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

(Fox News)   Never one to engage in hyperbole, Fox News labels Romney's debate performance as "the biggest debate win in recorded history"   (foxnews.com) divider line 326
    More: Unlikely, Fox News, rolling average  
•       •       •

896 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Oct 2012 at 4:20 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-09 06:34:09 PM  

Delay: How is more of Romney's bullshiat going to help me decide?


then you aren't really on the fence, you've already accepted Mitt's lies as what they are & should vote accordingly.

the (with their hearts) thingy should have put up a red flag in that, people who are going to vote for Mitt have already decided that & there is literally nothing that will change that.
hell, people ((R)) were going to vote for whatever won the GOP primaries regardless of who won it.
 
2012-10-09 06:35:21 PM  

Tommy Moo: Name a bigger one, subby. Fox News is absolutely correct. Granted I'm only 30, but I have never seen a single debate have such a startling impact on a PotUS election in my life.


This was a 2 point bounce. I believe HW Bush had a 10 point swing go against him after his debates, so you're either being intentionally dense, or your memory is already shot. I'm 29, so you don't have to be that old.
 
2012-10-09 06:35:51 PM  

skykid: eraser8: thomps: what does it say about the value of presidential debates if the "biggest debate win in recorded history" only brought the winner up to a 25% chance of winning the election.

You might want to revise that to 28.6%.

And the trend is kinda scary:

Oct 4 - 12.9%
Oct 5 - 15.1%
Oct 6 - 19.8%
Oct 7 - 21.6%
Oct 8 - 25.2%
Oct 9 - 28.6%

That's pretty substantial movement. Will the trend continue? I have no idea. But, I won't snicker at poor Mitt's chances under the circumstances.

Also, Nate moved Florida from an Obama state to a Romney state.

MY GOD THE CHART IS AT THE SAME RATE IT WAS DURING MUCH OF THE SUMMER!

OBAMA IS DOOMED!!!!!!


Hooray, jumping to extremes. Kinda like FoxNews.

Listen 'kid', if you want to make fun of the right-wing propaganda news machine, it's a good idea to recognize propaganda when you see it regardless of which side of political spectrum it comes from. Noone is saying Obama is doomed (well, except the right-wing propaganda news machine, but that is to be expected). But a reality based perspective on the world and politics has to recognize that things have turned sour for Obama at the moment. He is still in a very good position, but if his position hadn't gotten as good as it did, say two weeks ago, the current position wouldn't be much of a concern. As it is though, his numbers were exceedingly good a couple weeks ago and now they are just pretty good. Acknowledging that our guy is in a worse position today than he was two weeks ago is part of having a reality-based perspective. That is not the same thing as saying "Obama is doomed", again something necessary to have a reality-based perspective.

In other words, grow the fark up.
 
2012-10-09 06:37:34 PM  

skykid: eraser8: thomps: what does it say about the value of presidential debates if the "biggest debate win in recorded history" only brought the winner up to a 25% chance of winning the election.

You might want to revise that to 28.6%.

And the trend is kinda scary:

Oct 4 - 12.9%
Oct 5 - 15.1%
Oct 6 - 19.8%
Oct 7 - 21.6%
Oct 8 - 25.2%
Oct 9 - 28.6%

That's pretty substantial movement. Will the trend continue? I have no idea. But, I won't snicker at poor Mitt's chances under the circumstances.

Also, Nate moved Florida from an Obama state to a Romney state.

MY GOD THE CHART IS AT THE SAME RATE IT WAS DURING MUCH OF THE SUMMER!

OBAMA IS DOOMED!!!!!!


Since my post was about the rate of change in the probabilities, is it really your argument that the race was this volatile during the summer months? If so, could you please post the numbers, because I can't seem to find them. I mean, I just can't find a lot of days in which the Romney or Obama moved 3 or 4 percentage points over a 24-hour or so period -- which is something that's been happening a lot, lately.
 
2012-10-09 06:38:18 PM  

skykid: eraser8: thomps: what does it say about the value of presidential debates if the "biggest debate win in recorded history" only brought the winner up to a 25% chance of winning the election.

You might want to revise that to 28.6%.

And the trend is kinda scary:

Oct 4 - 12.9%
Oct 5 - 15.1%
Oct 6 - 19.8%
Oct 7 - 21.6%
Oct 8 - 25.2%
Oct 9 - 28.6%

That's pretty substantial movement. Will the trend continue? I have no idea. But, I won't snicker at poor Mitt's chances under the circumstances.

Also, Nate moved Florida from an Obama state to a Romney state.

MY GOD THE CHART IS AT THE SAME RATE IT WAS DURING MUCH OF THE SUMMER!

OBAMA IS DOOMED!!!!!!


