polls that favor republicans are God's Honest Truth. polls that favor democrats are cooked to make the messiah Barack HUSSAIN Obama look good.


They apply the same standard to economic numbers, why not poll numbers?
 
2012-10-07 02:25:00 PM  
Rassmussen is like the student who fails all their homework assignments and exams throughout the semester but comes back at the final which really determines the final grade and aces it perfectly, thus giving them a good grade for that class. People just look at their final grade and treat them as an expect in the class, ignoring how they failed every other day.
 
2012-10-07 02:25:28 PM  
Sorry about the typos in my last post. Meant to post the data source for my numbers, too: Link
 
2012-10-07 02:28:29 PM  

Ricardo Klement: As much as I like Nate Silver, Colon-Pow is right that it comes across as a little too much like Ex-Cathedra.



That's just part of the culture in this place. We adore geeks -- Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Alton Brown, dozens of others in any number of fields -- and Silver's a particularly accomplished one.

When you can figure out how the universe (or even just a little piece of it) works and you're a gifted communicator, Farkers will follow you to the ends of the earth.
 
2012-10-07 02:29:23 PM  

Alphax: Dimensio: Many supporters of President Obama's re-election bid may be underestimating the damage caused by his performance in the debate last week, combined with the gains made by Mr. Romney due to his own performance.

I'm mystified that anyone thinks Romney's performance was acceptable, let alone good.



xtupload.com

Romney's strategy for the debate has now been fully revealed: lie about everything. When confronted with your lies, keep lying.

The reason Obama was so quiet during the debate was that he was so surprised that someone would be such a blatantly huge liar. He just couldn't believe it.

If the Obama team really wanted to take advantage of Romney's lies, their strategy for the next debate would be to come out in the beginning saying that Romney is a serial liar, and that right after the debate ends his campaign will have posted to Youtube a side by side comparison of Romney's lies that night with what he has been saying the entire campaign.

We figured out in the last debate that that is all Romney has is lies. So just make him look ridiculous by easily calling him out on his many lies.
 
2012-10-07 02:34:20 PM  

NeverDrunk23: Rassmussen is like the student who fails all their homework assignments and exams throughout the semester but comes back at the final which really determines the final grade and aces it perfectly, thus giving them a good grade for that class. People just look at their final grade and treat them as an expect in the class, ignoring how they failed every other day.


I can't really think of a good analogy right now but all Rassmussen ever does is lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie until the last possible second when they sheepishly look down and mutter, "Ok, I was lying all along. Here's the truth..."
 
2012-10-07 02:36:04 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: So, Obama can win any combination of swing states that get him 29 electoral votes. Romney has to win every swing state except for Iowa or Nevada. It's Real Clear that Romney and Ryan have a much tougher path to 280 EV's.


This is probably not a big secret. If Romney wins Ohio, he wins the election. This is why the electoral process must change. We have over 300 million people in this country, yet our president is chosen every election by some guy named Cletus in Columbus, Ohio or in the case of a tie by the Republican Supreme Court.
 
2012-10-07 02:37:25 PM  

Goodfella: The reason Obama was so quiet during the debate was that he was so surprised that someone would be such a blatantly huge liar. He just couldn't believe it.


there was one point in the debate where Obama did one of those "aw hell no!" body movements, where he looked back for a second thinking he was being punked. Obama needs to come back swinging in round 2. Maybe Joe can put them on the defensive this week.
 
2012-10-07 02:38:30 PM  

Delay: This is probably not a big secret. If Romney wins Ohio, he wins the election


No.
 
2012-10-07 02:40:30 PM  

ManateeGag: Maybe Joe can put them on the defensive this week.


I expect the Vice President will step up to the task. If only his "can win" attitude would rub off on someone else.
 
2012-10-07 02:41:08 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Delay: This is probably not a big secret. If Romney wins Ohio, he wins the election

No.


last time I checked, 181 + 18 =/= 270
 
2012-10-07 02:43:24 PM  

Delay: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: So, Obama can win any combination of swing states that get him 29 electoral votes. Romney has to win every swing state except for Iowa or Nevada. It's Real Clear that Romney and Ryan have a much tougher path to 280 EV's.

This is probably not a big secret. If Romney wins Ohio, he wins the election. This is why the electoral process must change. We have over 300 million people in this country, yet our president is chosen every election by some guy named Cletus in Columbus, Ohio or in the case of a tie by the Republican Supreme Court.


That idea might have been true 8 years ago, but Obama has done a very good job campaigning out West. The 21 electoral votes from Iowa, Colorado, and Nevada (all of which I still expect him to get) would cancel out the 18 he would lose from Ohio.

I don't know why Ohio is still a toss-up anyway. Check that--I do know, I just don't get it. The auto bailout is paying dividends there, unemployment is lower than average, and polling has them consistently between leaning or strong Obama. Seems to me that Ohio is Pennsylvania but they don't know it yet.

/Florida, on the other hand, could stand to wake up whenever they're ready...
 
2012-10-07 02:44:05 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Delay: This is probably not a big secret. If Romney wins Ohio, he wins the election

No.


OK. Support your view.

Here's an example of mine Link
 
2012-10-07 02:44:05 PM  

Delay: If Romney wins Ohio, he wins the election.


No. There are a number of very possible scenarios where he could win Ohio, and even Wisconsin on top of that, and still lose the election. But Obama would definitely have to win Florida in those cases.

If Romney loses Ohio, on the other hand, he could still win by winning Florida and some other swing states. The Ohio thing is just one of those statistical patterns in a low-data set that seems to be more meaningful than it is.
 
2012-10-07 02:46:17 PM  

The Great EZE: /Florida, on the other hand, could stand to wake up whenever they're ready...


The only polls that show Romney ahead in Florida right now are Rasmussen and WeAskAmerica. So I will reserve judgement until less DERP numbers are in.
 
2012-10-07 02:46:21 PM  

Alphax: I'm mystified that anyone thinks Romney's performance was acceptable, let alone good.


Rmoney did a heck of a job selling a used car. If that's what someone is using to judge as Presidential material, well, I can't help them there.
 
2012-10-07 02:48:59 PM  

The Great EZE: I don't know why Ohio is still a toss-up anyway.


Ohio was not a toss-up state at all recently. The state was decidedly for Obama. The President's support for the auto industry and the stimulus saved most of the state from becoming another Detroit. If Obama can't make his case in Ohio, he's unemployed.
 
2012-10-07 02:49:09 PM  

Delay: OK. Support your view.


Really? Okay. Obama can win the EV without Ohio. Without Ohio Romney would have to win ALL of the other swing states. Not sure what you are getting at.
 
2012-10-07 02:50:44 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Delay: This is probably not a big secret. If Romney wins Ohio, he wins the election

No.


If Obama wins Ohio he wins the election. Romney has to perform so well he wins many, many states including Ohio, but Ohio alone ain't enough.
 
2012-10-07 02:53:00 PM  
Shamelessly stolen from another Farker. These are the possible Romney win combinations:

i1162.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-07 02:56:47 PM  

ManateeGag: Whiskey Pete: Delay: This is probably not a big secret. If Romney wins Ohio, he wins the election

No.

last time I checked, 181 + 18 =/= 270


Correct. As I posted earlier, Romney has to win Colorado, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia and Iowa or Nevada to get to 280 EV's.
 
2012-10-07 02:56:56 PM  

Terrified Asexual Forcemeat: If Obama wins Ohio he wins the election.


This isn't right either. Romney could lose Ohio and even Colorado as well, and still win, by taking Florida, Virginia, Nevada, and Wisconsin, none of which are unreasonable.

Not saying it's likely but it's not out of the question at all.
 
2012-10-07 02:59:52 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Mrbogey: ... You must be a huge embarrassment for your parents. ...

Mrbogey: Hey, dumbass... I know you're dumb. I know you're a partisan... You're a shining testament to online stupidity.

Mrbogey: Now say something dumb in response so you can maintain your perfect score you herpaderp spewing shill.

Mrbogey: You're full of shiat you stupid bastard... Have you ever thought that maybe the world would be smarter if you were quieter?

If you're trying to get us to take you seriously, perhaps refraining from name-calling and cursing at people would help.


Why is okay for you (you did say "us" which expresses kinship) to insult means treat me vile yet I'm the pottymouth for slinging insults back?

I don't take "you" seriously because the deep bias that causes a reflexive reaction to denigrate and dismiss anything counter to "your" beliefs.
 
2012-10-07 03:00:24 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Delay: OK. Support your view.

Really? Okay. Obama can win the EV without Ohio. Without Ohio Romney would have to win ALL of the other swing states. Not sure what you are getting at.


What I am getting at is if he loses Ohio his message is not getting through. You could not find a state that has been more effectively saved by Obama's policies than Ohio.

Apparently, as usual, Obama has hired a bunch of advisers that are destroying his chance of winning Ohio as well as the country's future. Frankly, I think it's time for Obama to stop listening to these Power Point sycophants and to state clearly what his election will mean for Ohio.
 
2012-10-07 03:01:45 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Shamelessly stolen from another Farker. These are the possible Romney win combinations:

[i1162.photobucket.com image 666x458]


I like the way they order the states he needs to win. They start with FL, OH, and NC and I think, "OK, that's a toss-up; OK, that's a toss-up; OK, Romney's got NC." Then they move on states like IA, NV, and NH and I think, "Oh, that's a shame for him; oh, that's a shame for him; Oh, that's a shame for him."

The only thing I'm getting from all this hyper-analysis of electoral voting is that there are still a lot of people in a lot of smart states whom Romney needs to convince. I guess one 90-minute lie-fest was a start, but it'll take more than that to swing all those states.

/And when are we going to move New Hampshire to the "Come on, who you kidding?" list? Bunch of AW's, pretending they're still on the fence.
 
2012-10-07 03:01:58 PM  

Delay: Whiskey Pete: Delay: OK. Support your view.

Really? Okay. Obama can win the EV without Ohio. Without Ohio Romney would have to win ALL of the other swing states. Not sure what you are getting at.

What I am getting at is if he loses Ohio his message is not getting through. You could not find a state that has been more effectively saved by Obama's policies than Ohio.

Apparently, as usual, Obama has hired a bunch of advisers that are destroying his chance of winning Ohio as well as the country's future. Frankly, I think it's time for Obama to stop listening to these Power Point sycophants and to state clearly what his election will mean for Ohio.


Okay. What makes you think that Obama is losing Ohio?
 
2012-10-07 03:02:17 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Shamelessly stolen from another Farker. These are the possible Romney win combinations:

[i1162.photobucket.com image 666x458]


Whoever wrote that must be using Republican math. If you take the R&R baseline as 181, they need at least 88 electoral votes to win (this includes a tie that goes to house for a Romney win). Half of those scenarios don't get them there.
 
2012-10-07 03:04:13 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: this includes a tie that goes to house for a Romney win


Damnit, should be "goes to the House for a Ronmey win"
 
2012-10-07 03:04:23 PM  
I thought that Rasmussen has had Romney as being ahead all along?
 
2012-10-07 03:04:39 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Correct. As I posted earlier, Romney has to win Colorado, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia and Iowa or Nevada to get to 280 EV's.


...which is an extraordinarily implausible scenario, as I said earlier in the thread. Romney has to sweep the swing states to win without Ohio, and that ain't happening.
 
2012-10-07 03:05:08 PM  

The Great EZE: Whiskey Pete: Shamelessly stolen from another Farker. These are the possible Romney win combinations:

[i1162.photobucket.com image 666x458]

I like the way they order the states he needs to win. They start with FL, OH, and NC and I think, "OK, that's a toss-up; OK, that's a toss-up; OK, Romney's got NC." Then they move on states like IA, NV, and NH and I think, "Oh, that's a shame for him; oh, that's a shame for him; Oh, that's a shame for him."

The only thing I'm getting from all this hyper-analysis of electoral voting is that there are still a lot of people in a lot of smart states whom Romney needs to convince. I guess one 90-minute lie-fest was a start, but it'll take more than that to swing all those states.

/And when are we going to move New Hampshire to the "Come on, who you kidding?" list? Bunch of AW's, pretending they're still on the fence.


I dunno if I'd give NC to Romney yet. His lead is 0.8 according to RCP largely because of a +4 by, you guessed it, Rasmussen.
 
2012-10-07 03:05:50 PM  

Delay: What I am getting at is if he loses Ohio his message is not getting through. You could not find a state that has been more effectively saved by Obama's policies than Ohio.

Apparently, as usual, Obama has hired a bunch of advisers that are destroying his chance of winning Ohio as well as the country's future. Frankly, I think it's time for Obama to stop listening to these Power Point sycophants and to state clearly what his election will mean for Ohio.


With all due respect, are you in Ohio? I'm not, but I'm not seeing any indication that Obama is losing voters there. His TV advertising there seems to be as aggressive as ever and polling still has him with a decent lead.

I'm not seeing your evidence of the bolded statement.
 
2012-10-07 03:06:52 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Whiskey Pete: Shamelessly stolen from another Farker. These are the possible Romney win combinations:

[i1162.photobucket.com image 666x458]

Whoever wrote that must be using Republican math. If you take the R&R baseline as 181, they need at least 88 electoral votes to win (this includes a tie that goes to house for a Romney win). Half of those scenarios don't get them there.


I'm not sure but I think this Farker was going by the 191 that RCP had Romney at for quite awhile.
 
2012-10-07 03:06:55 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: this includes a tie that goes to house for a Romney win


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-10-07 03:07:04 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Okay. What makes you think that Obama is losing Ohio?


www.electoral-vote.com
 
2012-10-07 03:09:35 PM  

Mrbogey: I don't take "you" seriously because the deep bias that causes a reflexive reaction to denigrate and dismiss anything counter to "your" beliefs.


This is IMAX level projection here ladies and gentlemen.
 
2012-10-07 03:13:51 PM  

Whiskey Pete: I'm not sure but I think this Farker was going by the 191 that RCP had Romney at for quite awhile.


Maybe Wisconsin? Here is the RCP "Leans Obama" list and the EV's:

Michigan (16)
Minnesota (10)
New Hampshire (4)
New Mexico (5)
Oregon (7)
Pennsylvania (20)
Wisconsin (10)

Romney's going to have a heck of a time pulling any of the these out of the Obama column.
 
2012-10-07 03:14:06 PM  

Delay: Whiskey Pete: Okay. What makes you think that Obama is losing Ohio?

[www.electoral-vote.com image 850x240]


538 has Obama at an 81% chance of winning Ohio. RCP has Obama at +3 lead as well.
 
2012-10-07 03:14:42 PM  

Mrbogey: Don't Troll Me Bro!: Mrbogey: ... You must be a huge embarrassment for your parents. ...

Mrbogey: Hey, dumbass... I know you're dumb. I know you're a partisan... You're a shining testament to online stupidity.

Mrbogey: Now say something dumb in response so you can maintain your perfect score you herpaderp spewing shill.

