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.

(Yahoo)   Headline: "Mitt Romney takes lead in projected electoral vote count." From TFA: "Based on its method of pulling together disparate polls, RCP projects a 294-244 win for Obama." Yeah, about that liberal media   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 165
    More: Fail, RCP, Mitt Romney, obama, electoral vote, lead in, liberal media, 12th amendment, National Constitution Center  
•       •       •

3174 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Oct 2012 at 11:40 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-10-21 09:00:14 AM  
Sooo... Romney leads in the electoral vote count so long as you don't include a bunch of states that are going to go to Obama?
 
2012-10-21 09:21:46 AM  
And apparently only if you read the headline and not TFA.
 
2012-10-21 10:12:07 AM  
The Republican war on math continues.
 
2012-10-21 10:13:24 AM  
Dafuq?
 
2012-10-21 10:17:40 AM  
Well, I believe what they are saying is RCP is now predicting that among the states that are supposedly safe, Romney now has an EV advantage for the first time since the real race started. Which is actually newsworthy. As long as you are trying to push the narrative that this is a close race. Which it really isn't.
 
2012-10-21 10:23:28 AM  
"Of the 13 polls of swing states released on Thursday, Mr. Obama held leads in 11 of them."

-Nate Silver
 
2012-10-21 10:31:37 AM  

Tor_Eckman: push the narrative that this is a close race


Ding, ding, ding, ding!!!
Exactly. Wouldn't want us to turn off our TVs, would they?
 
2012-10-21 10:37:36 AM  
RCP is really desperate, aren't they? Really, at this point, other outfits should stop trying to figure this out and just redirect to 538.
 
2012-10-21 10:43:19 AM  
I don't remember the media pulling this kind of shiat with the '08 race. It was not a close race at all and they didn't pull any shenannegans to convince us that it was. That I can remember anyway, I was sort of drunk that decade.
 
2012-10-21 10:53:36 AM  
Subby fails reading comprehension?
 
2012-10-21 11:03:28 AM  

EnviroDude: Subby fails reading comprehension?


Oh, please explain. This ought to be good.
 
2012-10-21 11:05:57 AM  

EnviroDude: Subby fails reading comprehension?


Umm, no. The headline states Romney has a lead in the projected electoral vote, but the article then makes it clear he doesn't. He does, according to RCP's method, have a lead in states that could be considered "safe" for one candidate or the other. But every projection, including the one TFA is about, has Obama winning most of the "battleground" states.

So, at best, the headline is sloppily written, and, at worst, is a cynical attempt to keep the narrative going that this race is closer than it is.
 
2012-10-21 11:19:13 AM  

Mugato: I don't remember the media pulling this kind of shiat with the '08 race. It was not a close race at all and they didn't pull any shenannegans to convince us that it was. That I can remember anyway, I was sort of drunk that decade.


I don't remember them doing it either.
 
2012-10-21 11:30:18 AM  

Mugato: I don't remember the media pulling this kind of shiat with the '08 race. It was not a close race at all and they didn't pull any shenannegans to convince us that it was. That I can remember anyway, I was sort of drunk that decade.


They couldn't in 2008. The Republicans had screwed things up so much that the Democrats could have ran an actual donkey as their candidate and it would have won.
 
2012-10-21 11:42:14 AM  

Mentat: Mugato: I don't remember the media pulling this kind of shiat with the '08 race. It was not a close race at all and they didn't pull any shenannegans to convince us that it was. That I can remember anyway, I was sort of drunk that decade.

They couldn't in 2008. The Republicans had screwed things up so much that the Democrats could have ran an actual donkey as their candidate and it would have won.


That, and Obama was so popular that covering his lead actually made ratings sense. Now, a horse race draws viewers.
 
2012-10-21 11:43:58 AM  
I can remember "it's a horserace" bullshiat from every national election.
What else would the pundits say? You can ignore us now?
The political parties also need to keep their constituents motivated up to election day.
 
2012-10-21 11:45:38 AM  
Still.

Too.

Close.

As mentioned in another thread, I fear that I'm going to spend these last two weeks just screaming "How the fark are you so POPULAR!?" at my computer. Unless I woke up in an alternate universe where Americans suddenly like sending their sons and daughters off to die in multiple Middle East wars while being blatantly owned by the 1% at home.
 
