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 135
    More: Fail, Mitt Romney, Daily Mail, Rasmussen Reports, lead in, Apopka, swing states, political satire, running mate  
•       •       •

2313 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Oct 2012 at 11:49 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-07 11:52:04 AM
11 votes:
Dear Fark mods and members: stop submitting, approving and clicking Daily Mail links...

/Thanks
2012-10-07 12:56:19 PM
10 votes:

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 12:26:50 PM
8 votes:
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 11:58:40 AM
7 votes:

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 12:03:36 PM
5 votes:

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 12:02:49 PM
5 votes:
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 12:50:58 PM
4 votes:

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 12:05:46 PM
4 votes:
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 12:03:41 PM
4 votes:

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 12:02:09 PM
4 votes:
I know this thread is completely toxic, because 5 out of 18 posts are highlighted in Troll Gray.
2012-10-07 01:19:04 PM
3 votes:

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 12:55:21 PM
3 votes:

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 12:29:39 PM
3 votes:
images.enstarz.com

this is all people seem to remember from the debate.
2012-10-07 12:26:52 PM
3 votes:

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 12:21:49 PM
3 votes:

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 12:07:13 PM
3 votes:
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 07:00:24 AM
3 votes:
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 07:38:41 PM
2 votes:

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 07:28:06 PM
2 votes:

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 07:11:26 PM
2 votes:

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 04:07:12 PM
2 votes:
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 04:01:21 PM
2 votes:

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 03:09:35 PM
2 votes:

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 02:53:00 PM
2 votes:
Shamelessly stolen from another Farker. These are the possible Romney win combinations:

i1162.photobucket.com
2012-10-07 02:28:29 PM
2 votes:

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 02:19:05 PM
2 votes:
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 02:18:08 PM
2 votes:

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 01:54:33 PM
2 votes:
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 01:50:24 PM
2 votes:

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 01:50:03 PM
2 votes:

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 01:43:02 PM
2 votes:

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 01:20:49 PM
2 votes:

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 12:57:13 PM
2 votes:
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 12:47:46 PM
2 votes:
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 12:38:14 PM
2 votes:

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 12:35:48 PM
2 votes:

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 12:29:57 PM
2 votes:
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 12:27:12 PM
2 votes:

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 12:23:26 PM
2 votes:
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 12:11:10 PM
2 votes:

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 12:10:35 PM
2 votes:

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 11:52:06 AM
2 votes:
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 11:51:59 AM
2 votes:
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 09:57:46 PM
1 votes:

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 09:39:38 PM
1 votes:

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 08:05:34 PM
1 votes:

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 07:55:21 PM
1 votes:

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 07:18:47 PM
1 votes:

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 07:16:46 PM
1 votes:

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 07:16:01 PM
1 votes:

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 07:10:16 PM
1 votes:

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 05:51:37 PM
1 votes:

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 05:47:18 PM
1 votes:
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 05:32:13 PM
1 votes:

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 05:03:34 PM
1 votes:

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 04:05:08 PM
1 votes:

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 03:56:55 PM
1 votes:

elchip: Harsh, bro


maybe Obama can just play that the next debate.
2012-10-07 03:56:05 PM
1 votes:

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 03:52:30 PM
1 votes:
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 03:43:07 PM
1 votes:
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 03:40:38 PM
1 votes:

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 03:33:33 PM
1 votes:

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 03:14:06 PM
1 votes:

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 03:05:50 PM
1 votes:

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 02:59:52 PM
1 votes:

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 02:56:47 PM
1 votes:

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 02:50:44 PM
1 votes:

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 02:46:17 PM
1 votes:

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 02:44:05 PM
1 votes:

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 02:17:05 PM
1 votes:

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 02:10:36 PM
1 votes:

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


Because he's the only Party-approved pollster, of course.
2012-10-07 02:10:30 PM
1 votes:

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 02:10:30 PM
1 votes:

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 02:09:46 PM
1 votes:
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 02:09:43 PM
1 votes:

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 02:08:16 PM
1 votes:
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 02:03:40 PM
1 votes:

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 02:02:06 PM
1 votes:

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 02:02:04 PM
1 votes:

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 02:00:49 PM
1 votes:

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 01:59:47 PM
1 votes:

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 01:58:02 PM
1 votes:

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 01:49:48 PM
1 votes:
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 01:48:06 PM
1 votes:

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 01:40:31 PM
1 votes:
"Not me, Mitt, the flag..."

i.dailymail.co.uk
2012-10-07 01:36:48 PM
1 votes:

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 01:27:18 PM
1 votes:
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 01:24:14 PM
1 votes:

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 01:22:17 PM
1 votes:

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 01:21:35 PM
1 votes:

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 01:20:44 PM
1 votes:

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 01:17:28 PM
1 votes:

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 01:07:52 PM
1 votes:

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 01:06:32 PM
1 votes:
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 01:04:39 PM
1 votes:

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 01:00:17 PM
1 votes:

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 12:56:25 PM
1 votes:

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 12:52:09 PM
1 votes:

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 12:50:13 PM
1 votes:

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 12:46:52 PM
1 votes:

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 12:46:33 PM
1 votes:

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 12:41:28 PM
1 votes:
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 12:41:26 PM
1 votes:

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 12:41:14 PM
1 votes:

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 12:30:32 PM
1 votes:

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 12:28:54 PM
1 votes:

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 12:28:28 PM
1 votes:

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 12:25:47 PM
1 votes:

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 12:25:25 PM
1 votes:
E-C=F^2

Where

E= emperor
C= clothes
F= fail
2012-10-07 12:23:52 PM
1 votes:
Next debate: Obama fires back at Romney.

Media and pundits: "Obama was just peevish and a bully. Romney wins again!"
2012-10-07 12:22:39 PM
1 votes:

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 12:22:05 PM
1 votes:
We also haven't seen polls taken after the new jobs numbers.
2012-10-07 12:21:52 PM
1 votes:

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 12:19:51 PM
1 votes:

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 12:16:32 PM
1 votes:

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 12:15:10 PM
1 votes:

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 12:12:28 PM
1 votes:
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 12:12:26 PM
1 votes:

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 12:08:31 PM
1 votes:

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 12:08:16 PM
1 votes:
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 12:08:01 PM
1 votes:

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


Silver isn't a 'pollster'. But you know this.
2012-10-07 12:06:47 PM
1 votes:
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 12:06:04 PM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
2012-10-07 12:03:21 PM
1 votes:

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 12:02:31 PM
1 votes:
That reminds me that I have money in my checking account now to spend on Obama merchandise.
2012-10-07 12:01:37 PM
1 votes:
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 11:59:29 AM
1 votes:
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 11:59:02 AM
1 votes:

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 11:57:43 AM
1 votes:
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 11:55:37 AM
1 votes:

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



Based on which polls?
2012-10-07 11:55:32 AM
1 votes:
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 11:54:27 AM
1 votes:
Which proves that with enough effort, you can manipulate any poll until you achieve the desired results
2012-10-07 11:53:50 AM
1 votes:

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 11:37:20 AM
1 votes:
They should ask Al Gore how much it means to have the popular vote lead.
2012-10-07 10:26:13 AM
1 votes:
 
Displayed 135 of 135 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report