EXACTLY.

I think Romney's numbers were unusually low for a challenger going into the debate, due to the fact that his campaign was on fire (not in the good way) leading into the first debate. The shock that Romney didn't just shiat his pants and fall over in the debate, and then actually did well against Obama, put his numbers back where you would expect them to be for your average candidate.

That's not to say his win is meaningless. It unquestionably helps him because let's face it, if Romney had shat the bed in this debate donors would have started diverting funds to congressional races.
 
2012-10-09 06:38:22 PM  

Isitoveryet: Delay: How is more of Romney's bullshiat going to help me decide?

then you aren't really on the fence, you've already accepted Mitt's lies as what they are & should vote accordingly.

the (with their hearts) thingy should have put up a red flag in that, people who are going to vote for Mitt have already decided that & there is literally nothing that will change that.
hell, people ((R)) were going to vote for whatever won the GOP primaries regardless of who won it.


Do you get your drugs in Mexico? I go to San Diego every so often and I thought that maybe you could recommend a pharmacy there?
 
2012-10-09 06:40:37 PM  

theknuckler_33: skykid: eraser8: thomps: what does it say about the value of presidential debates if the "biggest debate win in recorded history" only brought the winner up to a 25% chance of winning the election.

You might want to revise that to 28.6%.

And the trend is kinda scary:

Oct 4 - 12.9%
Oct 5 - 15.1%
Oct 6 - 19.8%
Oct 7 - 21.6%
Oct 8 - 25.2%
Oct 9 - 28.6%

That's pretty substantial movement. Will the trend continue? I have no idea. But, I won't snicker at poor Mitt's chances under the circumstances.

Also, Nate moved Florida from an Obama state to a Romney state.

MY GOD THE CHART IS AT THE SAME RATE IT WAS DURING MUCH OF THE SUMMER!

OBAMA IS DOOMED!!!!!!

Hooray, jumping to extremes. Kinda like FoxNews.

Listen 'kid', if you want to make fun of the right-wing propaganda news machine, it's a good idea to recognize propaganda when you see it regardless of which side of political spectrum it comes from. Noone is saying Obama is doomed (well, except the right-wing propaganda news machine, but that is to be expected). But a reality based perspective on the world and politics has to recognize that things have turned sour for Obama at the moment. He is still in a very good position, but if his position hadn't gotten as good as it did, say two weeks ago, the current position wouldn't be much of a concern. As it is though, his numbers were exceedingly good a couple weeks ago and now they are just pretty good. Acknowledging that our guy is in a worse position today than he was two weeks ago is part of having a reality-based perspective. That is not the same thing as saying "Obama is doomed", again something necessary to have a reality-based perspective.

In other words, grow the fark up.


you sound ..... concerned.
 
2012-10-09 06:41:00 PM  

eraser8: Since my post was about the rate of change in the probabilities, is it really your argument that the race was this volatile during the summer months? If so, could you please post the numbers, because I can't seem to find them.


Polls are always more volatile after the first debate, because people are actually paying attention.
 
2012-10-09 06:43:03 PM  
So what does it say when not a single republican is willing to take up my offer? Are they still not confident in a RMoney victory, despite all their crowing, making them liars in the process? Are they just cowards in general? Are they verifying that tey are 100% trolls? Is is some combination of those and other aspects?
 
2012-10-09 06:44:23 PM  

Hollie Maea: theknuckler_33: Hollie Maea: Sure I'm more worried than I was before the debate.

How are you measuring 'worried'. This is all I have suggested. I was not really worried at all before the debate. I am now. Not in an "OMGWTFBBQ!!!1!!ELEVEN!!!" sense, but in a "damn, things aren't looking so good now" sense.

That's it. Acknowledging that the debate hurt Obama is all I am doing. Apparently saying that has opened me up to criticism even though you are now admitting the same damned thing. And, acknowledging that Obama probably cannot afford another negative hit is something else to be concerned about and considering his poor performance in the first debate, that is another reason for concern. I'm just being realistic. I thought reality had a liberal bias. In this case, reality appears to be having a conservative bias and that makes me sad.

No, I'm not criticizing you for pointing out that the debate hurt Obama. I'm criticizing you for having OVERBLOWN nervousness, but even more so for your mindblowing error of expecting trends in the days following a single event to continue over the course of weeks.

That and for sounding like a stereotypical concern troll.


OK, you are being moronic. For goodness sakes I said "IF" and you even friggin quoted me saying "IF" up above.

"

theknuckler_33: That's not too far off if the trend continues for another week or two.


IF, you get it? I never once suggested the trend would continue. I never said I expected it to continue. I said the current trend is not good and IF it continues that will not be good.