2012-10-21 11:45:52 AM  

cpw49684: Tor_Eckman: push the narrative that this is a close race

Ding, ding, ding, ding!!!
Exactly. Wouldn't want us to turn off our TVs, would they?


One of the morning "news" show crapfests led with this story, like 207 ev wins. I think it was the ABC show with the short guy. Gotta keep people watching!!!
 
2012-10-21 11:46:10 AM  

Mugato: I don't remember the media pulling this kind of shiat with the '08 race. It was not a close race at all and they didn't pull any shenannegans to convince us that it was. That I can remember anyway, I was sort of drunk that decade.


I think because the novelty of the potential for the first black president outweighed other narratives.
 
2012-10-21 11:47:41 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: "Of the 13 polls of swing states released on Thursday, Mr. Obama held leads in 11 of them."

-Nate Silver


Too many words!

img.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-21 11:49:03 AM  

Mugato: I don't remember the media pulling this kind of shiat with the '08 race. It was not a close race at all and they didn't pull any shenannegans to convince us that it was. That I can remember anyway, I was sort of drunk that decade.


In 2008, Obama had Wall St behind them, as he'd promised to bail out their asses

This time, they're backing Romney, as Obama has made it clear he wants to regulate and tax their asses.

Wall St, the investment banks now drive corporate America, rather than the other way around, so it's in the corporate media's best interest to make Romney look salable.
 
2012-10-21 11:51:49 AM  

Mentat: Mugato: I don't remember the media pulling this kind of shiat with the '08 race. It was not a close race at all and they didn't pull any shenannegans to convince us that it was. That I can remember anyway, I was sort of drunk that decade.

They couldn't in 2008. The Republicans had screwed things up so much that the Democrats could have ran an actual donkey as their candidate and it would have won.


I remember 2008 being relatively close, and McCain actually taking the lead in Nate Silver's prediction shortly after the Republican convention. It wasn't until the debates and the fiscal crisis that Obama's lead started to widen permanently.
 
2012-10-21 11:52:43 AM  
2 farking weeks. We just have to survive 2 more farking weeks
 
2012-10-21 11:52:54 AM  
By Scott Bomboy | National Constitution Center

What the hell is that?
 
2012-10-21 11:53:06 AM  

The Great EZE: Still.

Too.

Close.

As mentioned in another thread, I fear that I'm going to spend these last two weeks just screaming "How the fark are you so POPULAR!?" at my computer. Unless I woke up in an alternate universe where Americans suddenly like sending their sons and daughters off to die in multiple Middle East wars while being blatantly owned by the 1% at home.


That's the way I feel. I realize that there's a certain fixed percentage that would vote for a Chupacabra if it had an (R) next to its name but that's where it should have ended. I can't believe it's as close as it is. It's truly scary.
 
2012-10-21 11:53:48 AM  

EnviroDude: Subby fails reading comprehension?


Show your work.
 
2012-10-21 11:54:27 AM  

Mrtraveler01: By Scott Bomboy | National Constitution Center

What the hell is that?


It's whatever they want it to be. And by "they", I mean their billionaire bosses who use the name as a smoke screen and peddle their pseudo-intellectual propoganda
 
2012-10-21 11:55:03 AM  

Mrtraveler01: By Scott Bomboy | National Constitution Center

What the hell is that?


It's a museum here in Philadelphia, devoted to... The Consitution.

No idea what it's supposed to do; it's last major exhibit was on Bruce Springsteen.

/I think it was the brainchild/boondoggle of one of our Congressmen
 
2012-10-21 11:55:58 AM  
It sounds like someone needs to take the Do you have Romnesia test.
 
2012-10-21 11:56:48 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: Mrtraveler01: By Scott Bomboy | National Constitution Center

What the hell is that?

It's a museum here in Philadelphia, devoted to... The Consitution.

No idea what it's supposed to do; it's last major exhibit was on Bruce Springsteen.

/I think it was the brainchild/boondoggle of one of our Congressmen


So now museum workers have their own page on Yahoo News?

Personally, I won't rest until I find out what the sandwich maker at Wawa thinks about this.
 
2012-10-21 11:57:19 AM  

qorkfiend: Mentat: Mugato: I don't remember the media pulling this kind of shiat with the '08 race. It was not a close race at all and they didn't pull any shenannegans to convince us that it was. That I can remember anyway, I was sort of drunk that decade.