Mrbogey: You're full of shiat you stupid bastard... Have you ever thought that maybe the world would be smarter if you were quieter?

If you're trying to get us to take you seriously, perhaps refraining from name-calling and cursing at people would help.

Why is okay for you (you did say "us" which expresses kinship) to insult means treat me vile yet I'm the pottymouth for slinging insults back?

I don't take "you" seriously because the deep bias that causes a reflexive reaction to denigrate and dismiss anything counter to "your" beliefs.


You seem rational. Keep cursing at people and calling them names. They'll see it your way eventually. Later.
 
2012-10-07 03:16:36 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Romney's going to have a heck of a time pulling any of the these out of the Obama column.


If you take the electoral projections as true, and I haven't found any reason not to, Romney hasn't had much of a chance all along.
 
2012-10-07 03:16:45 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Delay: Whiskey Pete: Okay. What makes you think that Obama is losing Ohio?

[www.electoral-vote.com image 850x240]

538 has Obama at an 81% chance of winning Ohio. RCP has Obama at +3 lead as well.


those are commie numbers and mean nothing. only the numbers that look good for Romney are true.
 
2012-10-07 03:20:08 PM  

ManateeGag: those are commie numbers and mean nothing. only the numbers that look good for Romney are true.


I...I see that now... ACK....THUD
 
2012-10-07 03:20:56 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Romney's going to have a heck of a time pulling any of the these out of the Obama column.

If you take the electoral projections as true, and I haven't found any reason not to, Romney hasn't had much of a chance all along.


Yes, that's true. people have taken the last couple of days' sharp turn in favor of Romney the wrong way: not only is it a trend that won't continue, but let's face it. With a 15% chance of winning, there was really only one way a change could register. Lies aside, the debate was a bad night for the president, but not an election swinger.
 
2012-10-07 03:23:00 PM  

Greil: Whiskey Pete: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Romney's going to have a heck of a time pulling any of the these out of the Obama column.

If you take the electoral projections as true, and I haven't found any reason not to, Romney hasn't had much of a chance all along.

Yes, that's true. people have taken the last couple of days' sharp turn in favor of Romney the wrong way: not only is it a trend that won't continue, but let's face it. With a 15% chance of winning, there was really only one way a change could register. Lies aside, the debate was a bad night for the president, but not an election swinger.


Whiskey Pete: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Romney's going to have a heck of a time pulling any of the these out of the Obama column.

If you take the electoral projections as true, and I haven't found any reason not to, Romney hasn't had much of a chance all along.


Yeah, I'm just reassuring myself that the electoral math still overwhelmingly favors Obama, even after his poor debate performance.
 
2012-10-07 03:25:09 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Yeah, I'm just reassuring myself that the electoral math still overwhelmingly favors Obama, even after his poor debate performance.


I'm wondering if Obama's poor performance was because of the electoral math. Maybe he got a bit complacent and didn't feel like singing to the balcony seats. who knows?
 
2012-10-07 03:26:32 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Yeah, I'm just reassuring myself that the electoral math still overwhelmingly favors Obama, even after his poor debate performance.

I'm wondering if Obama's poor performance was because of the electoral math. Maybe he got a bit complacent and didn't feel like singing to the balcony seats. who knows?


I think that's part of it. I also agree with the experts on TV who say that incumbents in general do a terrible job during the first debate.

Hopefully Obama and Biden step up their game in the next few debates or this election could swing to Romney quickly.
 
2012-10-07 03:30:13 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Yeah, I'm just reassuring myself that the electoral math still overwhelmingly favors Obama, even after his poor debate performance.

I'm wondering if Obama's poor performance was because of the electoral math. Maybe he got a bit complacent and didn't feel like singing to the balcony seats. who knows?


Nah. He just had a bad night. No need to over-analyze it. The election will not be won or lost because of that.

Of all the theories I've seen I think my favorite had to be he underperformed because Michelle was pissed that he had to miss their 20th anniversary. No way in the world is that true, but my inner misogynist takes a sick pleasure out of the idea that the leader of the free world could lose his job because of an upset wife.
 
2012-10-07 03:31:45 PM  
MrBogey: If you aren't trolling, you've made a fool of yourself in this thread. Try to at least be a little bit honest.
 
2012-10-07 03:33:33 PM  

The Great EZE: Whiskey Pete: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Yeah, I'm just reassuring myself that the electoral math still overwhelmingly favors Obama, even after his poor debate performance.

I'm wondering if Obama's poor performance was because of the electoral math. Maybe he got a bit complacent and didn't feel like singing to the balcony seats. who knows?

Nah. He just had a bad night. No need to over-analyze it. The election will not be won or lost because of that.

Of all the theories I've seen I think my favorite had to be he underperformed because Michelle was pissed that he had to miss their 20th anniversary. No way in the world is that true, but my inner misogynist takes a sick pleasure out of the idea that the leader of the free world could lose his job because of an upset wife.


I figured the mess with Iran and Turkey combined with just wanting to enjoy his wife got to him.

Whether its a president i like or don't, it is obviously a stressful job that takes a toll and catches up to them.
 
2012-10-07 03:36:47 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: One of our friends on the right mentioned upthread that the RCP Poll of Polls tightening, and the popular vote is tightening. However, R&R are going to have to run the table of swing states to win the election (an unlikely scenario).

Here are RCP's tossup states and their electoral votes:

Colorado (9)
Florida (29)
Iowa (6)
Missouri (10)
Nevada (6)
North Carolina (15)
Ohio (18)
Virginia (13)

Here are the electoral votes that RCP says are likely or lean toward each candidate:
Obama: 251
Romney:181

So, Obama can win any combination of swing states that get him 29 electoral votes. Romney has to win every swing state except for Iowa or Nevada. It's Real Clear that Romney and Ryan have a nuch tougher path to 280 EV's.


You mean 270, right?
 
2012-10-07 03:37:06 PM  

The Great EZE: Whiskey Pete: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Yeah, I'm just reassuring myself that the electoral math still overwhelmingly favors Obama, even after his poor debate performance.

I'm wondering if Obama's poor performance was because of the electoral math. Maybe he got a bit complacent and didn't feel like singing to the balcony seats. who knows?

Nah. He just had a bad night. No need to over-analyze it. The election will not be won or lost because of that.

Of all the theories I've seen I think my favorite had to be he underperformed because Michelle was pissed that he had to miss their 20th anniversary. No way in the world is that true, but my inner misogynist takes a sick pleasure out of the idea that the leader of the free world could lose his job because of an upset wife.


LULZ for you
 
2012-10-07 03:37:08 PM  

Smackledorfer: The Great EZE: Whiskey Pete: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Yeah, I'm just reassuring myself that the electoral math still overwhelmingly favors Obama, even after his poor debate performance.

I'm wondering if Obama's poor performance was because of the electoral math. Maybe he got a bit complacent and didn't feel like singing to the balcony seats. who knows?

Nah. He just had a bad night. No need to over-analyze it. The election will not be won or lost because of that.

Of all the theories I've seen I think my favorite had to be he underperformed because Michelle was pissed that he had to miss their 20th anniversary. No way in the world is that true, but my inner misogynist takes a sick pleasure out of the idea that the leader of the free world could lose his job because of an upset wife.

I figured the mess with Iran and Turkey combined with just wanting to enjoy his wife got to him.

Whether its a president i like or don't, it is obviously a stressful job that takes a toll and catches up to them.


This more or less explains why Bush Jr. tries his best to stay out of the public eye.

You can tell toward the end he was getting weary of the job.
 
2012-10-07 03:40:38 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Yeah, I'm just reassuring myself that the electoral math still overwhelmingly favors Obama, even after his poor debate performance.

I'm wondering if Obama's poor performance was because of the electoral math. Maybe he got a bit complacent and didn't feel like singing to the balcony seats. who knows?


Obama's poor performance had multiple causes, but that was certainly one of them. Obama is a busy guy (being President and all), so his goal was to spend as little time in debate prep as possible (while still insuring that he didn't completely embarrass himself). For Romney, this debate was the last chance to boost his flagging campaign, so I'm sure he spent a great deal of time preparing. The difference in relative importance of the debate to Obama and Romney showed in their performance.

However, I do think Obama got ambushed by Romney's aggressiveness, animated delivery and willingness to lie. He definitely was not prepared for that.
 
2012-10-07 03:43:03 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: However, I do think Obama got ambushed by Romney's aggressiveness, animated delivery and willingness to lie. He definitely was not prepared for that.


Yup. Also, Romney has the luxury of a voting base that is somewhat racist, willfully ignorant and impervious to facts and rationality.
 
2012-10-07 03:43:07 PM  
i.imgur.com

Bush had a polling collapse after his disastrous first debate with Kerry, too. He was leading by 6% the day of the debate; Obama was leading by 3.1% on the day of his debate.

Bush came back and roughly tied Kerry in the second two debates, and ended up winning by 2.4% and 35 EVs.

Obviously it's hard to make a direct comparison, but Bush ended up losing 3.6% from his pre-debate high. Obama didn't have 3.6% to lose.
 
2012-10-07 03:43:33 PM  
www.film.com

RIP Nate Silver
 
2012-10-07 03:45:55 PM  
CSB

I'm in Ohio and I just saw an Obama ad that I haven't seen before that is really driving the "Romney wants to give tax breaks to millionaires" theme home.

/CSB
 
2012-10-07 03:46:13 PM  

The Great EZE: It seems odd that Americans, who were apparently SO outraged at the 47% video that they practically gave the election to Obama in the polls, now appear to be handing their support back to Romney because he out-bullied in a debate.


America re-elected George W. Bush. At one point in time, 70% of Americans believed that Iraq was connected to 9/11. In 2010, the majority of America decided it wanted the Tea Party to run things. (because since the majority of Americans didn't vote, they were fine letting the Tea Party gain power.)

So while, yes, those of us who can think weren't swayed by the debate, Romney was better at slinging the BS than Obama was in countering it. Confident BS can go a long way in swaying the electorate, particularly the "undecided" voters.

That's why I really hope Obama steps up his game. In the first debate he was Casey at the bat, and he's paying for letting that strike pass. He better remember that Casey struck out. Biden, too.
 
2012-10-07 03:50:08 PM  

Whiskey Pete: CSB

I'm in Ohio and I just saw an Obama ad that I haven't seen before that is really driving the "Romney wants to give tax breaks to millionaires" theme home.

/CSB


I'm in Jersey. we get more local ads. I even get some Linda McMahon ads.
 
2012-10-07 03:51:26 PM  

Ricardo Klement: You mean 270, right?


shiat, you're right. Can I blame it on the cold medicine I'm taking?

I guess that makes it even easier for Obama as he only needs to put together 19 EV's (Ohio + one swing state?). Of course, it gives Romney a few more paths to a win than I originally thought, too.
 
2012-10-07 03:51:58 PM  
As has been stated, Rasmussen had the most accurate 2004 and 2008 presidential polls. They did drop the ball in 2010. Acting like they're way more partisan than they are, they predicted and Obama victory more accurate than anyone else, is just more of the same "blinders on" uninformed bullshiat we normally see from the fark left.

And please, please, please I hope Obama brings up the 47% argument. He will absolutely be destroyed on it. Most people don't even know that farking half of the U.S. pays no federal income tax. It will be an eye-opener to the uninformed undecided. The patent unfairness of it cannot be spent in any kind of way. Obama's "everyone must pay their fair share" argument will be turned on it's head. Finally, anyone that uses the insipid "fair share" phrase and is above 12 years old should be disregarded as idiots.
 
2012-10-07 03:52:14 PM  

ManateeGag: Whiskey Pete: CSB

I'm in Ohio and I just saw an Obama ad that I haven't seen before that is really driving the "Romney wants to give tax breaks to millionaires" theme home.

/CSB

I'm in Jersey. we get more local ads. I even get some Linda McMahon ads.


Yesterday Crossroads was STILL running their "unemployment is over 8%" anti-Obama ad.
 
2012-10-07 03:52:30 PM  
Know what is my new favorite tactic that has resulted in several Romney signs to disappear in yards locally? I created a DVD video stating it was from the Romney campaign and it is in support of him... it shows him talking about his positions BEFORE the debate. I thoughtfully included the local paper with it's article talking about his positions AT the debate. Wait till the rest get the literature talking about his Mormonism in a few weeks.
 
2012-10-07 03:52:36 PM  
 
2012-10-07 03:55:06 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Obama is a busy guy (being President and all), so his goal was to spend as little time in debate prep as possible (while still insuring that he didn't completely embarrass himself). For Romney, this debate was the last chance to boost his flagging campaign, so I'm sure he spent a great deal of time preparing



Didn't Mitt pretty much go MIA from the campaign trail to prepare for the debates?
 
2012-10-07 03:56:05 PM  

radioshack: As has been stated, Rasmussen had the most accurate 2004 and 2008 presidential polls. They did drop the ball in 2010. Acting like they're way more partisan than they are, they predicted and Obama victory more accurate than anyone else, is just more of the same "blinders on" uninformed bullshiat we normally see from the fark left.
i1162.photobucket.com
And please, please, please I hope Obama brings up the 47% argument. He will absolutely be destroyed on it. Most people don't even know that farking half of the U.S. pays no federal income tax. It will be an eye-opener to the uninformed undecided. The patent unfairness of it cannot be spent in any kind of way. Obama's "everyone must pay their fair share" argument will be turned on it's head. Finally, anyone that uses the insipid "fair share" phrase and is above 12 years old should be disregarded as idiots.

 
2012-10-07 03:56:55 PM  

elchip: Harsh, bro


maybe Obama can just play that the next debate.
 
2012-10-07 03:57:16 PM  

elchip:

Obviously it's hard to make a direct comparison

True, but at least you made a meaningless comparison.
 
2012-10-07 03:57:46 PM  

randomjsa: So basically the poll from a couple days ago that told liberals what they wanted was fine but this poll is bad because it says the opposite.

By the way that would be Rasmussen which can say truthfully that they had the most accurate 2008 presidential poll.


They sucked donkey dick in 2010 though. I would go with a polling that was accurate in both 2008 and 2010 but I'm just an idiot that way.
 
2012-10-07 03:58:37 PM  

Whiskey Pete: i1162.photobucket.com


as a bit of a non-sequetor, what is the source of these pictures?
 
2012-10-07 03:59:17 PM  

radioshack: As has been stated, Rasmussen had the most accurate 2004 and 2008 presidential polls


In October of 2008 who did they have ahead, who won in 2008?

I will pay attention to Rasmussen the week before the election, unless you can show me they were predicting the winner for several months ahead of time.
 
2012-10-07 04:01:21 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Whiskey Pete: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Yeah, I'm just reassuring myself that the electoral math still overwhelmingly favors Obama, even after his poor debate performance.

I'm wondering if Obama's poor performance was because of the electoral math. Maybe he got a bit complacent and didn't feel like singing to the balcony seats. who knows?