So, you know what... take your 'concern troll' shiat and shove it up your farking ass. I am on this tab pretty much daily railing against all the Fark con's and I am in here declaring my support for Obama being having a basis in farking reality and you consider that 'concern trolling'? Jesus Christ, you are behaving EXACTLY like the twopoundslessthanadozenofcheese or any number of other right-wing morons in here by refusing to recognize a simple farking point.
 
2012-10-09 06:44:57 PM  

theknuckler_33: Yea, parse my words rather than owning up to the reality. Have you seen the trajectory of Nate Silver's projections? Not good, my friend. Will you feel good going into the election with a 60/40 advantage or less? I won't. That's not too far off if the trend continues for another week or two.


You sound concerned.
 
2012-10-09 06:44:58 PM  

eraser8: skykid: eraser8: thomps: what does it say about the value of presidential debates if the "biggest debate win in recorded history" only brought the winner up to a 25% chance of winning the election.

You might want to revise that to 28.6%.

And the trend is kinda scary:

Oct 4 - 12.9%
Oct 5 - 15.1%
Oct 6 - 19.8%
Oct 7 - 21.6%
Oct 8 - 25.2%
Oct 9 - 28.6%

That's pretty substantial movement. Will the trend continue? I have no idea. But, I won't snicker at poor Mitt's chances under the circumstances.

Also, Nate moved Florida from an Obama state to a Romney state.

MY GOD THE CHART IS AT THE SAME RATE IT WAS DURING MUCH OF THE SUMMER!

OBAMA IS DOOMED!!!!!!

Since my post was about the rate of change in the probabilities, is it really your argument that the race was this volatile during the summer months? If so, could you please post the numbers, because I can't seem to find them.


It's right there on the main page of 538 if you move your mouse to the chart of where the numbers where each day or are you that lazy to even bother?
 
2012-10-09 06:47:08 PM  

skykid: you sound ..... concerned.


Or like one of those people that claim that since it gets cold in the fall and winter, global warming (let alone AGW) is false.
 
2012-10-09 06:50:34 PM  

gilgigamesh: skykid: eraser8: thomps: what does it say about the value of presidential debates if the "biggest debate win in recorded history" only brought the winner up to a 25% chance of winning the election.

You might want to revise that to 28.6%.

And the trend is kinda scary:

Oct 4 - 12.9%
Oct 5 - 15.1%
Oct 6 - 19.8%
Oct 7 - 21.6%
Oct 8 - 25.2%
Oct 9 - 28.6%

That's pretty substantial movement. Will the trend continue? I have no idea. But, I won't snicker at poor Mitt's chances under the circumstances.

Also, Nate moved Florida from an Obama state to a Romney state.

MY GOD THE CHART IS AT THE SAME RATE IT WAS DURING MUCH OF THE SUMMER!

OBAMA IS DOOMED!!!!!!

EXACTLY.

I think Romney's numbers were unusually low for a challenger going into the debate, due to the fact that his campaign was on fire (not in the good way) leading into the first debate. The shock that Romney didn't just shiat his pants and fall over in the debate, and then actually did well against Obama, put his numbers back where you would expect them to be for your average candidate.

That's not to say his win is meaningless. It unquestionably helps him because let's face it, if Romney had shat the bed in this debate donors would have started diverting funds to congressional races.


Romney's numbers were low, I suspect, because people saw the Republican primary and thought it was a meeting of circus freaks. Plus, Romney came across as mechanical and emotionless, as robots are wont to be.

What Obama had going for him was 1) personal warmth 2) an aura of competence 3) an impression that he was not fully to blame for the weakness in the economy (and the job market in particular) and 4) an unacceptable opponent.

The debate was devastating to the president because 1) he didn't come across as warm 2) he didn't come across as competent 3) he didn't do a very good job of explaining how his policies have improved the economy and how he'll improve them further in the next four years and 4) Mitt Romney came across as almost human.

Also, keep in mind that even though Romney's claims were nonsensical, he came across to the public as a strong leader and competent businessman with new ideas to kickstart the economy (if poll results are to be believed). He successfully (even if dishonestly) decoupled his policy ideas from those of George W. Bush. In other words, he made himself an acceptable candidate for president.

And, when unemployment is so high and consumer confidence so low, that may be all that he needs to do.
 
2012-10-09 06:52:07 PM  

that bosnian sniper: skykid: you sound ..... concerned.

Or like one of those people that claim that since it gets cold in the fall and winter, global warming (let alone AGW) is false.


So, you are saying Obama's standing has not deteriorated at all since before the debate. Is that what you are saying? Because that has been my only point in this entire thread.

Can you answer that one question?

Yes or no. Is Obama's standing worse today than it was before the debate?

Please respond.
 