They couldn't in 2008. The Republicans had screwed things up so much that the Democrats could have ran an actual donkey as their candidate and it would have won.

I remember 2008 being relatively close, and McCain actually taking the lead in Nate Silver's prediction shortly after the Republican convention. It wasn't until the debates and the fiscal crisis that Obama's lead started to widen permanently.


RCP had Obama at +7.3 popular and +126 EVs on this day in 2008.

Hard to spin that.
 
2012-10-21 12:01:10 PM  
I don't know if anyone has noticed, but yahoo news has gone really hard right lately. Not as far right as fox news, but far enough that I've noticed the same thing in a number of articles. Namely, that they're pushing a clearly one-sided view on the issues.
 
2012-10-21 12:02:51 PM  
And some troll in here yelled at me the other day when I didn't think Yahoo News was "liberal"... I haven't seen a single pro-Obama story on Yahoo in weeks. Fox, CNN, Yahoo, and many others have been in Republican pockets for at least two years now. Even BBC News' North America coverage is swinging pretty far to the right these days.

Dwight_Yeast: In 2008, Obama had Wall St behind them, as he'd promised to bail out their asses

This time, they're backing Romney, as Obama has made it clear he wants to regulate and tax their asses.

Wall St, the investment banks now drive corporate America, rather than the other way around, so it's in the corporate media's best interest to make Romney look salable.


Which still doesn't make sense, when you look at how much growth every financial market experienced during the Clinton years as opposed to the Bush administration.

How could the people running the financial sector not understand the merits of long-term sustainable growth vs. short-term plundering? Increasing the wealth of the lower classes just a little will lead to greater and longer-lasting increases in their own wealth. As I've said in similar threads... I can squeeze more juice from a watermelon than I can from a raisin.

Wall Street should be doing everything in its collective power to keep Romney away from the White House, not move him closer to it. The only industries that would truly benefit from another Republican administration are defense and oil.
 
2012-10-21 12:03:02 PM  

Mrtraveler01: So now museum workers have their own page on Yahoo News?


It appears to be an op-ed piece. When they publish such pieces, they often cite where the writer works.

Ah, I found it: it was published on the Constitution Center's blog two days ago:

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/10/mitt-romney-takes-lead-in- p rojected-electoral-vote-count/

They were supposed to be non-partisan when this thing was set up, so I've no idea what this means.
 
2012-10-21 12:03:52 PM  

Notabunny: cameroncrazy1984: "Of the 13 polls of swing states released on Thursday, Mr. Obama held leads in 11 of them."

-Nate Silver

Too many words!

[img.photobucket.com image 326x800]


Your poll sucks. Every single person in my town of Morehead Kentucky is voting for Romney. If everybody in my town is voting for Romney than everybody else in America must be too. We are just that smart here. Derp. Huuuuurrrrrrrr.
 
2012-10-21 12:04:10 PM  

Mugato: I don't remember the media pulling this kind of shiat with the '08 race.


Romney is actual right wing elite, conservative meda would throw themselves in front of a bus for him
McCain was too liberal for them in 2000 and had no Bush family genes, he only had the advantage of not being a Kenyen Usurper in 2008..
 
2012-10-21 12:04:22 PM  

Howie Spankowitz: The Republican war on math andreality continues.



This and FTFY
 
2012-10-21 12:05:51 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: EnviroDude: Subby fails reading comprehension?

Oh, please explain. This ought to be good.


Silly Farker, thinking he'll get a response from the EniviroPhil Troll.
 
2012-10-21 12:06:34 PM  
So, according to RCP, if you take ten swing states out of the equation Romney leads Obama 206 to 201 in likely and solid voters but if you include the swing states Obama's still looking inevitable.

Meh, just another horse race narrative.

That noted, take nothing for granted. Vote. Encourage others to do the same.
 
2012-10-21 12:07:05 PM  
This is unexpected? Of course they support the only socialist in the race!

Romney is an admitted socialist!