Obama's poor performance had multiple causes, but that was certainly one of them. Obama is a busy guy (being President and all), so his goal was to spend as little time in debate prep as possible (while still insuring that he didn't completely embarrass himself). For Romney, this debate was the last chance to boost his flagging campaign, so I'm sure he spent a great deal of time preparing. The difference in relative importance of the debate to Obama and Romney showed in their performance.

However, I do think Obama got ambushed by Romney's aggressiveness, animated delivery and willingness to lie. He definitely was not prepared for that.


I tried posting a link to a CBS which has a video of Ben Stein's take on the debate, but I'm not a paid member, so I guess I can't post thread links. Therefore, here is a link to the video: Link (sorry, I can't get it to embed)

I'm no fan of Ben Stein and I don't completely agree with him, as I do not believe Romney loves America, at least not the America we all inhabit. However, I think it's important to keep one argument in the back of our minds (for those of us supporting an Obama reelection) - not everyone viewed the president's performance as poor, dreadful, weak, timid, distracted, etc. The MSM is telling us that and we are believing them.

I yelled twice at my TV last Wednesday. The first time was when Romney told our President that he isn't entitled to his own facts and the second time was when Chris Matthews practically cried like a baby, "Where was Obama?!!!" I normally dig Mr. Matthews with his giant boulder-sized balls, but last Wednesday, he reacted way too soon, way too strident and helped fuel the BS machine to the extreme.

Imagine how different the conversation in this thread and in other threads on this forum might have been had last Wednesday the so-called liberal-lame media had not acted (reacted) just as Romney did on the eve of the Libya crisis...hmm, I wonder.
 
2012-10-07 04:03:12 PM  

ManateeGag: Whiskey Pete: i1162.photobucket.com

as a bit of a non-sequetor, what is the source of these pictures?


As best as I know, that is "Torg" and he is usually used to represent a certain Fark Troll with an anorexic cranium * WINK*. Anymore he represents any DERPY politics tab troll.
 
2012-10-07 04:03:44 PM  
hey, there isn't any law against Dreaming. and Republicans need to Dream too.

but their boy is going to lose. its inevitable.

History shows time and time again that everything, including the stars, is lined up for an Obama win.


so enjoy it Republicans. enjoy your temporary, misplaced bliss.
 
2012-10-07 04:04:40 PM  

elchip: [i.imgur.com image 597x504]

Bush had a polling collapse after his disastrous first debate with Kerry, too. He was leading by 6% the day of the debate; Obama was leading by 3.1% on the day of his debate.

Bush came back and roughly tied Kerry in the second two debates, and ended up winning by 2.4% and 35 EVs.

Obviously it's hard to make a direct comparison, but Bush ended up losing 3.6% from his pre-debate high. Obama didn't have 3.6% to lose.


I predicted a 2% bump for Romney after the debate performance we saw. I actually predicted it before the debate if Romney nailed it (just surprised that he did).

That is basically what we are seeing now. Romney needs to hold it and find several more points in the battle ground states. The fluidity of voter flexibility is quickly disappearing. A 2% bump is actually impressive. The next 2% would be much much more challenging.
 
2012-10-07 04:05:08 PM  

Guntram Shatterhand: Things we can tell from this article:

--Rasmussen has a few more weeks before they start showing accurate results so they're not drummed out as being complete shills for the Republicans.

--Whatever debate victory (that was declared seconds after the debate ended) is now gone for Romney, lasting under twelve hours.

--The lowering of the unemployment rates pretty much destroyed the faux Republican confidence outright, resulting in bullshiat articles that bring up the debate 'victory' (again, that was immediately decided by the same Media that holds down Republicans) as the Republicans scramble madly for any foothold for their lies about the economy doing poorly.

In short, when we start seeing articles like this, the Republicans are trying to spin their way out of something. And that something is that their spin is badly out of date. Apparently their purity tests removed everybody with an ounce of ability and competence from their party.


Yes, how do people forget this every single election. Rassmussen is always a huge outlier right up until a week before the election then their polls race back to the mean so they can claim most accurate status, literally, every farking time. Are people eating brain tumors for breakfast!? Jesus this pisses me off.
 
2012-10-07 04:07:12 PM  
the only way Obama could lose is if he jumped up on stage and took a giant dump at the last debate.


and those odds are a bit slim.

although i wouldn't blame him for giving up on a completly f*cked up Nation and people that will take a minimum of two terms to improve. and 10 to 15 years would be more realistic.


it took us 25 to 30 years to get into this mess and it would take a brilliant President (and others) to get us out in just 8 years.
 
2012-10-07 04:11:22 PM  

ManateeGag: Whiskey Pete: i1162.photobucket.com

as a bit of a non-sequetor, what is the source of these pictures?


A gentleman with Down's Syndrome (I believe), who would no doubt be horrified to learn that his likeness is being associated by some with Republicans and their supporters.
 
2012-10-07 04:12:36 PM  

St_Francis_P: I bet Rasmussen's mom respects them.


Scott Rasmussen you clean up your room right now or you will NOT be going out with your polling friends today. Oh and while I am here what is this phone bill all about? 80000 calls to old folks homes and trailer parks? What are you up to young man? You wait till your father gets home.

(Rasumssen's results make much more sense if you assume he is 12)
 
2012-10-07 04:13:14 PM  

BMulligan: I know this thread is completely toxic, because 5 out of 18 posts are highlighted in Troll Gray.


You've got to do the troll poll, if you want to get the boy's soul.
 
2012-10-07 04:19:28 PM  

President Raygun: Are people eating brain tumors for breakfast!?


i1162.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-07 04:22:36 PM  

MyRandomName: Also most accurate for 2010 elections


About that...
 
2012-10-07 04:30:16 PM  
I only make my candidate choice based on the perceived winner of the debates (that I watch). Romney switched my vote to a straight GOP vote based on his absolute destruction/decimation of Obama in the last debate.
 
2012-10-07 04:31:10 PM  

Guntram Shatterhand: In short, when we start seeing articles like this, the Republicans are trying to spin their way out of something. And that something is that their spin is badly out of date. Apparently their purity tests removed everybody with an ounce of ability and competence from their party.


They're girding up to scream voter and electoral fraud, and to proclaim Obama an illegitimate victor, as a springboard for four more years of obstruction and pushing GOP long-term strategy at the state level, should Obama (very, very likely) win. It's their only realistic play now. The writing's been on the wall the GOP stands a snowballs' chance at winning 2012 since the tea party shook its leash, and whomever ran against Obama would be a sacrificial lamb, which is why no serious GOP contender ran for the presidency in the first place.
 
2012-10-07 04:35:04 PM  

President Raygun: Guntram Shatterhand: Things we can tell from this article:

--Rasmussen has a few more weeks before they start showing accurate results so they're not drummed out as being complete shills for the Republicans.

--Whatever debate victory (that was declared seconds after the debate ended) is now gone for Romney, lasting under twelve hours.

--The lowering of the unemployment rates pretty much destroyed the faux Republican confidence outright, resulting in bullshiat articles that bring up the debate 'victory' (again, that was immediately decided by the same Media that holds down Republicans) as the Republicans scramble madly for any foothold for their lies about the economy doing poorly.

In short, when we start seeing articles like this, the Republicans are trying to spin their way out of something. And that something is that their spin is badly out of date. Apparently their purity tests removed everybody with an ounce of ability and competence from their party.

Yes, how do people forget this every single election. Rassmussen is always a huge outlier right up until a week before the election then their polls race back to the mean so they can claim most accurate status, literally, every farking time. Are people eating brain tumors for breakfast!? Jesus this pisses me off.


They only know it as more accurate because pundits said it. They never looked at the facts and you can't make them.
 
2012-10-07 04:36:41 PM  

MyRandomName: randomjsa: So basically the poll from a couple days ago that told liberals what they wanted was fine but this poll is bad because it says the opposite.

By the way that would be Rasmussen which can say truthfully that they had the most accurate 2008 presidential poll.

Also most accurate for 2010 elections.


I ask you for a citation but I know that is unpossible because it is the complete opposite of the truth.
 
2012-10-07 04:39:41 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: you mean the same Rasmussen Reports that was one of the most accurate for the 2008 election?
Or from the 2004 election? " In 2004, Slate said they "publicly doubted and privately derided Rasmussen" polls because of the methodology. However, after the election, they concluded that Rasmussen's polls were the most accurate."

That one, or another one?


Yes, right before election day, but before that multiple instances of wide divergence for other national polls were cited, but you knew that.
 
2012-10-07 04:43:24 PM  
Obviously the Daily Fail is a whackadoodle rag. I notice that the BBC uses very conservative sources in their interviews: Cato, Heritage Foundation, Rasmussen, etc. I sometimes here about the Brookings institute, but by an large it is always whackadoodle shills granting interviews.

It's sad, the BBC used to be a reasonably good news source, but their understanding of US presidential politics these days is simply horrible because of their sources.
 
2012-10-07 04:43:48 PM  
Charlotte Little 2012-10-07 12:26:50 PM

First time posting here. I always considered myself an independent but after 8 years with Bushiat,
I decided to register Democrat and stay true to the blue. Will never go back....

My point? Stop fretting. Tomorrow, it will be a different story. Tuesday, another and so on...until November 6th. We are riding a beast that we have taken part in creating and, yet, we seem to hide our eyes when we don't like what the beast is growling.


Hello there :) Welcome to my FarkOrange Category.

[cat protectively tail-snuggles one more egg]

[eggs still not counted yet, will designate eggpile as x + 1]
 
2012-10-07 04:45:59 PM  

Mrbogey: Don't Troll Me Bro!: Mrbogey: ... You must be a huge embarrassment for your parents. ...

Mrbogey: Hey, dumbass... I know you're dumb. I know you're a partisan... You're a shining testament to online stupidity.

Mrbogey: Now say something dumb in response so you can maintain your perfect score you herpaderp spewing shill.

Mrbogey: You're full of shiat you stupid bastard... Have you ever thought that maybe the world would be smarter if you were quieter?

If you're trying to get us to take you seriously, perhaps refraining from name-calling and cursing at people would help.

Why is okay for you (you did say "us" which expresses kinship) to insult means treat me vile yet I'm the pottymouth for slinging insults back?

I don't take "you" seriously because the deep bias that causes a reflexive reaction to denigrate and dismiss anything counter to "your" beliefs.


Now there's some IMAX level projection.
 
2012-10-07 04:56:37 PM  

Elvis_Bogart: I only trust polls that were taken at the White House breakfast nook.


They have a breakfast nook? Now I'm jealous.
 
2012-10-07 04:56:56 PM  

elchip: Harsh, bro


If he changes his mind on important issues after Republicans voted for him in the primaries, who's to say he won't change his mind on important issues after Americans vote for him in November?

I'd like to see this clip, sans Daily Kos banner, preceded by "I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message, because all Americans need to hear what Mitt Romney said in the first debate," plastered all over my television here in Colorado. WHAR OBAMA CAMPAIGN STRATEGY, WHAR?
 
2012-10-07 04:58:37 PM  

iaazathot:
It's sad, the BBC used to be a reasonably good news source, but their understanding of US presidential politics these days is simply horrible because of their sources.


The BBC suffers from the worst case of false equivalence in history.. ALWAYS they will give equal or greater time and respect to the voices from the side they think is wrong out of fear of being biased.
 
2012-10-07 04:59:19 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: elchip: Harsh, bro

If he changes his mind on important issues after Republicans voted for him in the primaries, who's to say he won't change his mind on important issues after Americans vote for him in November?

I'd like to see this clip, sans Daily Kos banner, preceded by "I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message, because all Americans need to hear what Mitt Romney said in the first debate," plastered all over my television here in Colorado. WHAR OBAMA CAMPAIGN STRATEGY, WHAR?


I have it on good authority that he purposely made himself look like a disinterested ninny long game rope a dope something something notecards on handkerchiefs
 
2012-10-07 05:02:33 PM  
Threadjack:

The Biden/Palin debate is on C-Span right now.

/Threadjack
 
2012-10-07 05:03:34 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Guntram Shatterhand: In short, when we start seeing articles like this, the Republicans are trying to spin their way out of something. And that something is that their spin is badly out of date. Apparently their purity tests removed everybody with an ounce of ability and competence from their party.

They're girding up to scream voter and electoral fraud, and to proclaim Obama an illegitimate victor, as a springboard for four more years of obstruction and pushing GOP long-term strategy at the state level, should Obama (very, very likely) win. It's their only realistic play now. The writing's been on the wall the GOP stands a snowballs' chance at winning 2012 since the tea party shook its leash, and whomever ran against Obama would be a sacrificial lamb, which is why no serious GOP contender ran for the presidency in the first place.


I expect violence after the election, unless Romney some how pulls out a win.

encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com


encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com


Multiple images just to show it more than one over zealous person, now add four years and the propaganda that shows Mitt is winning so if he loses it is of course do to voter fraud, and the true patriot response would be a second amendment solution as the founders intended.
 
2012-10-07 05:07:32 PM  

skullkrusher: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: elchip: Harsh, bro

If he changes his mind on important issues after Republicans voted for him in the primaries, who's to say he won't change his mind on important issues after Americans vote for him in November?

I'd like to see this clip, sans Daily Kos banner, preceded by "I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message, because all Americans need to hear what Mitt Romney said in the first debate," plastered all over my television here in Colorado. WHAR OBAMA CAMPAIGN STRATEGY, WHAR?

I have it on good authority that he purposely made himself look like a disinterested ninny long game rope a dope something something notecards on handkerchiefs


Dude, you are slipping. Re-read my first paragraph, I gave you comedy gold to be outragey at. I even italicized it. Personally I am insulted at your half-hearted reply, you didn't even mention sno cone's implication that Son of Bapp somehow smuggled an "i5" phone in that hankey, and we all just need to be patient for the scandal to be revealed.

/Son of Bapp is gonna catch fire any day now
 
2012-10-07 05:08:22 PM  

spongeboob: that bosnian sniper: Guntram Shatterhand: In short, when we start seeing articles like this, the Republicans are trying to spin their way out of something. And that something is that their spin is badly out of date. Apparently their purity tests removed everybody with an ounce of ability and competence from their party.

They're girding up to scream voter and electoral fraud, and to proclaim Obama an illegitimate victor, as a springboard for four more years of obstruction and pushing GOP long-term strategy at the state level, should Obama (very, very likely) win. It's their only realistic play now. The writing's been on the wall the GOP stands a snowballs' chance at winning 2012 since the tea party shook its leash, and whomever ran against Obama would be a sacrificial lamb, which is why no serious GOP contender ran for the presidency in the first place.

I expect violence after the election, unless Romney some how pulls out a win.

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 183x275]


[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 199x253]
[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 263x191]

[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 183x275]

[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 225x225]


Multiple images just to show it more than one over zealous person, now add four years and the propaganda that shows Mitt is winning so if he loses it is of course do to voter fraud, and the true patriot response would be a second amendment solution as the founders intended.