2012-10-09 06:52:50 PM  

skykid: eraser8: skykid: eraser8: thomps: what does it say about the value of presidential debates if the "biggest debate win in recorded history" only brought the winner up to a 25% chance of winning the election.

You might want to revise that to 28.6%.

And the trend is kinda scary:

Oct 4 - 12.9%
Oct 5 - 15.1%
Oct 6 - 19.8%
Oct 7 - 21.6%
Oct 8 - 25.2%
Oct 9 - 28.6%

That's pretty substantial movement. Will the trend continue? I have no idea. But, I won't snicker at poor Mitt's chances under the circumstances.

Also, Nate moved Florida from an Obama state to a Romney state.

MY GOD THE CHART IS AT THE SAME RATE IT WAS DURING MUCH OF THE SUMMER!

OBAMA IS DOOMED!!!!!!

Since my post was about the rate of change in the probabilities, is it really your argument that the race was this volatile during the summer months? If so, could you please post the numbers, because I can't seem to find them.

It's right there on the main page of 538 if you move your mouse to the chart of where the numbers where each day or are you that lazy to even bother?


I checked. And, from day to day, I see no 3, 4, 5 point movements like we're seeing today. So, again, if you're so sure they're there, you must have the info at your fingertips. Help us out and show us how Silver's projections changed as rapidly during the summer months as they're changing now.
 
2012-10-09 06:54:18 PM  

Delay: Do you get your drugs in Mexico? I go to San Diego every so often and I thought that maybe you could recommend a pharmacy there?


there are drugs in Mexico?
 
2012-10-09 06:54:21 PM  

gilgigamesh: skykid: eraser8: thomps: what does it say about the value of presidential debates if the "biggest debate win in recorded history" only brought the winner up to a 25% chance of winning the election.

You might want to revise that to 28.6%.

And the trend is kinda scary:

Oct 4 - 12.9%
Oct 5 - 15.1%
Oct 6 - 19.8%
Oct 7 - 21.6%
Oct 8 - 25.2%
Oct 9 - 28.6%

That's pretty substantial movement. Will the trend continue? I have no idea. But, I won't snicker at poor Mitt's chances under the circumstances.

Also, Nate moved Florida from an Obama state to a Romney state.

MY GOD THE CHART IS AT THE SAME RATE IT WAS DURING MUCH OF THE SUMMER!

OBAMA IS DOOMED!!!!!!

EXACTLY.

I think Romney's numbers were unusually low for a challenger going into the debate, due to the fact that his campaign was on fire (not in the good way) leading into the first debate. The shock that Romney didn't just shiat his pants and fall over in the debate, and then actually did well against Obama, put his numbers back where you would expect them to be for your average candidate.

That's not to say his win is meaningless. It unquestionably helps him because let's face it, if Romney had shat the bed in this debate donors would have started diverting funds to congressional races.


Apparently, saying exactly the same thing with different words makes someone a 'concern troll'.
 
2012-10-09 06:55:32 PM  

gilgigamesh: eraser8: Since my post was about the rate of change in the probabilities, is it really your argument that the race was this volatile during the summer months? If so, could you please post the numbers, because I can't seem to find them.

Polls are always more volatile after the first debate, because people are actually paying attention.


That's certainly a valid point. But, that's also a scary point. If people are only now actually paying attention, it's not very comforting to see that the volatility, so far, is only working in one direction: Romney's.
 
2012-10-09 06:58:28 PM  

theknuckler_33: IF, you get it?


You can't hide ridiculous statements behind the word "if". You claim that since you said "if" you aren't suggesting that it would happen. But then you say that we should be nervous on account of this "if".
Consider this: Do I think that Obama would lose IF he decided to drop out of the race tomorrow? Yes. Am I nervous about that fact? No, because it's a ridiculous scenario.

Yes, and if I went around saying "Hey guys, we should be really nervous because if Obama drops out of the race, he's going to lose", I would expect to be roundly mocked. And I would expect those who mocked me to continue mocking me when I said "hey guys, I'm not saying he would drop out, but IF he did". That the trends put into motion in the days after the debate would continue for weeks is no more plausible than the idea that Obama might say "fark it" tomorrow and drop out of the debate.

Obama may lose. But if it does, it will be because additional things go bad for him (maybe more bad debates, maybe something else). It will NOT be because the trends from this past debate continue until the election.
 
2012-10-09 06:59:43 PM  

eraser8: eraser8:

I checked. And, from day to day, I see no 3, 4, 5 point movements like we're seeing today. So, again, if you're so sure they're there, you must have the info at your fingertips. Help us out and show us how Silver's projections changed as rapidly during the summer months as they're changing now.