- Went to a socialist meeting in Boston in 2000
- Created Romneycare
- Likes Obamacare
- Receives campaign funds from communist China
- Hides from his patriotic duty by keeping his money in a tax shelter in Hong Kong
- Outsources jobs to China
- Said he likes the word socialism
- Owns stock in several communist Chinese companies
- Has a VP whose own brother is CEO of a Chinese company
- Took down the American flag at a plant where good, wholsesome, hardworking Real Americans were forced to train their communist Chinese replacements and then closed the American plant
- Forced workers to attend his rally without pay while threatening to fire them if they refused

Even Rush Limbaugh called him a socialist!

Romney: Investing in China's Future in America Today!
 
2012-10-21 12:08:06 PM  
Complacency doesn't serve us liberals well. No, Romney's not winning, but this race IS tight after that disastrous first debate. Hopefully a strong Obama win tomorrow night will give a little cushion.
 
2012-10-21 12:08:52 PM  

clkeagle: Which still doesn't make sense, when you look at how much growth every financial market experienced during the Clinton years as opposed to the Bush administration.

How could the people running the financial sector not understand the merits of long-term sustainable growth vs. short-term plundering? Increasing the wealth of the lower classes just a little will lead to greater and longer-lasting increases in their own wealth. As I've said in similar threads... I can squeeze more juice from a watermelon than I can from a raisin.


It's pretty simple: banking, especially investment banking used to be a VERY conservative business, run by older, sensible men. Once investment banks could trade their own stock and commercial banks were allowed to own investment houses, the young turks took over everything. The turnover is high and most traders working are only in it for what they can get out moment-to-moment to drive their bottom line and most have not lived through a recession other than the current one.

It is an extremely volatile situation and I'm expecting to see another major meltdown in the next eight years unless we pass serious regulation now.

What is really depressing to me is that the bulk of the current wealth inequality in this country, the shift of money into the hands of a very few has happened in my lifetime, in the last 30 years.
 
2012-10-21 12:09:51 PM  

Tor_Eckman: As long as you are trying to push the narrative that this is a close race. Which it really isn't.


Why would you think this race isn't close?
 
2012-10-21 12:10:32 PM  

Edsel: Complacency doesn't serve us liberals well. No, Romney's not winning, but this race IS tight after that disastrous first debate. Hopefully a strong Obama win tomorrow night will give a little cushion.


Next debate is on foreign policy only. If Obama doesn't crush it on that, I'm writing in Vermin Supreme.
 
2012-10-21 12:11:42 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Edsel: Complacency doesn't serve us liberals well. No, Romney's not winning, but this race IS tight after that disastrous first debate. Hopefully a strong Obama win tomorrow night will give a little cushion.

Next debate is on foreign policy only. If Obama doesn't crush it on that, I'm writing in Vermin Supreme.


Agreed. There's potential for Obama to wipe the floor with Romney. Hoping for a big win.
 
2012-10-21 12:12:28 PM  

Yankees Team Gynecologist: Tor_Eckman: As long as you are trying to push the narrative that this is a close race. Which it really isn't.

Why would you think this race isn't close?


Because the numbers say it's not. Not the polling data, but the actual numbers.

Romney hasn't been close to 270 at any point in this race, and Obama has never dipped below it.

There are a number of "swing" states in play, but they more or less cancel each other out. Obama only has to win a couple, but Romney has to win all of them to win.
 
2012-10-21 12:12:36 PM  

Edsel: Dwight_Yeast: Edsel: Complacency doesn't serve us liberals well. No, Romney's not winning, but this race IS tight after that disastrous first debate. Hopefully a strong Obama win tomorrow night will give a little cushion.

Next debate is on foreign policy only. If Obama doesn't crush it on that, I'm writing in Vermin Supreme.

Agreed. There's potential for Obama to wipe the floor with Romney. Hoping for a big win.


Won't matter if the media calls it a tie again.
 
2012-10-21 12:13:11 PM  

Kurmudgeon: Mugato: I don't remember the media pulling this kind of shiat with the '08 race.

Romney is actual right wing elite, conservative meda would throw themselves in front of a bus for him
McCain was too liberal for them in 2000 and had no Bush family genes, he only had the advantage of not being a Kenyen Usurper in 2008..


Let's ask Rush Limbaugh about Romney: "Remember when I hoped that he was a failure, hoped he would fail, and he hasn't. You know, depending on your perspective, Mitt, he hasn't failed, that's a problem. (interruption) Yeah, I know, some people say Romney's in over his hair here. I just don't understand the reluctance. The guy's a socialist."
 