And I hope the worst for these people. Being dangerously ignorant should hurt and hurt bad.
 
2012-10-07 05:10:49 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Dude, you are slipping. Re-read my first paragraph, I gave you comedy gold to be outragey at. I even italicized it. Personally I am insulted at your half-hearted reply, you didn't even mention sno cone's implication that Son of Bapp somehow smuggled an "i5" phone in that hankey, and we all just need to be patient for the scandal to be revealed.

/Son of Bapp is gonna catch fire any day now


what outrage? I have been utterly convinced that Obama intentionally looked foolish during the debate as part of some political masterstroke
 
2012-10-07 05:16:40 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Threadjack:

The Biden/Palin debate is on C-Span right now.

/Threadjack


No offense, but I am watching the Patriots lose right now, why would I want to watch a Patriot win?
 
2012-10-07 05:22:19 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: skullkrusher:
Dude, you are slipping. Re-read my first paragraph, I gave you comedy gold to be outragey at. I even italicized it. Personally I am insulted at your half-hearted reply, you didn't even mention sno cone's implication that Son of Bapp somehow smuggled an "i5" phone in that hankey, and we all just need to be patient for the scandal to be revealed.

/Son of Bapp is gonna catch fire any day now


To be fair to skullcrusher there have been some ridiculous attempts to make excuses for obama's lackluster performance. Personally I don't think Obama did as badly as many folks seem to assume (in that i thought it was just a poor showing not a complete disaster). This "it's a rope-a-dope, it was the altitude, he couldn't keep up with the lies" sounds silly and honestly like excuses Republican's made for Romney over the course of what until last week was a pretty clownshoes campaign. However, folks claiming that this was some sort of deathblow to the Obama campaign are equally as way out there.

Obama did poorly, Romney did well, there is no other way to fairly parse it. The fundamentals of the race have not significantly changed other than Romney got a slight bump, however if Obama puts forward a performance like last week again it may cause real problems for his re-election campaign.
 
2012-10-07 05:24:08 PM  

RyogaM: And Nate Silver correctly predicted 49 out or 50 state results in the 2008 election, only missing Indiana by giving it to McCain, and, obviously, correctly predicted the Obama win in the electoral college, which is the only win that matters..

Yet, somehow, the cons have been calling him a fraud since Obama has been his predicted winner all this election cycle.

Funny how that works.


Not only that, someone set up unskewedpolls.com so Conservatives could prove to themselves that Nat's wrong and Romney will win.

I wonder what they'll say when he doesn't.
 
2012-10-07 05:24:22 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Whiskey Pete: Threadjack:

The Biden/Palin debate is on C-Span right now.

/Threadjack

No offense, but I am watching the Patriots lose right now, why would I want to watch a Patriot win?


i1162.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-07 05:26:17 PM  

amiable: This "it's a rope-a-dope, it was the altitude, he couldn't keep up with the lies" sounds silly and honestly like excuses Republican's made for Romney over the course of what until last week was a pretty clownshoes campaign.


Agreed. However, now that the hand has been dealt it does appear the Obama campaign's going to play it that way (as they should).
 
2012-10-07 05:27:59 PM  

amiable: Obama did poorly, Romney did well, there is no other way to fairly parse it. The fundamentals of the race have not significantly changed other than Romney got a slight bump, however if Obama puts forward a performance like last week again it may cause real problems for his re-election campaign.


Done and done.
 
2012-10-07 05:32:13 PM  

skullkrusher: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Dude, you are slipping. Re-read my first paragraph, I gave you comedy gold to be outragey at. I even italicized it. Personally I am insulted at your half-hearted reply, you didn't even mention sno cone's implication that Son of Bapp somehow smuggled an "i5" phone in that hankey, and we all just need to be patient for the scandal to be revealed.

/Son of Bapp is gonna catch fire any day now

what outrage? I have been utterly convinced that Obama intentionally looked foolish during the debate as part of some political masterstroke


C'mon man, I clearly implied that Republicans aren't American and you totally missed it. Skull I am disappoint.

Nobody knows what the hell Obama's problem was. Did you ever play sports when you were younger, and one team was so cocky that they expected to win and were completely shocked when the underdog came out and got lucky? That is what Obama's supporters are still dealing with right now.

I could pull half a dozen reasons out of my ass for why Obama didn't bother trying. Those awesome BLS numbers were reported on Friday, but do you know when they were finalized? Tuesday. You think Obama might have the clearance for that info? Maybe Obama was letting Romney talk as much as he wanted, hoping Romney would trot out that bogus "no President has ever been reelected with unemployment over 8%" line that has all but disappeared since Friday.

See, it's just that easy. But just because you don't know why your guy landed the luckiest sucker-punch in recent political history doesn't mean you should keep spiking the football until it goes flat. This is a long game, and the scoreboard on November 7th is the one that matters.
 
2012-10-07 05:34:00 PM  

skullkrusher: amiable: Obama did poorly, Romney did well, there is no other way to fairly parse it. The fundamentals of the race have not significantly changed other than Romney got a slight bump, however if Obama puts forward a performance like last week again it may cause real problems for his re-election campaign.

Done and done.


lol what?
 
2012-10-07 05:34:51 PM  

amiable: skullkrusher: amiable: Obama did poorly, Romney did well, there is no other way to fairly parse it. The fundamentals of the race have not significantly changed other than Romney got a slight bump, however if Obama puts forward a performance like last week again it may cause real problems for his re-election campaign.

Done and done.

lol what?


it means I couldn't have said it better meself
 
2012-10-07 05:35:29 PM  

amiable: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: skullkrusher:
Dude, you are slipping. Re-read my first paragraph, I gave you comedy gold to be outragey at. I even italicized it. Personally I am insulted at your half-hearted reply, you didn't even mention sno cone's implication that Son of Bapp somehow smuggled an "i5" phone in that hankey, and we all just need to be patient for the scandal to be revealed.

/Son of Bapp is gonna catch fire any day now

To be fair to skullcrusher there have been some ridiculous attempts to make excuses for obama's lackluster performance. Personally I don't think Obama did as badly as many folks seem to assume (in that i thought it was just a poor showing not a complete disaster). This "it's a rope-a-dope, it was the altitude, he couldn't keep up with the lies" sounds silly and honestly like excuses Republican's made for Romney over the course of what until last week was a pretty clownshoes campaign. However, folks claiming that this was some sort of deathblow to the Obama campaign are equally as way out there.

Obama did poorly, Romney did well, there is no other way to fairly parse it. The fundamentals of the race have not significantly changed other than Romney got a slight bump, however if Obama puts forward a performance like last week again it may cause real problems for his re-election campaign.


Well of course, and that is why I augmented Skully's point by adding sno cone's hilarious assertion. I just wish they would stroke it just a little bit faster so they cum already and can start thinking clearly again.
 
2012-10-07 05:36:22 PM  

skullkrusher: amiable: skullkrusher: amiable: Obama did poorly, Romney did well, there is no other way to fairly parse it. The fundamentals of the race have not significantly changed other than Romney got a slight bump, however if Obama puts forward a performance like last week again it may cause real problems for his re-election campaign.

Done and done.

lol what?

it means I couldn't have said it better meself


Ah. Well then, Thank you!
 
2012-10-07 05:37:33 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: See, it's just that easy. But just because you don't know why your guy landed the luckiest sucker-punch in recent political history doesn't mean you should keep spiking the football until it goes flat. This is a long game, and the scoreboard on November 7th is the one that matters.


"my" guy looked bored at the debate.

Those employment numbers weren't that great. This is why I found the conspiracy theories around them to be so ridiculous. If you are gonna fake numbers, fake great ones. I don't think BO was keeping that close to the vest for the big secret weapon reveal.
 
2012-10-07 05:39:11 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: amiable: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: skullkrusher:
Dude, you are slipping. Re-read my first paragraph, I gave you comedy gold to be outragey at. I even italicized it. Personally I am insulted at your half-hearted reply, you didn't even mention sno cone's implication that Son of Bapp somehow smuggled an "i5" phone in that hankey, and we all just need to be patient for the scandal to be revealed.

/Son of Bapp is gonna catch fire any day now

To be fair to skullcrusher there have been some ridiculous attempts to make excuses for obama's lackluster performance. Personally I don't think Obama did as badly as many folks seem to assume (in that i thought it was just a poor showing not a complete disaster). This "it's a rope-a-dope, it was the altitude, he couldn't keep up with the lies" sounds silly and honestly like excuses Republican's made for Romney over the course of what until last week was a pretty clownshoes campaign. However, folks claiming that this was some sort of deathblow to the Obama campaign are equally as way out there.

Obama did poorly, Romney did well, there is no other way to fairly parse it. The fundamentals of the race have not significantly changed other than Romney got a slight bump, however if Obama puts forward a performance like last week again it may cause real problems for his re-election campaign.

Well of course, and that is why I augmented Skully's point by adding sno cone's hilarious assertion. I just wish they would stroke it just a little bit faster so they cum already and can start thinking clearly again.


I think you might be the only person with any idea what you're talking about.
 
2012-10-07 05:41:37 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Whiskey Pete: Threadjack:

The Biden/Palin debate is on C-Span right now.

/Threadjack

No offense, but I am watching the Patriots lose right now, why would I want to watch a Patriot win?


Thank you, I'll be here all week, try the veal, etc etc

/I actually changed it over to try and get Wednesday's taste out of my mouth, but the camera was zoomed in on Palin's face and I got disgusted and had to change back.
 
2012-10-07 05:44:00 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: /I actually changed it over to try and get Wednesday's taste out of my mouth, but the camera was zoomed in on Palin's face and I got disgusted and had to change back.


She said something to the effect of "Foreign policy is for adults who have a clear plan..." and I turned it over to Mythbusters before I got DERP poisoning.
 
2012-10-07 05:44:41 PM  

skullkrusher: amiable: skullkrusher: amiable: Obama did poorly, Romney did well, there is no other way to fairly parse it. The fundamentals of the race have not significantly changed other than Romney got a slight bump, however if Obama puts forward a performance like last week again it may cause real problems for his re-election campaign.

Done and done.

lol what?

it means I couldn't have said it better meself


And you'll never get me lucky charms, ooh hoo hoo!

/sorry, couldn't resist
 
2012-10-07 05:46:59 PM  
Oh man, I know I got here late, but this thread was pretty much doomed from the get-go.
 
2012-10-07 05:47:18 PM  
I would like to point out that voter fraud begins early and ends with the SCOTUS.

These polls are just put out there to make Mitt Romney winning the election via voter fraud with the eventual support of the SCOTUS less suspicious.

Stealing an election is a long process. These polls are just one part of it.
 
2012-10-07 05:51:24 PM  

skullkrusher: I think you might be the only person with any idea what you're talking about.


Whoa, whoa, let's not go overboard. I have posted some really stupid stuff on Fark, and it won't be long before I do it again. Case in point: the lucky charms post I just made.
 
2012-10-07 05:51:37 PM  

Whiskey Pete: And I hope the worst for these people. Being dangerously ignorant should hurt and hurt bad.


Very true. But remember that these same people enabled the government to militarize the police and a number of other agencies to keep them along with everybody else in check. It's going to be hard to overthrow the same government that these people keep throwing money at to stockpile more SWAT teams, more organizations, and so forth. And to some point, I think they acknowledge that. What they may or may not realize, however, is how another Oklahoma City is going to create another panic that focuses directly on the right-wing militant problem. And that's something the media can't really tiptoe around for a month before resuming business as usual.

I think that's the bottom line for a lot of the media organizations that make hay and cash off of these types. They're only good until one chucklefark hillbilly gets off his ass to do something and ends up bringing the whole thing down on his heads. Exactly who would stop a full-blown persecution of the Republican Base in this environment? Nobody in the world likes them very much (with very good reason), and a lot of Americans wouldn't lift a finger if Cletus and the other white supremacy assholes end up locked away for the rest of their lives. Sure, we'll get a few people bitter and angry and vowing vengeance, but nothing will destroy the right-wing faster than them following through with their playacting. And they know this, and that's why they try to keep it under wraps.
 
2012-10-07 05:51:58 PM  
m5.paperblog.com

/was looking for something else, got this instead
 
2012-10-07 05:57:15 PM  
 
2012-10-07 05:57:48 PM  

Guntram Shatterhand: Whiskey Pete: And I hope the worst for these people. Being dangerously ignorant should hurt and hurt bad.

Very true. But remember that these same people enabled the government to militarize the police and a number of other agencies to keep them along with everybody else in check. It's going to be hard to overthrow the same government that these people keep throwing money at to stockpile more SWAT teams, more organizations, and so forth. And to some point, I think they acknowledge that. What they may or may not realize, however, is how another Oklahoma City is going to create another panic that focuses directly on the right-wing militant problem. And that's something the media can't really tiptoe around for a month before resuming business as usual.

I think that's the bottom line for a lot of the media organizations that make hay and cash off of these types. They're only good until one chucklefark hillbilly gets off his ass to do something and ends up bringing the whole thing down on his heads. Exactly who would stop a full-blown persecution of the Republican Base in this environment? Nobody in the world likes them very much (with very good reason), and a lot of Americans wouldn't lift a finger if Cletus and the other white supremacy assholes end up locked away for the rest of their lives. Sure, we'll get a few people bitter and angry and vowing vengeance, but nothing will destroy the right-wing faster than them following through with their playacting. And they know this, and that's why they try to keep it under wraps.


Indeed. If you are ever feeling too good about your fellow Americans go over to Freeperville or any wingnut site or even a Yahoo political story and read the comments. These people are aggressively ignorant, full of lies and hatred and proud of it. I don't doubt that something will happen along the lines that you described after Obama wins.
 
2012-10-07 06:00:53 PM  

skullkrusher: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: See, it's just that easy. But just because you don't know why your guy landed the luckiest sucker-punch in recent political history doesn't mean you should keep spiking the football until it goes flat. This is a long game, and the scoreboard on November 7th is the one that matters.

"my" guy looked bored at the debate.

Those employment numbers weren't that great. This is why I found the conspiracy theories around them to be so ridiculous. If you are gonna fake numbers, fake great ones. I don't think BO was keeping that close to the vest for the big secret weapon reveal.


Wait, "your" guy is Obama? I have you farkied as "right-wing" in orange (albeit as "comic" and not "troll" or "shill" like the others, because you have a good sense of humor and a good, logical head on your shoulders); I might have to reevaluate my judgement of you and upgrade your color.

Yeah, all these conspiracy theories are just human nature, but they are really starting to get out of hand. I'll admit I am fully on the bandwagon with the Romney tax returns/amnesty one. But only because it fits my narrative and gives me hope, and it is at least possible. Plausible? Maybe. Probable? I'm not betting any money on it.
 