Dude Obama's percentage of winning has been at around 60% since Nate began his projections with Romney's probablity only going over 40% after the first week he hasn't be close to 40% since 6/5 when he had it at Obama 59.9-Romney 40.1%.

If you're freaking out because Nate's model is returning to the same territory it was for the last three months Pre-DNC/47% you have issues.
 
2012-10-09 07:01:46 PM  
Trivia Jockey: Pretty hard to prepare for a debate when your opponent does a 180 on the spot.

It's easy enough to counter when you point out that that hasn't been their position and ask them at what exact point they decided to do a 180. I have no idea why Obama didn't do this; blindsided, perhaps.
 
2012-10-09 07:03:00 PM  

Tommy Moo: Name a bigger one, subby. Fox News is absolutely correct. Granted I'm only 30, but I have never seen a single debate have such a startling impact on a PotUS election in my life.


This is the dumbest comment in this thread and you should feel bad for making it.
 
2012-10-09 07:05:11 PM  

skykid: Dude Obama's percentage of winning has been at around 60% since Nate began his projections with Romney's probablity only going over 40% after the first week he hasn't be close to 40% since 6/5 when he had it at Obama 59.9-Romney 40.1%.


Are you being intentionally dense or are you really as stupid as your posts would suggest?

The issue I'm addressing is not today's probability. The issue I'm talking about is the CHANGE in probability from day to day.

Did that happen during the summer? I've checked, but I don't see any massive changes (3, 4, 5 percentage points in a single day) back then. That is, the race was stable. If you want to call the rapid change in probabilities seen over the last several days "stable," then it may be you with the issues. 

And, quite frankly, I suspect the reason that you're demurred when asked to show a similar trend of changes during the summer is the simple fact that such a trend simply isn't there.
 
2012-10-09 07:08:46 PM  
Is anybody else here a card player? You don't go into the game, win first hand, and expect your luck to follow. In fact, if you go big right at the start you generally lose. I don't know if Obama was actually pulling punches, but the guy is really farking smart and good at playing the long game. The only way Romney knows how to play is by rigging the game in his favor. Watching that debate was painful, but my guess is that it won't happen again. If it does, then Obama has continued the trend of democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I wouldn't bet on that
 
2012-10-09 07:10:22 PM  

theknuckler_33: HeartBurnKid: theknuckler_33: HeartBurnKid: theknuckler_33: Scroll down to "Romney Posts Historic Win in Debate"

I all in for Obama, but liberals need to face reality. That debate hurt Obama BIGTIME. Deservedly or not, he is in a defensive position now and that is not good. If you are not concerned about this election now, you are a fool.

They say he won the opinion polls by the largest margin in a Presidential debate since Gallup started polling. Not that it's "the biggest debate win in recorded history". Recorded history is a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time, and a lot of debates have taken place in that time on various topics and for various purposes, and nobody (save Fox News) would be stupid enough to make a blanket statement like that.

Yea, I'm not defending the hyperbole.

All I'm arguing against is the hyperbole. I'm not denying Romney won the debate big-time, and I'm not denying it's made this race a lot more competitive. All I'm saying is that Gallup never made the claim that this was the biggest debate win in recorded history, like Fox and BravadoGT claim they did. Because it's a ridiculous, hyperbolic claim.

Gallup didn't quite put it in those terms, but they did say "Romney Posts Historic Win in Debate"

Scroll down a tad to see it.


Again, there's a world of difference between a "historic win" and "the biggest victory in recorded history." One makes sense, and is borne out by the statistics. The other is ridiculously hyperbolic bullshiat.
 
2012-10-09 07:13:23 PM  
So what might be some of the link-worthy posts from this thread to bring up again once Obama wins his his second term?
 
2012-10-09 07:17:09 PM  

HeartBurnKid: theknuckler_33: HeartBurnKid: theknuckler_33: HeartBurnKid: theknuckler_33: Scroll down to "Romney Posts Historic Win in Debate"

I all in for Obama, but liberals need to face reality. That debate hurt Obama BIGTIME. Deservedly or not, he is in a defensive position now and that is not good. If you are not concerned about this election now, you are a fool.

They say he won the opinion polls by the largest margin in a Presidential debate since Gallup started polling. Not that it's "the biggest debate win in recorded history". Recorded history is a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time, and a lot of debates have taken place in that time on various topics and for various purposes, and nobody (save Fox News) would be stupid enough to make a blanket statement like that.

Yea, I'm not defending the hyperbole.

All I'm arguing against is the hyperbole. I'm not denying Romney won the debate big-time, and I'm not denying it's made this race a lot more competitive. All I'm saying is that Gallup never made the claim that this was the biggest debate win in recorded history, like Fox and BravadoGT claim they did. Because it's a ridiculous, hyperbolic claim.

