James F. Campbell: Hmm. Perhaps Obama's poor performance in the first debate was a trick to get people to pay more attention to the next debates, where Romney will be crushed. At least I hope this is the case. In the past, debates have had little or no influence -- so what's the big deal about them now?

The internet and Fox News.

James F. Campbell: I ignore posts that respond to ignored posts

Yo dawg....

King Something: The internet and Fox News.

If Obama wins the next two debates, look for Fox News to start saying that debates are irrelevant.

Robo Beat: hawcian: Greil: I've hit my article limit for the times. I'm guessing the graphs are beginning to tick back up for Obama a bit, showing the predicted delayed reaction to the other poll's plateaus, while the article predicts a modestly favorable trend for Obama absent an unforeseeable event?

Some combination of NotScript and Ghostery on Chrome has magically deleted the paywall for me.

Clearing cache, cookies, et cetera seems to do the trick for me.

I think NYTimes uses cookies to track how many times you've visited, so that makes sense. (Also why switching browsers or using the porn private mode on browsers work)

fusillade762: Via Infinito: fusillade762: Dear FSM, I am SO ready for this election to be over.

THIS. So f*cking much THIS.

Though you just know the 2016 campaigning will start 5 minutes after inauguration the polls close in Alaska and Hawai'i. If not sooner.

FTFY

fusillade762: Via Infinito: fusillade762: Dear FSM, I am SO ready for this election to be over.

THIS. So f*cking much THIS.

Though you just know the 2016 campaigning will start 5 minutes after inauguration. If not sooner.

If Obama gets reelected and the election is called by midnight Pacific, somebody on FOX News will say "lame duck" before the sun rises on the East Coast.

The All-Powerful Atheismo: PanicMan: Elandriel: Well, I think that if this big swing in the polls for Romney is based largely on people finally starting to tune in, then pretty soon they will become aware of what the rest of us have known for a long time.

We can only hope.

I'm 100% certain it's a result of the low-information undecided voters, who don't give a shiat about learning the facts (or they would have made up their minds already), listening to the media tell them for days straight "Romney is so much better than Obama because of the debate".

Low-information undecided voter is redundant at this point.

12349876: fusillade762: Via Infinito: fusillade762: Dear FSM, I am SO ready for this election to be over.

THIS. So f*cking much THIS.

Though you just know the 2016 campaigning will start 5 minutes after inauguration. If not sooner.

If Obama gets reelected and the election is called by midnight Pacific, somebody on FOX News will say "lame duck" before the sun rises on the East Coast.

If Obama gets reelected what will be Mitch McConnell's new purpose in life?

Graffito: If Obama gets reelected what will be Mitch McConnell's new purpose in life?

Making sure Obama doesn't get a single bill he wants past. And probably impeachment if they can't think of anything else.

fusillade762: Via Infinito: fusillade762: Dear FSM, I am SO ready for this election to be over.

THIS. So f*cking much THIS.

Though you just know the 2016 campaigning will start 5 minutes after inauguration. If not sooner.

After the VP debate, CNN was talking about who will run in 2016. So... yeah. Apparently we can't even wait until the end of one election.

Look, the polling data doesn't matter.

What matters are 3 statisticals.

Dwight_Yeast: Graffito: If Obama gets reelected what will be Mitch McConnell's new purpose in life?

Making sure Obama doesn't get a single bill he wants past.

I think, as far as raw probability goes, that 60/40 is roughly accurate for this particular race, and has been for some time. Part of the danger of having something like a Now Cast is that it sends the wrong message about the election to people that don't know enough about politics, statistics or both.

It's been clear for some time that Republicans mean to make this election a lot closer than 2008. My own personal feeling is that Obama will win, but that the current extrapolations are probably right in that they portray an anything but comfortable win for Obama. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama loses the popular vote but beats out Romney by 15-30 EV.

Bucky Katt: With all the paid shills, there's already too much trolling here. Why do have to add to it?