2012-10-21 12:13:15 PM  
You know, I'd really kill/love to see someone leak one of these media conglomerates internal emails/orders to push this narrative of "it's neck and neck we swear" crap.
 
2012-10-21 12:15:11 PM  

Yankees Team Gynecologist: Tor_Eckman: As long as you are trying to push the narrative that this is a close race. Which it really isn't.

Why would you think this race isn't close?


See Silver's numbers posted above. Obama with an almost 70% chance to win and rising.

It's closer than I would like, but barring something really unusual happening Romney would need not one but several miracles to happen to actually pull it off.
 
2012-10-21 12:15:41 PM  

taoistlumberjak: I don't know if anyone has noticed, but yahoo news has gone really hard right lately.


Oh I've noticed it all right. The articles have been very snarky when it comes to trying to downplay anything positive about Obama. And just try leaving any comments there that don't kiss Rmoney's ass. Even if your comment may get past the censorship mods, the Teahadist readers there will downvote your comments off the page.

Makes you wonder if Yahoo is about to be investigated by the DoJ like Gallup is. These guys really, really want Rmoney to win.
 
2012-10-21 12:16:18 PM  

taoistlumberjak: I don't know if anyone has noticed, but yahoo news has gone really hard right lately. Not as far right as fox news, but far enough that I've noticed the same thing in a number of articles. Namely, that they're pushing a clearly one-sided view on the issues.


I noticed this a few years back. The comments on yahoo are now almost as bad as the worst YouTube comments.
 
2012-10-21 12:16:43 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Won't matter if the media calls it a tie again.


It will just add to the complete surrealism of this campaign.

/as I've said all along, Romney should be running as the (D) and Obama as the (R), especially with the way the parties are polarized at the moment.
 
2012-10-21 12:18:25 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: You know, I'd really kill/love to see someone leak one of these media conglomerates internal emails/orders to push this narrative of "it's neck and neck we swear" crap.


And who's gonna publish those?

More accurately, who's gonna publish it that will be taken seriously by the public?
 
2012-10-21 12:18:37 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Because the numbers say it's not. Not the polling data, but the actual numbers.

Romney hasn't been close to 270 at any point in this race, and Obama has never dipped below it.

There are a number of "swing" states in play, but they more or less cancel each other out. Obama only has to win a couple, but Romney has to win all of them to win.


---

You don't think Romney can realistically win IA, NV, CO, FL, and VA? Assuming Obama wins OH, PA, and WI, this makes for a very possible 269-269 tie.

Don't get me wrong, I sure as hell hope you're right, and I realize the odds are still in Obama's favor, but it's still too close to comfort.
 
2012-10-21 12:18:52 PM  

quatchi:
That noted, take nothing for granted. Vote. Encourage others to do the same.


Voting isn't important. The pundits and campaign spokespeople will tell us who won.
 
2012-10-21 12:19:11 PM  

cc_rider: taoistlumberjak: I don't know if anyone has noticed, but yahoo news has gone really hard right lately. Not as far right as fox news, but far enough that I've noticed the same thing in a number of articles. Namely, that they're pushing a clearly one-sided view on the issues.

I noticed this a few years back. The comments on yahoo are now almost as bad as the worst YouTube comments.


Who the hell owns Yahoo at this point?
 
2012-10-21 12:19:40 PM  

Tor_Eckman: qorkfiend: Mentat: Mugato: I don't remember the media pulling this kind of shiat with the '08 race. It was not a close race at all and they didn't pull any shenannegans to convince us that it was. That I can remember anyway, I was sort of drunk that decade.

They couldn't in 2008. The Republicans had screwed things up so much that the Democrats could have ran an actual donkey as their candidate and it would have won.

I remember 2008 being relatively close, and McCain actually taking the lead in Nate Silver's prediction shortly after the Republican convention. It wasn't until the debates and the fiscal crisis that Obama's lead started to widen permanently.

RCP had Obama at +7.3 popular and +126 EVs on this day in 2008.

Hard to spin that.


Indeed. My point was that unlike this year, in 2008 Obama hadn't held that lead throughout the cycle.
 
2012-10-21 12:20:06 PM  

Yankees Team Gynecologist: Dwight_Yeast: Because the numbers say it's not. Not the polling data, but the actual numbers.