Gallup didn't quite put it in those terms, but they did say "Romney Posts Historic Win in Debate"

Scroll down a tad to see it.

Again, there's a world of difference between a "historic win" and "the biggest victory in recorded history." One makes sense, and is borne out by the statistics. The other is ridiculously hyperbolic bullshiat.


Indeed.
 
2012-10-09 07:17:20 PM  

Isitoveryet: Delay: Do you get your drugs in Mexico? I go to San Diego every so often and I thought that maybe you could recommend a pharmacy there?

there are drugs in Mexico?


So I hear. Should we concerned if the drug label matches the drapes, so to speak?
 
2012-10-09 07:18:06 PM  

Bill Murray said I was weird: So what might be some of the link-worthy posts from this thread to bring up again once Obama wins his his second term?


"If Obama loses, he'll have lost!"
 
2012-10-09 07:19:46 PM  

eraser8: skykid: Dude Obama's percentage of winning has been at around 60% since Nate began his projections with Romney's probablity only going over 40% after the first week he hasn't be close to 40% since 6/5 when he had it at Obama 59.9-Romney 40.1%.

Are you being intentionally dense or are you really as stupid as your posts would suggest?

The issue I'm addressing is not today's probability. The issue I'm talking about is the CHANGE in probability from day to day.

Did that happen during the summer? I've checked, but I don't see any massive changes (3, 4, 5 percentage points in a single day) back then. That is, the race was stable. If you want to call the rapid change in probabilities seen over the last several days "stable," then it may be you with the issues. 

And, quite frankly, I suspect the reason that you're demurred when asked to show a similar trend of changes during the summer is the simple fact that such a trend simply isn't there.


You really think by the end of the week Romney is going to be ahead of Obama in probablity of winning based on one debate performance? CNN just showed Obama with a 4 point lead (51-47) in Ohio and his approval number is now at around 54%.

Bad debate or not he still remains the favorite to win this election. Nate admits today in his daily report based on the approval ratings and the BLS report it still leans in his favor.

He even made fun of everyone's overreactions to the numbers on Twitter.

"According to Twitter, Barack Obama went from a huge favorite at 1 PM to a huge underdog at 4 PM. Get a grip, people."
 
2012-10-09 07:22:03 PM  

Hollie Maea: You can't hide ridiculous statements behind the word "if". You claim that since you said "if" you aren't suggesting that it would happen. But then you say that we should be nervous on account of this "if".


I said simply " If you are not concerned about this election now, you are a fool.". I hardly see how that is, in any way, a controversial or debatable thing to say.

For God's sake, you said yourself "Sure I'm more worried than I was before the debate."

Why in the hell are you arguing against such a simple, plain as day, thing when you have already agreed with it?
 
2012-10-09 07:23:06 PM  

Delay: Isitoveryet: Delay: Do you get your drugs in Mexico? I go to San Diego every so often and I thought that maybe you could recommend a pharmacy there?

there are drugs in Mexico?

So I hear. Should we concerned if the drug label matches the drapes, so to speak?


I thought they just rubbed dirt on whatever was broken.

/I'm to young to need pharmaceuticals.
//will go with the FDA regulated American drugs when that time comes
///haven't been to Mexico (Tijuana) since the early 90's & i gotta tell ya, It must have been a lot of fun cause i don't recall any of it.
 
2012-10-09 07:27:34 PM  

theknuckler_33: So, you are saying Obama's standing has not deteriorated at all since before the debate. Is that what you are saying? Because that has been my only point in this entire thread.

Can you answer that one question?

Yes or no. Is Obama's standing worse today than it was before the debate?

Please respond.


1. Even Nate Silver's predictions, which even Silver himself has stated as conservative in order to correct for unaccounted-for deviation, still shows Obama quite solidly ahead and extremely likely to win the race. Especially considering there's all of one poll that shows Romney having made major gains, the Pew Research poll that is of questionable methodology in terms of weighting versus response bias. One data point does not a trend make, especially when that one data point goes against the overall four-month trendline of Obama making slow but steady gains.

Show me a trend that continues until the end of the week, coupled with a Ryan victory in the VP debate, and I'll have cause to reassess my opinion.

2. Even accounting for the Pew poll, the electoral landscape has not fundamentally changed. That means -- I've said this in every one of these threads in which I've posted, and I'll say it yet again since people doggedly refuse to understand the point -- Romney has no plausible path to victory without Ohio. Winning Ohio simply gives Romney a plausible path to victory, as with Ohio he can afford to lose in other swing states. To win without Ohio, Romney has to either flip Pennsylvania (ain't gonna happen) or sweep every single other swing state on the map, which considering a number of those swing states continue to lean Democratic (Iowa, Nevada, Virginia in particular).