2012-10-07 06:01:39 PM  

IrateShadow: shower_in_my_socks: The media gets to pretend this is a close race, and the republicans get a brief moment of hope. It's nice for them, I guess.

It terrifies me. The narrative that the right has set up and the extremes they've pushed themselves to over the past decade or two have me worried that there will be a lot of misdirected rage and violence when they lose the election.


As long as they've got cable, they'll sit in their barcaloungers and biatch, same as always.
 
2012-10-07 06:02:59 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: /I actually changed it over to try and get Wednesday's taste out of my mouth, but the camera was zoomed in on Palin's face and I got disgusted and had to change back.

She said something to the effect of "Foreign policy is for adults who have a clear plan..." and I turned it over to Mythbusters before I got DERP poisoning.


Haaaaaa I would have punched my tv.
 
2012-10-07 06:08:53 PM  
A picture is worth 1000 words.
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-10-07 06:10:45 PM  

smitty04: A picture is worth 1000 words.
[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 403x403]


I see that they're letting the third string trolls play a couple of innings.
 
2012-10-07 06:10:47 PM  

TV's Vinnie: farkityfarker: I love watching the cons get all excited. It'll only make election day that much bigger of a blow for them.

THIS'd! Back in my pre-Internet days, I'd tune in to The 700 Club to watch Pat Robertson sh*t kittens the day after the election about Clinton winning in 1992. Now these days, I tune into Freepublic to read all of the HerpaDerps scream and wail.


I'm wondering if there will be mass suicides a la Heaven's Gate this year.
 
2012-10-07 06:12:16 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Guntram Shatterhand: Whiskey Pete: And I hope the worst for these people. Being dangerously ignorant should hurt and hurt bad.

Very true. But remember that these same people enabled the government to militarize the police and a number of other agencies to keep them along with everybody else in check. It's going to be hard to overthrow the same government that these people keep throwing money at to stockpile more SWAT teams, more organizations, and so forth. And to some point, I think they acknowledge that. What they may or may not realize, however, is how another Oklahoma City is going to create another panic that focuses directly on the right-wing militant problem. And that's something the media can't really tiptoe around for a month before resuming business as usual.

I think that's the bottom line for a lot of the media organizations that make hay and cash off of these types. They're only good until one chucklefark hillbilly gets off his ass to do something and ends up bringing the whole thing down on his heads. Exactly who would stop a full-blown persecution of the Republican Base in this environment? Nobody in the world likes them very much (with very good reason), and a lot of Americans wouldn't lift a finger if Cletus and the other white supremacy assholes end up locked away for the rest of their lives. Sure, we'll get a few people bitter and angry and vowing vengeance, but nothing will destroy the right-wing faster than them following through with their playacting. And they know this, and that's why they try to keep it under wraps.

Indeed. If you are ever feeling too good about your fellow Americans go over to Freeperville or any wingnut site or even a Yahoo political story and read the comments. These people are aggressively ignorant, full of lies and hatred and proud of it. I don't doubt that something will happen along the lines that you described after Obama wins.


Well, seeing how the reaction from the right-wing was positive after the Benghazi attack (as in, don't come together as a nation and support the President like we all did for Bush after 9/11, but instead attack and blame Obama while the attack is still happening), I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't wait until after the election to do something.

/I really hope I'm wrong
 
2012-10-07 06:13:38 PM  

Smackledorfer: MrBogey: If you aren't trolling, you've made a fool of yourself in this thread. Try to at least be a little bit honest.


I made an argument backed up by links that debunked the assertion that Rassmussen is an inaccurate pollster. Along with the overall trend in 2008 that matched Rassmussen's trend. They simply didn't wait till the end to get accurate. Everyone shifted in Obamas favor as election day 2008 approached.

That you think I made a fool of myself and not the idiots saying otherwise should cause you to do some self evaluation in regards to issue judgment.
 
2012-10-07 06:17:12 PM  

AcneVulgaris: IrateShadow: shower_in_my_socks: The media gets to pretend this is a close race, and the republicans get a brief moment of hope. It's nice for them, I guess.

It terrifies me. The narrative that the right has set up and the extremes they've pushed themselves to over the past decade or two have me worried that there will be a lot of misdirected rage and violence when they lose the election.

As long as they've got cable, they'll sit in their barcaloungers and biatch, same as always.


Well if they have have cable, we can only assume they also have a refrigerator, and are therefore living in the lap of luxury and have nothing to biatch about.
 
2012-10-07 06:18:41 PM  

Mrbogey: Smackledorfer: MrBogey: If you aren't trolling, you've made a fool of yourself in this thread. Try to at least be a little bit honest.

I made an argument backed up by links that debunked the assertion that Rassmussen is an inaccurate pollster. Along with the overall trend in 2008 that matched Rassmussen's trend. They simply didn't wait till the end to get accurate. Everyone shifted in Obamas favor as election day 2008 approached.

That you think I made a fool of myself and not the idiots saying otherwise should cause you to do some self evaluation in regards to issue judgment.


No.
 
2012-10-07 06:21:11 PM  

skullkrusher: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: See, it's just that easy. But just because you don't know why your guy landed the luckiest sucker-punch in recent political history doesn't mean you should keep spiking the football until it goes flat. This is a long game, and the scoreboard on November 7th is the one that matters.

"my" guy looked bored at the debate.

Those employment numbers weren't that great. This is why I found the conspiracy theories around them to be so ridiculous. If you are gonna fake numbers, fake great ones. I don't think BO was keeping that close to the vest for the big secret weapon reveal.


Same with the WMD in Iraq. Why didn't Bush just "find" some there if he was lying?
 
2012-10-07 06:22:50 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Mrbogey: Smackledorfer: MrBogey: If you aren't trolling, you've made a fool of yourself in this thread. Try to at least be a little bit honest.

I made an argument backed up by links that debunked the assertion that Rassmussen is an inaccurate pollster. Along with the overall trend in 2008 that matched Rassmussen's trend. They simply didn't wait till the end to get accurate. Everyone shifted in Obamas favor as election day 2008 approached.

That you think I made a fool of myself and not the idiots saying otherwise should cause you to do some self evaluation in regards to issue judgment.

No.


That and their track record in 2010 was pretty terrible too:


The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight's database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.

Moreover, Rasmussen's polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen's polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases - that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.


So tell me MrBogey, why should I trust Rasmussen again if they can't even get a Senate election in Hawaii right?
 
2012-10-07 06:23:46 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Same with the WMD in Iraq. Why didn't Bush just "find" some there if he was lying?


i1162.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-07 06:26:06 PM  

Ricardo Klement: skullkrusher: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: See, it's just that easy. But just because you don't know why your guy landed the luckiest sucker-punch in recent political history doesn't mean you should keep spiking the football until it goes flat. This is a long game, and the scoreboard on November 7th is the one that matters.

"my" guy looked bored at the debate.

Those employment numbers weren't that great. This is why I found the conspiracy theories around them to be so ridiculous. If you are gonna fake numbers, fake great ones. I don't think BO was keeping that close to the vest for the big secret weapon reveal.

Same with the WMD in Iraq. Why didn't Bush just "find" some there if he was lying?


Nuclear weapons are tightly controlled and somewhat traceable. You can't just "find" them as easily as fudging numbers in a database. And doesn't the fact that nobody has found those WMDs in the last 9 years kinda prove Bush was a lier?
 
2012-10-07 06:28:23 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Nuclear weapons are tightly controlled and somewhat traceable. You can't just "find" them as easily as fudging numbers in a database. And doesn't the fact that nobody has found those WMDs in the last 9 years kinda prove Bush was a lier?


This is exactly what the 'INTREDASTING' guy was thinking!
 
2012-10-07 06:32:02 PM  

Mrbogey: Smackledorfer: MrBogey: If you aren't trolling, you've made a fool of yourself in this thread. Try to at least be a little bit honest.

I made an argument backed up by links that debunked the assertion that Rassmussen is an inaccurate pollster. Along with the overall trend in 2008 that matched Rassmussen's trend. They simply didn't wait till the end to get accurate. Everyone shifted in Obamas favor as election day 2008 approached.

That you think I made a fool of myself and not the idiots saying otherwise should cause you to do some self evaluation in regards to issue judgment.


Why even respond? Rasmussen was most accurate last two prez elections. Farklibs have consistently shown total disregard for reality when it comes to certain subjects (Rasmussen and the Anthony Weiner affair being among the most laughable). Just laugh at their lunacy.
 
2012-10-07 06:34:52 PM  
They're clearing the bench over at GOPTROLL, inc. today!
 
2012-10-07 06:36:07 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Ricardo Klement: skullkrusher: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: See, it's just that easy. But just because you don't know why your guy landed the luckiest sucker-punch in recent political history doesn't mean you should keep spiking the football until it goes flat. This is a long game, and the scoreboard on November 7th is the one that matters.

"my" guy looked bored at the debate.

Those employment numbers weren't that great. This is why I found the conspiracy theories around them to be so ridiculous. If you are gonna fake numbers, fake great ones. I don't think BO was keeping that close to the vest for the big secret weapon reveal.

Same with the WMD in Iraq. Why didn't Bush just "find" some there if he was lying?

Nuclear weapons are tightly controlled and somewhat traceable. You can't just "find" them as easily as fudging numbers in a database. And doesn't the fact that nobody has found those WMDs in the last 9 years kinda prove Bush was a lier?


First of all, WMD is not just some handy TLA for "nuke" - it includes Chem/Bio weapons, which, if you recall, were the focus of Colin Powell's UN speech. Second, if you define "lie" to include simply being wrong, yes. People who said Obama would win the debate are not liars. They were just wrong. For most normal people, a lie is something that requires knowing what you're saying is untrue. And for that definition, Bush wasn't proved a liar simply due to the absence of WMD.
 
2012-10-07 06:36:07 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Ricardo Klement: skullkrusher: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: See, it's just that easy. But just because you don't know why your guy landed the luckiest sucker-punch in recent political history doesn't mean you should keep spiking the football until it goes flat. This is a long game, and the scoreboard on November 7th is the one that matters.

"my" guy looked bored at the debate.

Those employment numbers weren't that great. This is why I found the conspiracy theories around them to be so ridiculous. If you are gonna fake numbers, fake great ones. I don't think BO was keeping that close to the vest for the big secret weapon reveal.

Same with the WMD in Iraq. Why didn't Bush just "find" some there if he was lying?

Nuclear weapons are tightly controlled and somewhat traceable. You can't just "find" them as easily as fudging numbers in a database. And doesn't the fact that nobody has found those WMDs in the last 9 years kinda prove Bush was a lier?

I think his point is that be cause they didn't plant WMD that proves that Bush wasn't lying, just wrong, which is better in his opinion.

Ricardo Klement: skullkrusher: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: See, it's just that easy. But just because you don't know why your guy landed the luckiest sucker-punch in recent political history doesn't mean you should keep spiking the football until it goes flat. This is a long game, and the scoreboard on November 7th is the one that matters.

"my" guy looked bored at the debate.

Those employment numbers weren't that great. This is why I found the conspiracy theories around them to be so ridiculous. If you are gonna fake numbers, fake great ones. I don't think BO was keeping that close to the vest for the big secret weapon reveal.

Same with the WMD in Iraq. Why didn't Bush just "find" some there if he was lying?


Funny I remember several times they found a smoking gun.
And then they started changing the message that we didn't go in for WMD.
 
2012-10-07 06:38:12 PM  

Ricardo Klement: First of all, WMD is not just some handy TLA for "nuke" - it includes Chem/Bio weapons, which, if you recall, were the focus of Colin Powell's UN speech. Second, if you define "lie" to include simply being wrong, yes. People who said Obama would win the debate are not liars. They were just wrong. For most normal people, a lie is something that requires knowing what you're saying is untrue. And for that definition, Bush wasn't proved a liar simply due to the absence of WMD


Really I thought most of his speach was about yellow cake.
 
2012-10-07 06:39:11 PM  

Ricardo Klement: First of all, WMD is not just some handy TLA for "nuke" - it includes Chem/Bio weapons, which, if you recall, were the focus of Colin Powell's UN speech. Second, if you define "lie" to include simply being wrong, yes. People who said Obama would win the debate are not liars. They were just wrong. For most normal people, a lie is something that requires knowing what you're saying is untrue. And for that definition, Bush wasn't proved a liar simply due to the absence of WMD.


i1162.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-07 06:39:55 PM  

spongeboob: Ricardo Klement: First of all, WMD is not just some handy TLA for "nuke" - it includes Chem/Bio weapons, which, if you recall, were the focus of Colin Powell's UN speech. Second, if you define "lie" to include simply being wrong, yes. People who said Obama would win the debate are not liars. They were just wrong. For most normal people, a lie is something that requires knowing what you're saying is untrue. And for that definition, Bush wasn't proved a liar simply due to the absence of WMD

Really I thought most of his speach was about yellow cake.


* shakes tiny fist *
 
2012-10-07 06:40:38 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Same with the WMD in Iraq. Why didn't Bush just "find" some there if he was lying?


And leave a trail of people who could blackmail in the future to set something like that up? The risk of blowback would have been too great. As it is, it didn't really matter if Bush found WMD's, he already succeed in invading Iraq and the non-presence of WMD's still left enough plausible deniability that Bush wouldn't get into too much trouble.

It isn't like the Bush administration had an Office of Special Plans just to forge evidence so they can go to war with Iraq.

The analogy to forging unemployment doesn't hold though, because unlike planting WMD's, forging better numbers would include no additional risk.
 
2012-10-07 06:41:42 PM  

spongeboob: Funny I remember several times they found a smoking gun.
And then they started changing the message that we didn't go in for WMD.


"welcomed as liberators something, something"
 
2012-10-07 06:42:24 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Ricardo Klement: First of all, WMD is not just some handy TLA for "nuke" - it includes Chem/Bio weapons, which, if you recall, were the focus of Colin Powell's UN speech. Second, if you define "lie" to include simply being wrong, yes. People who said Obama would win the debate are not liars. They were just wrong. For most normal people, a lie is something that requires knowing what you're saying is untrue. And for that definition, Bush wasn't proved a liar simply due to the absence of WMD.

[i1162.photobucket.com image 307x360]


Precisely - that was a vial of "Anthrax".
 
2012-10-07 06:45:35 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Ricardo Klement: skullkrusher: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: See, it's just that easy. But just because you don't know why your guy landed the luckiest sucker-punch in recent political history doesn't mean you should keep spiking the football until it goes flat. This is a long game, and the scoreboard on November 7th is the one that matters.

"my" guy looked bored at the debate.

Those employment numbers weren't that great. This is why I found the conspiracy theories around them to be so ridiculous. If you are gonna fake numbers, fake great ones. I don't think BO was keeping that close to the vest for the big secret weapon reveal.

Same with the WMD in Iraq. Why didn't Bush just "find" some there if he was lying?