I always wondered, how do you get a job as a paid shill? I mean, paid to go on Facebook and Twitter and Fark and Reddit and all these other websites and social media platforms and mindlessly spout the party line, insult the other side, and try to fake there being more than just one of you?

We know they are out there, but it's not like they advertise for it in help wanted sections.

Is this some kind of work-from-home rehab program for the brain damaged? A part-time job for an entire chapter of Young Republicans?

shower_in_my_socks: Silver's twitter feed spells it out today: "Obama finally broke Romney's 8-day winning streak in our forecast" and "G.O.P. Senate Hopes Fade" and... WTF, a poll showing Obama leading in AZ?

Turns out the pollsters haven't learned how to count Latinos. Some problem with english only questions or other. Arizona is looking like the new Nevada, and Texas, you're next.

culebra: Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama loses the popular vote but beats out Romney by 15-30 EV.

And I wouldn't be surprised if every republican anywhere then proclaims that the electoral college system is broken and that Obama shouldn't be the president.

And I will think back to 2000 and weep.

Graffito: If Obama gets reelected what will be Mitch McConnell's new purpose in life?

Impeachment.

Notabunny: Americans' Preference Shifts Toward One-Party Government
Change in preferences driven mostly by Democrats (Gallup September 27, 2012)

Given that the spirit of bi-partisanship is dead in Washington, can you blame them?

Graffito:
If Obama gets reelected what will be Mitch McConnell's new purpose in life?

Crush his enemies... see them driven before him... hear the lamentation of their women

The All-Powerful Atheismo: culebra: Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama loses the popular vote but beats out Romney by 15-30 EV.

And I wouldn't be surprised if every republican anywhere then proclaims that the electoral college system is broken and that Obama shouldn't be the president.

And I will think back to 2000 and weep.

The extra funny, bonus thing about that is that the Republicans put enthusiastic support for the Electoral College system as a plank of their platform this year, we'd watch them flip-flop on a main plank in their platform because they got butthurt:

Link

"The Continuing Importance of Protecting the Electoral College

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

The All-Powerful Atheismo: culebra: Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama loses the popular vote but beats out Romney by 15-30 EV.

And I wouldn't be surprised if every republican anywhere then proclaims that the electoral college system is broken and that Obama shouldn't be the president.

And I will think back to 2000 and weep.

It's already happening. Back before the debate and shortly afterwards I couldn't go a day without hearing how the electoral college is unfair and should be dismantled as soon as possible. From conservatives, no less.

I asked them if they would be comfortable with a President Gore. They didn't like that question too much.

hawcian: Robo Beat: hawcian: Greil: I've hit my article limit for the times. I'm guessing the graphs are beginning to tick back up for Obama a bit, showing the predicted delayed reaction to the other poll's plateaus, while the article predicts a modestly favorable trend for Obama absent an unforeseeable event?

Some combination of NotScript and Ghostery on Chrome has magically deleted the paywall for me.

Clearing cache, cookies, et cetera seems to do the trick for me.

I think NYTimes uses cookies to track how many times you've visited, so that makes sense. (Also why switching browsers or using the porn private mode on browsers work)

Wait for the site to load and the paywall to appear. Then go to the URL and delete "?gwh=" and everything that comes after it. It works for me every time.

starsrift: Look, the polling data doesn't matter.

What matters are 3 statisticals.

There are 3 of me?

The All-Powerful Atheismo: culebra: Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama loses the popular vote but beats out Romney by 15-30 EV.

And I wouldn't be surprised if every republican anywhere then proclaims that the electoral college system is broken and that Obama shouldn't be the president.

And I will think back to 2000 and weep.

If that happens I for one will be getting drunk on the irony and possibly several glasses of scotch.

statisticals: starsrift: Look, the polling data doesn't matter.

What matters are 3 statisticals.

There are 3 of me?

Yes.