Show me a trend in Ohio that at least puts the state in toss-up territory (i.e. polling results are consistently within the MoE), and I'll have cause to reassess my opinion Romney has no plausible path to victory.

Is Obama factually in a weaker position today than he was a week ago? Factually, yes.

Is Obama practically in a weaker position today than he was a week ago? Practically, no.

Is Obama practically in danger of actually losing the election? Practically, it's still too early to tell.
 
2012-10-09 07:28:06 PM  

BravadoGT:
It's my opinion that Romney is not only a better steward... than Obama. .


He would absolutely make a better wine steward than Obama, I doubt Obama has even had alcohol that he didn't drink from a paper bag!
LOL!!
 
2012-10-09 07:28:18 PM  

skykid: You really think by the end of the week Romney is going to be ahead of Obama in probablity of winning based on one debate performance?


I wouldn't presume to guess. I'm not privy to the model Mr. Silver uses in his probabilities.

skykid: Bad debate or not he still remains the favorite to win this election. Nate admits today in his daily report based on the approval ratings and the BLS report it still leans in his favor.


Who the favorite is at the moment was never a part of my argument. It's just something I didn't talk about.

Of course, in earlier threads, I have argued that if Obama wants win he had better start acting like it. He didn't look like he wanted to win last Wednesday. And, if he doesn't make some sort of correction, he may, in fact, lose.
 
2012-10-09 07:30:02 PM  
[folds ears back smartly, hisses angrily at theZOMGWEALLGUNNADIEknuckler, continues to protect not-counted eggs]
 
2012-10-09 07:31:34 PM  

theknuckler_33: that bosnian sniper: skykid: you sound ..... concerned.

Or like one of those people that claim that since it gets cold in the fall and winter, global warming (let alone AGW) is false.

So, you are saying Obama's standing has not deteriorated at all since before the debate. Is that what you are saying? Because that has been my only point in this entire thread.

Can you answer that one question?

Yes or no. Is Obama's standing worse today than it was before the debate?

Please respond.


Can you ask a meaningless, out of context question that will give you the appearance of understanding how dialog works?
PLEASE RESPOND BY WINKING
 
2012-10-09 07:31:42 PM  

theknuckler_33: Hollie Maea: You can't hide ridiculous statements behind the word "if". You claim that since you said "if" you aren't suggesting that it would happen. But then you say that we should be nervous on account of this "if".

I said simply " If you are not concerned about this election now, you are a fool.". I hardly see how that is, in any way, a controversial or debatable thing to say.

For God's sake, you said yourself "Sure I'm more worried than I was before the debate."

Why in the hell are you arguing against such a simple, plain as day, thing when you have already agreed with it?


I've mostly been hitting you for repeatedly pining over trends that aren't really trends. To a lesser degree I've been hitting you for being OVERLY concerned. Yes, I did say I am more nervous than I was before the debate. But before the debate I was less nervous than I have been at any point before an election since I have been following politics. So I still have a long way to go before I reach your "only fools aren't scared" level of fear.
 
2012-10-09 07:32:36 PM  

that bosnian sniper: theknuckler_33: So, you are saying Obama's standing has not deteriorated at all since before the debate. Is that what you are saying? Because that has been my only point in this entire thread.

Can you answer that one question?

Yes or no. Is Obama's standing worse today than it was before the debate?

Please respond.

[wall of text redacted]


For God's sake dude, I never said anything about romney winning. If Obama was in a position to win 330 electoral votes a week ago and is now in position to win 310 his standing is worse. Why are you answering a question I didn't ask?
 
2012-10-09 07:33:29 PM  

theknuckler_33: Why are you answering a question I didn't ask?


The question you did ask was farking stupid, that's why.
 
2012-10-09 07:34:37 PM  
eraser8:

Who the favorite is at the moment was never a part of my argument. It's just something I didn't talk about.


But you were freaking out over Romney's win numbers being so high over the course of a week. Obviously there is a reason for the freakout but then I realized your a concern troll and it's hopeless to try and reason with you.

Bosnian Sniper take it from here.
 
2012-10-09 07:35:00 PM  

MSFT: BravadoGT:
It's my opinion that Romney is not only a better steward... than Obama. .

He would absolutely make a better wine steward than Obama, I doubt Obama has even had alcohol that he didn't drink from a paper bag!
LOL!!


"I tasted a beer...once as a wayward teenager, and never tried it again"

--Actual quote from Mitt Romney.

So, no. Though I concede your point--the man is wealthy.
 
2012-10-09 07:37:18 PM  

skykid: eraser8: skykid: Dude Obama's percentage of winning has been at around 60% since Nate began his projections with Romney's probablity only going over 40% after the first week he hasn't be close to 40% since 6/5 when he had it at Obama 59.9-Romney 40.1%.