Nuclear weapons are tightly controlled and somewhat traceable. You can't just "find" them as easily as fudging numbers in a database. And doesn't the fact that nobody has found those WMDs in the last 9 years kinda prove Bush was a lier?

First of all, WMD is not just some handy TLA for "nuke" - it includes Chem/Bio weapons, which, if you recall, were the focus of Colin Powell's UN speech. Second, if you define "lie" to include simply being wrong, yes. People who said Obama would win the debate are not liars. They were just wrong. For most normal people, a lie is something that requires knowing what you're saying is untrue. And for that definition, Bush wasn't proved a liar simply due to the absence of WMD.


I guess maybe next time a Vice President will think twice before trying to scare the American public into an illegal war using the term "mushroom cloud" in a televised speech.
 
2012-10-07 06:45:57 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Precisely - that was a vial of "Anthrax".


Yes. That's why a GIS for "Colin Powell Yellowcake" turned it up.
 
2012-10-07 06:47:07 PM  

Charlotte Little: First time posting here. I always considered myself an independent but after 8 years with Bushiat, I decided to register Democrat and stay true to the blue. Will never go back.

I've been lurking on this forum, and I can promise all of you that you're fretting way too much and too soon. Yes, Obama blew it the other night, and not because he gave a less than stellar performance (and seem checked out), but because he and his staff underestimated the insane dissemination of information via social networks. It's a different arena than when he first competed and I'm sure he is smarting from the realization of this. After all, all he (his staff) has to do is go on Twitter and read what's trending to know this.

If you'll recall, back in 2008, Twitter was still in diapers. Now, everyone who is anyone has an account and even though many of them claim twitter is silly, they know it most certainly isn't. We are witnessing first hand how influential Twitter (FB, Reddit, PinInterest, etc.) are. In lieu of the media shaping our collective narrative (which they often do), now we have ourselves shaping how media shapes us, especially in an election year. I.e. - it's all one big continuous daily conversation in which information is spread faster than it can be gathered.

My point? Stop fretting. Tomorrow, it will be a different story. Tuesday, another and so on...until November 6th. We are riding a beast that we have taken part in creating and, yet, we seem to hide our eyes when we don't like what the beast is growling. Obama's performance wasn't up to par, a fact. Romney showed he could walk and talk without farting his usual gaffe, but only by lying through his teeth, a fact. In reality, where you know? - when you debate, you don't just lie, interrupt and speak rapidly? - he did not win. In reality, neither did Obama. But the beast has bellowed and we can't do anything about that now. Until something else catches all of our collective thoughts and opinions, shifting the beast bac ...


Welcome to my favorites list. You may recognize some of the others there . . .
 
2012-10-07 06:47:34 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Ricardo Klement: Precisely - that was a vial of "Anthrax".

Yes. That's why a GIS for "Colin Powell Yellowcake" turned it up.


What happens when you do a GIS for Powell Anthrax?

And what happens when you do a regular search and watch the video?
 
2012-10-07 06:47:52 PM  

spongeboob: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Ricardo Klement: skullkrusher: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: See, it's just that easy. But just because you don't know why your guy landed the luckiest sucker-punch in recent political history doesn't mean you should keep spiking the football until it goes flat. This is a long game, and the scoreboard on November 7th is the one that matters.

"my" guy looked bored at the debate.

Those employment numbers weren't that great. This is why I found the conspiracy theories around them to be so ridiculous. If you are gonna fake numbers, fake great ones. I don't think BO was keeping that close to the vest for the big secret weapon reveal.

Same with the WMD in Iraq. Why didn't Bush just "find" some there if he was lying?

Nuclear weapons are tightly controlled and somewhat traceable. You can't just "find" them as easily as fudging numbers in a database. And doesn't the fact that nobody has found those WMDs in the last 9 years kinda prove Bush was a lier?
I think his point is that be cause they didn't plant WMD that proves that Bush wasn't lying, just wrong, which is better in his opinion.

Ricardo Klement: skullkrusher: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: See, it's just that easy. But just because you don't know why your guy landed the luckiest sucker-punch in recent political history doesn't mean you should keep spiking the football until it goes flat. This is a long game, and the scoreboard on November 7th is the one that matters.

"my" guy looked bored at the debate.

Those employment numbers weren't that great. This is why I found the conspiracy theories around them to be so ridiculous. If you are gonna fake numbers, fake great ones. I don't think BO was keeping that close to the vest for the big secret weapon reveal.

Same with the WMD in Iraq. Why didn't Bush just "find" some there if he was lying?

Funny I remember several times they found a smoking gun.
And then they started changing the message that we didn't go in for WMD.


They didn't "change the message" that "we didn't go in for WMD". It was the left who after the fact decided that that was the only reason. Read Bush's speech on the reasons for the war before we went in. Hell, read Colin Powell's to the UN. WMD was, yes, one of the major reasons, but it was by far not the only one. Stop living a lie. If you don't read them your a lazy lib.

The Obamanites here are almost, ALMOST, as sure President Obama will win this election as they thought Kerry would win in 2004. The butthurt the day after that election was epic.

I think Obama will win, but Romney has a much better chance than Kerry ever did and the farklibs are acting as if it's going to be some epic blowout. I believe it's going to be much closer than the Kerry-Bush election.
 
2012-10-07 06:49:32 PM  

Whiskey Pete: No.


Rassmussen's models clearly didn't work for a non-presidential elections. Certain assumptions they make in voter identification and enthusiasm didn't hold. IIRC, they admitted this.

Electoral trends change based upon the office. People are way more partisan when it comes to presidential elections, only slightly less so for statewide offices and all over the place for local.

Look at it this way, the vast majority of people gave Romney the edge in the first debate, when someone tells you that Romney didn't do well in it, you need to consider that that group isn't representative of the body at large. Fark by a large degree gave Romney a negative response for the debate. What does that tell you about the average Farker in regards to the larger body politic?
 
2012-10-07 06:49:42 PM  

Ricardo Klement: What happens when you do a GIS for Powell Anthrax?


Same speech, wrong 'prop'. My bad.
 
2012-10-07 06:50:06 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Ricardo Klement: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Ricardo Klement: skullkrusher: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: See, it's just that easy. But just because you don't know why your guy landed the luckiest sucker-punch in recent political history doesn't mean you should keep spiking the football until it goes flat. This is a long game, and the scoreboard on November 7th is the one that matters.

"my" guy looked bored at the debate.

Those employment numbers weren't that great. This is why I found the conspiracy theories around them to be so ridiculous. If you are gonna fake numbers, fake great ones. I don't think BO was keeping that close to the vest for the big secret weapon reveal.

Same with the WMD in Iraq. Why didn't Bush just "find" some there if he was lying?

Nuclear weapons are tightly controlled and somewhat traceable. You can't just "find" them as easily as fudging numbers in a database. And doesn't the fact that nobody has found those WMDs in the last 9 years kinda prove Bush was a lier?

First of all, WMD is not just some handy TLA for "nuke" - it includes Chem/Bio weapons, which, if you recall, were the focus of Colin Powell's UN speech. Second, if you define "lie" to include simply being wrong, yes. People who said Obama would win the debate are not liars. They were just wrong. For most normal people, a lie is something that requires knowing what you're saying is untrue. And for that definition, Bush wasn't proved a liar simply due to the absence of WMD.

I guess maybe next time a Vice President will think twice before trying to scare the American public into an illegal war using the term "mushroom cloud" in a televised speech.


Oh, to be sure, he was also talking about nukes and the potential, but the bulk of the absolute certainty revolved around chemical and biological weapons.
 
2012-10-07 06:50:55 PM  

spongeboob: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Ricardo Klement: skullkrusher: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: See, it's just that easy. But just because you don't know why your guy landed the luckiest sucker-punch in recent political history doesn't mean you should keep spiking the football until it goes flat. This is a long game, and the scoreboard on November 7th is the one that matters.

"my" guy looked bored at the debate.

Those employment numbers weren't that great. This is why I found the conspiracy theories around them to be so ridiculous. If you are gonna fake numbers, fake great ones. I don't think BO was keeping that close to the vest for the big secret weapon reveal.

Same with the WMD in Iraq. Why didn't Bush just "find" some there if he was lying?

Nuclear weapons are tightly controlled and somewhat traceable. You can't just "find" them as easily as fudging numbers in a database. And doesn't the fact that nobody has found those WMDs in the last 9 years kinda prove Bush was a lier?
I think his point is that be cause they didn't plant WMD that proves that Bush wasn't lying, just wrong, which is better in his opinion.

Ricardo Klement: skullkrusher: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: See, it's just that easy. But just because you don't know why your guy landed the luckiest sucker-punch in recent political history doesn't mean you should keep spiking the football until it goes flat. This is a long game, and the scoreboard on November 7th is the one that matters.

"my" guy looked bored at the debate.

Those employment numbers weren't that great. This is why I found the conspiracy theories around them to be so ridiculous. If you are gonna fake numbers, fake great ones. I don't think BO was keeping that close to the vest for the big secret weapon reveal.

Same with the WMD in Iraq. Why didn't Bush just "find" some there if he was lying?

Funny I remember several times they found a smoking gun.
And then they started changing the message that we didn't go in for WMD.


Got several links for those several smoking guns?
 
2012-10-07 06:52:10 PM  

Mrbogey: What does that tell you about the average Farker in regards to the larger body politic?


They they can differentiate between lying bloviation and actually winning a debate?
 
2012-10-07 06:53:07 PM  

Rich Cream: [m5.paperblog.com image 576x538]

/was looking for something else, got this instead


Communism and Corporatism, wheeee!

i45.tinypic.com
 
2012-10-07 06:53:16 PM  

randomjsa: So basically the poll from a couple days ago that told liberals what they wanted was fine but this poll is bad because it says the opposite.


And this time last week, all polls were skewed and unreliable. But NOW, they're important.

Just like the BLS was fine for unemployment reports up until last month, but now that they say 7.8%, we need to take the data down to the atomic level.
 
2012-10-07 06:53:29 PM  

Mrbogey: Rassmussen's models clearly didn't work for a non-presidential elections. Certain assumptions they make in voter identification and enthusiasm didn't hold. IIRC, they admitted this.


This means that their confirmation bias wasn't working as they had hoped.
 
2012-10-07 06:53:50 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Ricardo Klement: What happens when you do a GIS for Powell Anthrax?

Same speech, wrong 'prop'. My bad.


He did discuss yellowcake in that speech, but look at most of it: graphics of mobile bioweapons trucks and chemical containment facilities for chemical weapons... they were AFRAID of nukes, and said Saddam had a nuclear program. He didn't have nukes YET (and we couldn't wait for the magical mushroom cloud). But Powell said he absolutely had chem and bio weapons in stock and being produced.
 
2012-10-07 06:55:36 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Wait, "your" guy is Obama? I have you farkied as "right-wing" in orange (albeit as "comic" and not "troll" or "shill" like the others, because you have a good sense of humor and a good, logical head on your shoulders); I might have to reevaluate my judgement of you and upgrade your color.

Yeah, all these conspiracy theories are just human nature, but they are really starting to get out of hand. I'll admit I am fully on the bandwagon with the Romney tax returns/amnesty one. But only because it fits my narrative and gives me hope, and it is at least possible. Plausible? Maybe. Probable? I'm not betting any money on it.


if I lived in a swing state, I'd be voting for BO. However, since there is no danger of NY going for Romney, I will happily throw my vote away to a third party. Since I have no illusions that a third party may win, I want to see BO beat Mittens... actually, I'd like to view an alternate reality where Mittens won just to see the true believer meltdown but then I'd want to return to the reality where BO wins - the one with a future
 
2012-10-07 06:56:27 PM  

Ricardo Klement: He did discuss yellowcake in that speech, but look at most of it: graphics of mobile bioweapons trucks and chemical containment facilities for chemical weapons... they were AFRAID of nukes, and said Saddam had a nuclear program. He didn't have nukes YET (and we couldn't wait for the magical mushroom cloud). But Powell said he absolutely had chem and bio weapons in stock and being produced.


You are really still farking that Iraq war was justified chicken? really?
 
2012-10-07 06:56:47 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: randomjsa: So basically the poll from a couple days ago that told liberals what they wanted was fine but this poll is bad because it says the opposite.

And this time last week, all polls were skewed and unreliable. But NOW, they're important.

Just like the BLS was fine for unemployment reports up until last month, but now that they say 7.8%, we need to take the data down to the atomic level.


If Rasmussen was literally abandoned by many Conservatives when it started showing Obama ahead. I really hope Obama wins by as large of a margin as possible because I don't think many conservatives will accept any result with Obama less that a 50 vote electoral lead.
 
2012-10-07 06:58:02 PM  

Mrbogey: Look at it this way, the vast majority of people gave Romney the edge in the first debate, when someone tells you that Romney didn't do well in it, you need to consider that that group isn't representative of the body at large. Fark by a large degree gave Romney a negative response for the debate. What does that tell you about the average Farker in regards to the larger body politic?


As someone who hasn't watched the debate yet and thus doesn't have an independent opinion of it, I can say that this is not the message I got about from Fark or elsewhere, which is pretty much the same. The message I got is that Romney had a lot of energy, looked a lot better than Obama and was clearly ready and prepared to answer questions. Romney also lied his ass off, didn't follow the debate format very well and the big take-away from this for a lot of people is that Romney wants to kill Big Bird (also, Jim Lehrer did a horrible job moderating). Now which of the above observation I got from other people is wrong?
 
2012-10-07 06:58:25 PM  

Whiskey Pete: spongeboob: Funny I remember several times they found a smoking gun.
And then they started changing the message that we didn't go in for WMD.

"welcomed as liberators something, something"


something something war would only take six months etc.
 
2012-10-07 06:59:58 PM  

Mrbogey: Look at it this way, the vast majority of people gave Romney the edge in the first debate, when someone tells you that Romney didn't do well in it, you need to consider that that group isn't representative of the body at large. Fark by a large degree gave Romney a negative response for the debate. What does that tell you about the average Farker in regards to the larger body politic?


Hypo for you:

You need $200,000 for life-saving, emergency surgery and you only have $100,000. No cash, no surgery.

On election night, Rasmussen has Romney up by 1% in his final poll.

Nate Silver has Obama up by 1%, but, based on state by state responses, says there is a 75% chance of an Obama win.

You can bet your $100,000 on either Romney or Obama winning and win the extra $100,000 for your surgery. If you're wrong, you die.

Who do you go with, Rasmussen or Nate Silver?
 
2012-10-07 07:01:07 PM  

Whiskey Pete: You are really still farking that Iraq war was justified chicken? really?


Even Bill O'Reilly just recently said that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. When even Fox News pundits are back away one should really stop beating off that dead horse.
 
2012-10-07 07:01:12 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Ricardo Klement: He did discuss yellowcake in that speech, but look at most of it: graphics of mobile bioweapons trucks and chemical containment facilities for chemical weapons... they were AFRAID of nukes, and said Saddam had a nuclear program. He didn't have nukes YET (and we couldn't wait for the magical mushroom cloud). But Powell said he absolutely had chem and bio weapons in stock and being produced.