1. Undecideds break to Romney
2. Inaccurate polling
3. Silent majority

Boy, you guys are going to be surprised on Election Day!

hawcian: Robo Beat: hawcian: Greil: I've hit my article limit for the times. I'm guessing the graphs are beginning to tick back up for Obama a bit, showing the predicted delayed reaction to the other poll's plateaus, while the article predicts a modestly favorable trend for Obama absent an unforeseeable event?

Some combination of NotScript and Ghostery on Chrome has magically deleted the paywall for me.

Clearing cache, cookies, et cetera seems to do the trick for me.

I think NYTimes uses cookies to track how many times you've visited, so that makes sense. (Also why switching browsers or using the porn private mode on browsers work)


In Firefox, go to Options, then the Privacy tab, then click on Show Cookies. Search for "nyt" and delete everything that comes up from the search. It works.

James F. Campbell: 36 posts, and I can only see 10. How sad Fark has become.


Man, and I thought I was growing an epic ignore list.

/you probably won't see this ;)

HotIgneous Intruder: NYTimes = USSA's Pravda.

George Clinton for president.

/CAR WASH!

I only saw you earlier today and you're already getting really, really old.

Silverstaff: I always wondered, how do you get a job as a paid shill?

"Engagement proxies' are the Internet's parasites. First Googlle hit.

Of course, no matter what happens, this will still be a better year for Republicans than 2008.

1) They get 7 electoral votes from the census, and redistricting. (7th is that Nebraska district that got redone)
2) They get Indiana and North Carolina back no matter what.
3) They threaten Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, and possibly Wisconsin.

Now admittedly, they have to win all of #3 to threaten the election, but this is still a good year for the GOP.

I can't read TFA because NYT says I've been a greedy bastard this month. :-(

statisticals: starsrift: Look, the polling data doesn't matter.

What matters are 3 statisticals.

There are 3 of me?

Uh... No, no, of course not, sweetie.

The First Four Katy Perry Albums: I can't read TFA because NYT says I've been a greedy bastard this month. :-(

1) Private/incognito browsing.
2) NoScript. It's a javascript/cookies thing.
3) Turn off cookies on nyt.com
4) Refresh the page and stop the page before it finishes fully loading.

Aquapope: In Firefox, go to Options, then the Privacy tab, then click on Show Cookies. Search for "nyt" and delete everything that comes up from the search. It works.

You can also block nytimes.com cookies in Firefox.

SN1987a goes boom: The All-Powerful Atheismo: culebra: Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama loses the popular vote but beats out Romney by 15-30 EV.

And I wouldn't be surprised if every republican anywhere then proclaims that the electoral college system is broken and that Obama shouldn't be the president.

And I will think back to 2000 and weep.

If that happens I for one will be getting drunk on the irony and possibly several glasses of scotch.

In my case, several more glasses of scotch than my average on any particular evening during this election cycle.

The First Four Katy Perry Albums: I can't read TFA because NYT says I've been a greedy bastard this month. :-(

You're really missing anything. It's just basically, "Romney may be doing okay, but the senate races are going strong for the Dems."

Aquapope: hawcian: Robo Beat: hawcian: Greil: I've hit my article limit for the times. I'm guessing the graphs are beginning to tick back up for Obama a bit, showing the predicted delayed reaction to the other poll's plateaus, while the article predicts a modestly favorable trend for Obama absent an unforeseeable event?

Some combination of NotScript and Ghostery on Chrome has magically deleted the paywall for me.

Clearing cache, cookies, et cetera seems to do the trick for me.

I think NYTimes uses cookies to track how many times you've visited, so that makes sense. (Also why switching browsers or using the porn private mode on browsers work)


In Firefox, go to Options, then the Privacy tab, then click on Show Cookies. Search for "nyt" and delete everything that comes up from the search. It works.

Alternately, if you're lazy, copypasta the article title into google. The top link in Google will be unblocked (this also works for Finacial Times and a few others).

starsrift: The First Four Katy Perry Albums: I can't read TFA because NYT says I've been a greedy bastard this month. :-(

You're not really missing anything. It's just basically, "Romney may be doing okay, but the senate races are going strong for the Dems."

FTFM