Are you being intentionally dense or are you really as stupid as your posts would suggest?

The issue I'm addressing is not today's probability. The issue I'm talking about is the CHANGE in probability from day to day.

Did that happen during the summer? I've checked, but I don't see any massive changes (3, 4, 5 percentage points in a single day) back then. That is, the race was stable. If you want to call the rapid change in probabilities seen over the last several days "stable," then it may be you with the issues. 

And, quite frankly, I suspect the reason that you're demurred when asked to show a similar trend of changes during the summer is the simple fact that such a trend simply isn't there.

You really think by the end of the week Romney is going to be ahead of Obama in probablity of winning based on one debate performance? CNN just showed Obama with a 4 point lead (51-47) in Ohio and his approval number is now at around 54%.

Bad debate or not he still remains the favorite to win this election. Nate admits today in his daily report based on the approval ratings and the BLS report it still leans in his favor.

He even made fun of everyone's overreactions to the numbers on Twitter.

"According to Twitter, Barack Obama went from a huge favorite at 1 PM to a huge underdog at 4 PM. Get a grip, people."


He's right.

People need to get a grip and wait for the Facebook stats for a proper assessment.
 
2012-10-09 07:37:58 PM  

Hollie Maea: theknuckler_33: Hollie Maea: You can't hide ridiculous statements behind the word "if". You claim that since you said "if" you aren't suggesting that it would happen. But then you say that we should be nervous on account of this "if".

I said simply " If you are not concerned about this election now, you are a fool.". I hardly see how that is, in any way, a controversial or debatable thing to say.

For God's sake, you said yourself "Sure I'm more worried than I was before the debate."

Why in the hell are you arguing against such a simple, plain as day, thing when you have already agreed with it?

I've mostly been hitting you for repeatedly pining over trends that aren't really trends. To a lesser degree I've been hitting you for being OVERLY concerned. Yes, I did say I am more nervous than I was before the debate. But before the debate I was less nervous than I have been at any point before an election since I have been following politics. So I still have a long way to go before I reach your "only fools aren't scared" level of fear.


When my daughter comes home with a C- on her history test, I am concerned. I am not scared or in fear of her failing.

The fact that your confidence level has gone down should be a concern. Not scared or in fear of losing the election.

Stop putting words in my mouth.
 
2012-10-09 07:38:41 PM  

skykid: But you were freaking out over Romney's win numbers being so high over the course of a week. Obviously there is a reason for the freakout but then I realized your a concern troll and it's hopeless to try and reason with you.


Yes, because if you think that the movement in the numbers is troubling, you MUST be a concern troll. We must never even entertain as plausible the possibility that the president is facing a serious situation.

Thank you for that interesting point of view, Governor Tarkin.
 
2012-10-09 07:41:20 PM  

skykid: Obviously there is a reason for the freakout...


Corporate media increases its bottom line by pushing a "horse race" narrative. If they reported factually and accurately on the race, people would get bored and tune out, thereby losing ratings and ad revenue.

That's why I couldn't stand to watch the post-debate faux-panic circle-jerk over on MSNBC. You had Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz blowing a cow, Rachel Maddow keeping her mouth shut on the way the debate actually played out, and Al Sharpton being the only sane man in the room calling Romney out.
 
2012-10-09 07:42:17 PM  

theknuckler_33: When my daughter comes home with a C- on her history test, I am concerned. I am not scared or in fear of her failing.


No, this is more like before the debate I was at A+ and now I'm at A-. You're the only tard who is going off on "Blargh at this rate you'll be at an F by the end of term". I would hope your daughter would be smart enough to laugh in your face if you did such things to her.
 
2012-10-09 07:42:28 PM  

eraser8: skykid: But you were freaking out over Romney's win numbers being so high over the course of a week. Obviously there is a reason for the freakout but then I realized your a concern troll and it's hopeless to try and reason with you.

Yes, because if you think that the movement in the numbers is troubling, you MUST be a concern troll. We must never even entertain as plausible the possibility that the president is facing a serious situation.

Thank you for that interesting point of view, Governor Tarkin.


Your best comeback is a Star Wars reference? I have refuted all of your "concerns" with evidence including a post from Nate himself about how stupid the concerning is and yet you are still acting troubled over the race returning to Pre-DNC numbers.

Grow up seriously.
 
2012-10-09 07:44:53 PM  

that bosnian sniper: skykid: Obviously there is a reason for the freakout...

Corporate media increases its bottom line by pushing a "horse race" narrative. If they reported factually and accurately on the race, people would get bored and tune out, thereby losing ratings and ad revenue.



www.mirc.net
 
Displayed 50 of 326 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report