You are really still farking that Iraq war was justified chicken? really?


I didn't say that. This conversation started because I said if Bush lied (rather than simply being wrong), why didn't he plant some WMD to be "found"? I didn't say the war was justified. Even though I'm Republican, and even though I'm a hawk, and even though I think Saddam needed killin', I am not so far to the right that I think Iraq was anything but a retarded mistake.

I supported it because I gave the President the benefit of the doubt. I feel like he betrayed my trust.
 
2012-10-07 07:04:55 PM  

Ricardo Klement: I didn't say that. This conversation started because I said if Bush lied (rather than simply being wrong), why didn't he plant some WMD to be "found"? I didn't say the war was justified. Even though I'm Republican, and even though I'm a hawk, and even though I think Saddam needed killin', I am not so far to the right that I think Iraq was anything but a retarded mistake.

I supported it because I gave the President the benefit of the doubt. I feel like he betrayed my trust.


Well then as was pointed out earlier, manipulating data is one helluva lot more feasible than planting WMDs. I just don't think that Bush gets a pass just because he didn't plant them.
 
2012-10-07 07:06:41 PM  

Ricardo Klement: didn't say that. This conversation started because I said if Bush lied (rather than simply being wrong), why didn't he plant some WMD to be "found"? I didn't say the war was justified. Even though I'm Republican, and even though I'm a hawk, and even though I think Saddam needed killin', I am not so far to the right that I think Iraq was anything but a retarded mistake.

I supported it because I gave the President the benefit of the doubt. I feel like he betrayed my trust.


If Bush was really just making a mistake, he would have to be one of the clueless individuals out there, up there with Lois Lane not knowing that Clark Kent was Superman because of a pair of glasses. Everyone around him was actively forging information to justify an invasion, and even punishing people who didn't fall in with the party line. Are you honestly saying Bush knew nothing about what was going around him, that he was clueless about what his administration was doing?
 
2012-10-07 07:10:16 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Ricardo Klement: I didn't say that. This conversation started because I said if Bush lied (rather than simply being wrong), why didn't he plant some WMD to be "found"? I didn't say the war was justified. Even though I'm Republican, and even though I'm a hawk, and even though I think Saddam needed killin', I am not so far to the right that I think Iraq was anything but a retarded mistake.

I supported it because I gave the President the benefit of the doubt. I feel like he betrayed my trust.

Well then as was pointed out earlier, manipulating data is one helluva lot more feasible than planting WMDs. I just don't think that Bush gets a pass just because he didn't plant them.


I don't think he deserves a pass. It's like killing someone: if you planned it, it's murder. If you didn't mean to, it's manslaughter. Bush didn't intend to get into a quagmire that would soil his reputation for all of history. That doesn't mean his reputation shouldn't be one of getting us into a quagmire.
 
2012-10-07 07:10:34 PM  

RyogaM: Mrbogey: Look at it this way, the vast majority of people gave Romney the edge in the first debate, when someone tells you that Romney didn't do well in it, you need to consider that that group isn't representative of the body at large. Fark by a large degree gave Romney a negative response for the debate. What does that tell you about the average Farker in regards to the larger body politic?

Hypo for you:

You need $200,000 for life-saving, emergency surgery and you only have $100,000. No cash, no surgery.

On election night, Rasmussen has Romney up by 1% in his final poll.

Nate Silver has Obama up by 1%, but, based on state by state responses, says there is a 75% chance of an Obama win.

You can bet your $100,000 on either Romney or Obama winning and win the extra $100,000 for your surgery. If you're wrong, you die.

Who do you go with, Rasmussen or Nate Silver?


i1162.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-07 07:10:35 PM  
What in Satan's asshole is THIS? Link
 
2012-10-07 07:11:26 PM  

Gwyrddu: Mrbogey: Look at it this way, the vast majority of people gave Romney the edge in the first debate, when someone tells you that Romney didn't do well in it, you need to consider that that group isn't representative of the body at large. Fark by a large degree gave Romney a negative response for the debate. What does that tell you about the average Farker in regards to the larger body politic?

As someone who hasn't watched the debate yet and thus doesn't have an independent opinion of it, I can say that this is not the message I got about from Fark or elsewhere, which is pretty much the same. The message I got is that Romney had a lot of energy, looked a lot better than Obama and was clearly ready and prepared to answer questions. Romney also lied his ass off, didn't follow the debate format very well and the big take-away from this for a lot of people is that Romney wants to kill Big Bird (also, Jim Lehrer did a horrible job moderating). Now which of the above observation I got from other people is wrong?


You are correct. That was the consensus amongst most of the Obama supporters the night of the debate and in the follow-up threads. The only place where the response was different is in Mrbogey's alternative reality.
 
2012-10-07 07:12:22 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Whiskey Pete: Ricardo Klement: He did discuss yellowcake in that speech, but look at most of it: graphics of mobile bioweapons trucks and chemical containment facilities for chemical weapons... they were AFRAID of nukes, and said Saddam had a nuclear program. He didn't have nukes YET (and we couldn't wait for the magical mushroom cloud). But Powell said he absolutely had chem and bio weapons in stock and being produced.

You are really still farking that Iraq war was justified chicken? really?

I didn't say that. This conversation started because I said if Bush lied (rather than simply being wrong), why didn't he plant some WMD to be "found"? I didn't say the war was justified. Even though I'm Republican, and even though I'm a hawk, and even though I think Saddam needed killin', I am not so far to the right that I think Iraq was anything but a retarded mistake.

I supported it because I gave the President the benefit of the doubt. I feel like he betrayed my trust.


So you are saying the BLS numbers aren't a lie, they're just wrong? Otherwise, your analogy is crap.
 
2012-10-07 07:14:03 PM  

Altitude5280: What in Satan's asshole is THIS? Link


Well that seems like an unbiased source looking at the other articles there.
 
2012-10-07 07:15:10 PM  

RyogaM: Who do you go with, Rasmussen or Nate Silver?


Hypotheticals nested within a reality where a similar situation could exist are tricky to answer. I'd need specific data including state-by-state breakdowns along with enthusiasm and party identification trends.

In close races, the excited side with a good ground game wins.
 
2012-10-07 07:16:01 PM  

Gwyrddu: Ricardo Klement: didn't say that. This conversation started because I said if Bush lied (rather than simply being wrong), why didn't he plant some WMD to be "found"? I didn't say the war was justified. Even though I'm Republican, and even though I'm a hawk, and even though I think Saddam needed killin', I am not so far to the right that I think Iraq was anything but a retarded mistake.

I supported it because I gave the President the benefit of the doubt. I feel like he betrayed my trust.

If Bush was really just making a mistake, he would have to be one of the clueless individuals out there, up there with Lois Lane not knowing that Clark Kent was Superman because of a pair of glasses. Everyone around him was actively forging information to justify an invasion, and even punishing people who didn't fall in with the party line. Are you honestly saying Bush knew nothing about what was going around him, that he was clueless about what his administration was doing?


Think about the converse. Do you think he really intended to get us into a war that would drag on for the better part of a decade, lead to tens of thousands of casualties, essentially dominate his administration, bookended by 9/11 and the worst economic collapse since the '30s? They farked up everything about that war from day 1, and it makes Vietnam look like a well-planned and well-understood venture. Only our military's light-years ahead technology and supremely superior training kept Iraq from becoming so bad he would be a one-term president, which it almost did.

Yes, the administration pressured intelligence agencies for evidence backing its case. Yes, it deprecated exculpatory evidence. But it did so because it just knew Saddam was guilty, and wasn't interested in following up leads it viewed would not actually turn out to exonerate him. The administration was caught in Mark Twain's famous warning that nothing gets us into trouble quite like believing something that just ain't true.
 
2012-10-07 07:16:45 PM  

Mrbogey: Hypotheticals nested within a reality where a similar situation could exist are tricky to answer. I'd need specific data including state-by-state breakdowns along with enthusiasm and party identification trends.

In close races, the excited side with a good ground game wins



So you don't believe Rasmussen either, huh?
 
2012-10-07 07:16:46 PM  

Delay: Whiskey Pete: Okay. What makes you think that Obama is losing Ohio?

[www.electoral-vote.com image 850x240]


So looking at the single Rasmussen poll is enough for you? Because that is what that last dot is. It isn't a poll average or anything.
 
2012-10-07 07:17:01 PM  

Gwyrddu: Now which of the above observation I got from other people is wrong?


I think you're looking at it too widely. Everyone admits that... but the winner of the debate is the one who gains in the polls. Quite a many farkers dismissed Romney gaining anything.
 
2012-10-07 07:18:47 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Ricardo Klement: Whiskey Pete: Ricardo Klement: He did discuss yellowcake in that speech, but look at most of it: graphics of mobile bioweapons trucks and chemical containment facilities for chemical weapons... they were AFRAID of nukes, and said Saddam had a nuclear program. He didn't have nukes YET (and we couldn't wait for the magical mushroom cloud). But Powell said he absolutely had chem and bio weapons in stock and being produced.

You are really still farking that Iraq war was justified chicken? really?

I didn't say that. This conversation started because I said if Bush lied (rather than simply being wrong), why didn't he plant some WMD to be "found"? I didn't say the war was justified. Even though I'm Republican, and even though I'm a hawk, and even though I think Saddam needed killin', I am not so far to the right that I think Iraq was anything but a retarded mistake.

I supported it because I gave the President the benefit of the doubt. I feel like he betrayed my trust.

So you are saying the BLS numbers aren't a lie, they're just wrong? Otherwise, your analogy is crap.


No, the analogy was meant to demonstrate one thing and one thing only: that if the president is going to manipulate something, he's not going to do it half-assed. And in that way, the analogy accomplishes what it set out to do.
 
2012-10-07 07:21:15 PM  

Gwyrddu: If Bush was really just making a mistake, he would have to be one of the clueless individuals out there.... Are you honestly saying Bush knew nothing about what was going around him, that he was clueless about what his administration was doing?


Mistake? It was cunning. Bush got rid of everyone around him who questioned Iraq's role in 9/11 (the original justification for invasion, it seems so long ago..), got the answer he wanted and acted on plans finalized well beforehand. The line between Bush's tactical disdain for facts and Romney's campaign tactics are mathematically straight. It's probably part of why the Right consigned him to the dustbin of history, they dread the association.
 
2012-10-07 07:25:17 PM  

neenerist: Mistake? It was cunning. Bush got rid of everyone around him who questioned Iraq's role in 9/11 (the original justification for invasion, it seems so long ago..), got the answer he wanted and acted on plans finalized well beforehand. The line between Bush's tactical disdain for facts and Romney's campaign tactics are mathematically straight. It's probably part of why the Right consigned him to the dustbin of history, they dread the association.


Wasn't here an ex-Bush cabinet member that said an Iraq invasion was on the table well before 9/11?
 
2012-10-07 07:27:08 PM  

Altitude5280: What in Satan's asshole is THIS? Link


Extremely wishful thinking.
 
2012-10-07 07:28:06 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Think about the converse. Do you think he really intended to get us into a war that would drag on for the better part of a decade, lead to tens of thousands of casualties, essentially dominate his administration, bookended by 9/11 and the worst economic collapse since the '30s? They farked up everything about that war from day 1, and it makes Vietnam look like a well-planned and well-understood venture. Only our military's light-years ahead technology and supremely superior training kept Iraq from becoming so bad he would be a one-term president, which it almost did.


I do think Bush and his administration were terribly mistaken about the results of invading Iraq. They honestly did believe that the Iraq would thrive as a smashing success under American liberators and that it would be a successful testbed of their radical conservative ideas, which is one reason they disbanded the Ba'athist government and military which lead to half the problems in that country. But not understanding the consequences of their actions doesn't mean Bush was honest on his reasoning for invading Iraq in the first place.

For one, if Bush really thought the reason we need to invade Iraq was to stop WMD's, why did he call up Chirac to talk about Gog and Magog?
 
2012-10-07 07:29:35 PM  

Whiskey Pete: neenerist: Mistake? It was cunning. Bush got rid of everyone around him who questioned Iraq's role in 9/11 (the original justification for invasion, it seems so long ago..), got the answer he wanted and acted on plans finalized well beforehand. The line between Bush's tactical disdain for facts and Romney's campaign tactics are mathematically straight. It's probably part of why the Right consigned him to the dustbin of history, they dread the association.

Wasn't here an ex-Bush cabinet member that said an Iraq invasion was on the table well before 9/11?


Richard Clarke
 
2012-10-07 07:32:54 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Richard Clarke


The Bandstand guy???
 
2012-10-07 07:34:36 PM  
Ha
 
2012-10-07 07:35:17 PM  

Gwyrddu: Ricardo Klement: Think about the converse. Do you think he really intended to get us into a war that would drag on for the better part of a decade, lead to tens of thousands of casualties, essentially dominate his administration, bookended by 9/11 and the worst economic collapse since the '30s? They farked up everything about that war from day 1, and it makes Vietnam look like a well-planned and well-understood venture. Only our military's light-years ahead technology and supremely superior training kept Iraq from becoming so bad he would be a one-term president, which it almost did.

I do think Bush and his administration were terribly mistaken about the results of invading Iraq. They honestly did believe that the Iraq would thrive as a smashing success under American liberators and that it would be a successful testbed of their radical conservative ideas, which is one reason they disbanded the Ba'athist government and military which lead to half the problems in that country. But not understanding the consequences of their actions doesn't mean Bush was honest on his reasoning for invading Iraq in the first place.

For one, if Bush really thought the reason we need to invade Iraq was to stop WMD's, why did he call up Chirac to talk about Gog and Magog?


Even if true, it reinforces my point: Bush took it on faith that Saddam was guilty. Everything else was just administrative paperwork.
 
2012-10-07 07:38:41 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Whiskey Pete: neenerist: Mistake? It was cunning. Bush got rid of everyone around him who questioned Iraq's role in 9/11 (the original justification for invasion, it seems so long ago..), got the answer he wanted and acted on plans finalized well beforehand. The line between Bush's tactical disdain for facts and Romney's campaign tactics are mathematically straight. It's probably part of why the Right consigned him to the dustbin of history, they dread the association.

Wasn't here an ex-Bush cabinet member that said an Iraq invasion was on the table well before 9/11?

Richard Clarke


The Iraq war was planned by the neocons of the Project for a New American Century before Bush even took office. They were just waiting to get their guy in.

Here are a few signatories of the PNAC Statement of Principles, dated June 3, 1997. Notice any familiar names?

Elliott Abrams
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Norman Podhoretz
Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz
 
2012-10-07 07:42:31 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Whiskey Pete: neenerist: Mistake? It was cunning. Bush got rid of everyone around him who questioned Iraq's role in 9/11 (the original justification for invasion, it seems so long ago..), got the answer he wanted and acted on plans finalized well beforehand. The line between Bush's tactical disdain for facts and Romney's campaign tactics are mathematically straight. It's probably part of why the Right consigned him to the dustbin of history, they dread the association.

Wasn't here an ex-Bush cabinet member that said an Iraq invasion was on the table well before 9/11?

Richard Clarke

The Iraq war was planned by the neocons of the Project for a New American Century before Bush even took office. They were just waiting to get their guy in.

Here are a few signatories of the PNAC Statement of Principles, dated June 3, 1997. Notice any familiar names?

Elliott Abrams
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Norman Podhoretz
Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz


WOW.

This is from their charter:

"Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next. "
 
2012-10-07 07:53:23 PM  

Whiskey Pete: WOW.

This is from their charter:

"Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next. "


You'll find all kinds of interesting reading. The Iraq/Middle East Section is enlightening. Here's a sample (written by William Kristol, there's also some op-eds written by John Bolton):

Saddam Hussein must go. This imperative may seem too simple for some experts and too daunting for the Clinton Administration. But if the United States is committed, as the President said in his State of the Union Message, to insuring that the Iraqi leader never again uses weapons of mass destruction, the only way to achieve that goal is to remove Mr. Hussein and his regime from power. Any policy short of that will fail.
...
Does the United States really have to bear this burden? Yes. Unless we act, Saddam Hussein will prevail, the Middle East will be destabilized, other aggressors around the world will follow his example, and American soldiers will have to pay a far heavier price when the international peace sustained by American leadership begins to collapse.
If Mr. Clinton is serious about protecting us and our allies from Iraqi biological and chemical weapons, he will order ground forces to the gulf. Four heavy divisions and two airborne divisions are available for deployment. The President should act, and Congress should support him in the only policy that can succeed.
 
2012-10-07 07:55:21 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Whiskey Pete: neenerist: Mistake? It was cunning. Bush got rid of everyone around him who questioned Iraq's role in 9/11 (the original justification for invasion, it seems so long ago..), got the answer he wanted and acted on plans finalized well beforehand. The line between Bush's tactical disdain for facts and Romney's campaign tactics are mathematically straight. It's probably part of why the Right consigned him to the dustbin of history, they dread the association.

Wasn't here an ex-Bush cabinet member that said an Iraq invasion was on the table well before 9/11?

Richard Clarke

The Iraq war was planned by the neocons of the Project for a New American Century before Bush even took office. They were just waiting to get their guy in.

Here are a few signatories of the PNAC Statement of Principles, dated June 3, 1997. Notice any familiar names?

Elliott Abrams
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Norman Podhoretz
Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz


Yes, thank you for posting that. I should have posted more than a name. Richard A. Clarke was the former National Coordinator for Counter-terrorism who publicized the Bush Administration's pre-9/11 Iraq War plans in his book, Against All Enemies. He was in the room when Cheney et al were trying to come up with an excuse to invade Iraq, before 9/11.
 
2012-10-07 08:05:34 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Yes, thank you for posting that. I should have posted more than a name. Richard A. Clarke was the former National Coordinator for Counter-terrorism who publicized the Bush Administration's pre-9/11 Iraq War plans in his book, Against All Enemies. He was in the room when Cheney et al were trying to come up with an excuse to invade Iraq, before 9/11.


You're welcome. The PNAC is central to understanding why Bush went to war against Iraq, and needs to be better known. The major players (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Bolton) were there years before Bush was elected.
 
2012-10-07 08:09:47 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-07 08:29:57 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Funny I remember several times they found a smoking gun.
And then they started changing the message that we didn't go in for WMD.

Got several links for those several smoking guns?


Challenge accepted

Link

Free Republic Link

Remember this lab that was for making bio weapons Link

Link

Link
 
2012-10-07 08:54:31 PM  

spongeboob: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Funny I remember several times they found a smoking gun.
And then they started changing the message that we didn't go in for WMD.

Got several links for those several smoking guns?

Challenge accepted

Link

Free Republic Link

Remember this lab that was for making bio weapons Link

Link

Link


Ha ha very funny. You got me. I suppose I deserve that, what with some of the derp I post sometimes.
 
2012-10-07 08:56:24 PM  
The truth hurts.
 
2012-10-07 09:01:24 PM  

Mrtraveler01: SithLord: Flaming Yawn: SithLord: Charlotte Little:
President Obama will win reelection on November 6th. Think it. Believe it. Say it. Write it. Spread it.>

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." - Joseph Goebbels

Reiterated time and again by his protege - David Axelrod

No, no, no, you're doing it all wrong.

Obama isn't Hitler, he's Stalin. How may times do you have to have this pounded into you!!???

You really need to pay attention to your Tea Party Flash Cards.

Now go and find the equivalent quote from the Soviet era and try again.

You're right, I'm sorry. I should have called Charlotte Little just another one of Marx's "useful idiots".

0/10

You're coming on too strong.


He had me going for a while there. But yeah, looking at it from a different angle (like anagramming "Sith") I can see he's just out there yanking some libtard chain.
 
2012-10-07 09:05:22 PM  

enik: The truth hurts.


I know. That's why the Fark Independents are clinging to Rasmussen like Linus' blanket.
 
2012-10-07 09:11:13 PM  

spongeboob:
I expect violence after the election, unless Romney some how pulls out a win.


I hope to FSM you're wrong. But Idio-Americans are pretty primal and unpredictable.
 
2012-10-07 09:12:33 PM  

enik: The truth hurts.


Is that why Mitt Romney avoids it like the plague? I guess so, he is a draft-dodging coward.
 
2012-10-07 09:32:44 PM  

Charlotte Little: First time posting here. I always considered myself an independent but after 8 years with Bushiat, I decided to register Democrat and stay true to the blue. Will never go back.

I've been lurking on this forum, and I can promise all of you that you're fretting way too much and too soon. Yes, Obama blew it the other night, and not because he gave a less than stellar performance (and seem checked out), but because he and his staff underestimated the insane dissemination of information via social networks. It's a different arena than when he first competed and I'm sure he is smarting from the realization of this. After all, all he (his staff) has to do is go on Twitter and read what's trending to know this.

If you'll recall, back in 2008, Twitter was still in diapers. Now, everyone who is anyone has an account and even though many of them claim twitter is silly, they know it most certainly isn't. We are witnessing first hand how influential Twitter (FB, Reddit, PinInterest, etc.) are. In lieu of the media shaping our collective narrative (which they often do), now we have ourselves shaping how media shapes us, especially in an election year. I.e. - it's all one big continuous daily conversation in which information is spread faster than it can be gathered.

My point? Stop fretting. Tomorrow, it will be a different story. Tuesday, another and so on...until November 6th. We are riding a beast that we have taken part in creating and, yet, we seem to hide our eyes when we don't like what the beast is growling. Obama's performance wasn't up to par, a fact. Romney showed he could walk and talk without farting his usual gaffe, but only by lying through his teeth, a fact. In reality, where you know? - when you debate, you don't just lie, interrupt and speak rapidly? - he did not win. In reality, neither did Obama. But the beast has bellowed and we can't do anything about that now. Until something else catches all of our collective thoughts and opinions, shifting the beast bac ...


Twitter's ass. And facebook's too. They have NOTHING to do with winning a presidential election. Dollars raised to put boots on the ground and ads on the air in battleground states win elections. Like always.
 
2012-10-07 09:39:38 PM  

jmr61: Twitter's ass. And facebook's too. They have NOTHING to do with winning a presidential election. Dollars raised to put boots on the ground and ads on the air in battleground states win elections. Like always.


Volunteering matters too. Dollars is a force multiplier in the ground game, and can buy you some semblance of a ground game, but Democrats rally so many people to canvass for free that they don't need as many dollars.
 
2012-10-07 09:57:46 PM  

jmr61: .


JMR61- Twitter's ass. And facebook's too. They have NOTHING to do with winning a presidential election. Dollars raised to put boots on the ground and ads on the air in battleground states win elections. Like always.

Well, I'd like to agree with you and I do understand why you might think as much. However, I'd encourage you to follow all social networks between now and November (especially Twitter) to really decide if what you state is true. Oh, and by the way, all those ads on the air in the battleground states are being disseminated via twitter too. Just sayin'

My real point was that information is not being distributed in real time anymore but in hyper speed. We can all learn from this and take advantage...if savvy enough to do so. And I will wager that in future elections, this theory of mine (not original, by any means) will play an even bigger more acceptable role in all of it.
:)
 
2012-10-07 09:59:07 PM  

Ricardo Klement: jmr61: Twitter's ass. And facebook's too. They have NOTHING to do with winning a presidential election. Dollars raised to put boots on the ground and ads on the air in battleground states win elections. Like always.

Volunteering matters too. Dollars is a force multiplier in the ground game, and can buy you some semblance of a ground game, but Democrats rally so many people to canvass for free that they don't need as many dollars.


Yup, I agree. I'm one of those free Democrats volunteering "on the ground." :)
 
2012-10-07 10:51:21 PM  

Charlotte Little: First time posting here. I always considered myself an independent but after 8 years with Bushiat, I decided to register Democrat and stay true to the blue. Will never go back.

I've been lurking on this forum, and I can promise all of you that you're fretting way too much and too soon. Yes, Obama blew it the other night, and not because he gave a less than stellar performance (and seem checked out), but because he and his staff underestimated the insane dissemination of information via social networks. It's a different arena than when he first competed and I'm sure he is smarting from the realization of this. After all, all he (his staff) has to do is go on Twitter and read what's trending to know this.

If you'll recall, back in 2008, Twitter was still in diapers. Now, everyone who is anyone has an account and even though many of them claim twitter is silly, they know it most certainly isn't. We are witnessing first hand how influential Twitter (FB, Reddit, PinInterest, etc.) are. In lieu of the media shaping our collective narrative (which they often do), now we have ourselves shaping how media shapes us, especially in an election year. I.e. - it's all one big continuous daily conversation in which information is spread faster than it can be gathered.

My point? Stop fretting. Tomorrow, it will be a different story. Tuesday, another and so on...until November 6th. We are riding a beast that we have taken part in creating and, yet, we seem to hide our eyes when we don't like what the beast is growling. Obama's performance wasn't up to par, a fact. Romney showed he could walk and talk without farting his usual gaffe, but only by lying through his teeth, a fact. In reality, where you know? - when you debate, you don't just lie, interrupt and speak rapidly? - he did not win. In reality, neither did Obama. But the beast has bellowed and we can't do anything about that now. Until something else catches all of our collective thoughts and opinions, shift ...


And favorited in a lovely green. Keep up the good work.
 
2012-10-07 10:55:02 PM  
lh4.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-10-07 11:16:22 PM  
i1162.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-08 12:23:58 AM  

Flaming Yawn: spongeboob:
I expect violence after the election, unless Romney some how pulls out a win.


I hope to FSM you're wrong. But Idio-Americans are pretty primal and unpredictable.


I've been calling it since the tea party reared its god awful head. As someone who remembers Clinton's first term way too well, an Obama re-election plus almost twenty years of the crazy train means there'll be some shiat.
 
2012-10-08 12:51:59 AM  

that bosnian sniper: I've been calling it since the tea party reared its god awful head. As someone who remembers Clinton's first term way too well, an Obama re-election plus almost twenty years of the crazy train means there'll be some shiat.


We've already seen the same jump in workplace-related shootings we had under Clinton.

I don't want to see anyone (on any side) get hurt, but it was be spectacular to see the Tea Partiest tip over into being out-and-out terrorists.
 
2012-10-08 03:38:33 AM  
I grew up watching PBS and loving it. Seriously good stuff. Worth every penny.
 
2012-10-08 05:00:27 AM  

that bosnian sniper: Flaming Yawn: spongeboob:
I expect violence after the election, unless Romney some how pulls out a win.


I hope to FSM you're wrong. But Idio-Americans are pretty primal and unpredictable.

I've been calling it since the tea party reared its god awful head. As someone who remembers Clinton's first term way too well, an Obama re-election plus almost twenty years of the crazy train means there'll be some shiat.


Totally agree. Once they get their Rascals up to speed, those fuggers can be pretty dangerous. I'm already stocking up on dried goods!
 
2012-10-08 07:38:35 AM  
Look at the watch Ann is wearing, SHE'S A MAN BABY!  

i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2012-10-08 09:46:27 AM  

skullkrusher: I have it on good authority that he purposely made himself look like a disinterested ninny long game rope a dope something something notecards on handkerchiefs


Back to the same, I see.

Nice long vacation this time?

Must of wanted to make so many comments this past week. teehee
 
2012-10-08 11:15:24 AM  

NateGrey: skullkrusher: I have it on good authority that he purposely made himself look like a disinterested ninny long game rope a dope something something notecards on handkerchiefs

Back to the same, I see.

Nice long vacation this time?

Must of wanted to make so many comments this past week. teehee


yeah, I must of.
 
2012-10-08 11:21:42 AM  

skullkrusher: NateGrey: skullkrusher: I have it on good authority that he purposely made himself look like a disinterested ninny long game rope a dope something something notecards on handkerchiefs

Back to the same, I see.

Nice long vacation this time?

Must of wanted to make so many comments this past week. teehee

yeah, I must of.


Hopefully you learned your lesson.

I am sure you didnt.
 
2012-10-08 11:31:03 AM  

NateGrey: skullkrusher: NateGrey: skullkrusher: I have it on good authority that he purposely made himself look like a disinterested ninny long game rope a dope something something notecards on handkerchiefs

Back to the same, I see.

Nice long vacation this time?

Must of wanted to make so many comments this past week. teehee

yeah, I must of.

Hopefully you learned your lesson.

I am sure you didnt.


grammar lesson?
 
2012-10-08 12:59:27 PM  

skullkrusher: grammar lesson?


teehee
 
2012-10-08 08:58:14 PM  

spongeboob: that bosnian sniper: Guntram Shatterhand: In short, when we start seeing articles like this, the Republicans are trying to spin their way out of something. And that something is that their spin is badly out of date. Apparently their purity tests removed everybody with an ounce of ability and competence from their party.

They're girding up to scream voter and electoral fraud, and to proclaim Obama an illegitimate victor, as a springboard for four more years of obstruction and pushing GOP long-term strategy at the state level, should Obama (very, very likely) win. It's their only realistic play now. The writing's been on the wall the GOP stands a snowballs' chance at winning 2012 since the tea party shook its leash, and whomever ran against Obama would be a sacrificial lamb, which is why no serious GOP contender ran for the presidency in the first place.

I expect violence after the election, unless Romney some how pulls out a win.

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 183x275]


[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 199x253]
[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 263x191]

[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 183x275]

[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 225x225]


Multiple images just to show it more than one over zealous person, now add four years and the propaganda that shows Mitt is winning so if he loses it is of course do to voter fraud, and the true patriot response would be a second amendment solution as the founders intended.


Shouldn't that last one be a tank top?
 
Displayed 474 of 474 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report