Romney hasn't been close to 270 at any point in this race, and Obama has never dipped below it.

There are a number of "swing" states in play, but they more or less cancel each other out. Obama only has to win a couple, but Romney has to win all of them to win.

---

You don't think Romney can realistically win IA, NV, CO, FL, and VA? Assuming Obama wins OH, PA, and WI, this makes for a very possible 269-269 tie.

Don't get me wrong, I sure as hell hope you're right, and I realize the odds are still in Obama's favor, but it's still too close to comfort.


On VA: Virgil Goode and Gary Johnson. Poof! No Romney win.
ON NV. NM and AZ: Gary Johnson
 
2012-10-21 12:20:54 PM  

Smoking GNU: And who's gonna publish those?

More accurately, who's gonna publish it that will be taken seriously by the public?


Hmmm. 4chan?
 
2012-10-21 12:21:14 PM  

raerae1980: Mugato: I don't remember the media pulling this kind of shiat with the '08 race. It was not a close race at all and they didn't pull any shenannegans to convince us that it was. That I can remember anyway, I was sort of drunk that decade.

I don't remember them doing it either.


Probably because they could get their ratings purely from introducing a segment with "Today, Sarah Palin said..."
 
2012-10-21 12:21:39 PM  

Notabunny: cameroncrazy1984: "Of the 13 polls of swing states released on Thursday, Mr. Obama held leads in 11 of them."

-Nate Silver

Too many words!

[img.photobucket.com image 326x800]


How does one get 3/5 of an elector.
 
ecl
2012-10-21 12:23:08 PM  

cc_rider: taoistlumberjak: I don't know if anyone has noticed, but yahoo news has gone really hard right lately. Not as far right as fox news, but far enough that I've noticed the same thing in a number of articles. Namely, that they're pushing a clearly one-sided view on the issues.

I noticed this a few years back. The comments on yahoo are now almost as bad as the worst YouTube comments.




Almost as bad? I'ts nearly freeperville.
 
2012-10-21 12:23:25 PM  

Yankees Team Gynecologist: You don't think Romney can realistically win IA, NV, CO, FL, and VA? Assuming Obama wins OH, PA, and WI, this makes for a very possible 269-269 tie.


Yeah, if Obama wins Ohio it's all over. Forget everything else That's why I'm fully in support if any every poll story leading with Ohio. You can talk about the popular vote which doesn't matter or North Carolina which is going toward Romney anyway or Florida which has its head too far up its ass to provide a reliable (and thankfully Obama doesn't need to win) later. Lead with Ohio.

It sucks that we have to give so much attention to one state but that's the way it is. And again, Obama bailed you fools out but it's still. Too. Close.
 
2012-10-21 12:23:52 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: cc_rider: taoistlumberjak: I don't know if anyone has noticed, but yahoo news has gone really hard right lately. Not as far right as fox news, but far enough that I've noticed the same thing in a number of articles. Namely, that they're pushing a clearly one-sided view on the issues.

I noticed this a few years back. The comments on yahoo are now almost as bad as the worst YouTube comments.

Who the hell owns Yahoo at this point?

 

i28.photobucket.com

It often seems like it, these days.
 
2012-10-21 12:24:00 PM  

Tor_Eckman: See Silver's numbers posted above. Obama with an almost 70% chance to win and rising.

It's closer than I would like, but barring something really unusual happening Romney would need not one but several miracles to happen to actually pull it off.


Really?

17% - Odds of "winning" a game of Russian roulette
25% - Odds of a flipped coin coming up 'heads' twice in a row
32.1% - Chance of a Romney presidency according to 538
50% - Odds of a single coin flip coming up 'heads'
 
2012-10-21 12:24:36 PM  

Mugato: I don't remember the media pulling this kind of shiat with the '08 race. It was not a close race at all and they didn't pull any shenannegans to convince us that it was. That I can remember anyway, I was sort of drunk that decade.


Oh, they tried. After all, America never votes out the incumbent President's party in wartime. And is America really ready for a black President? And the Bradley Effect, you know! All these polls might be wrong! Silent majority! Tune in to find out!
 
2012-10-21 12:24:50 PM  

clkeagle: How could the people running the financial sector not understand the merits of long-term sustainable growth vs. short-term plundering?


the people running the financial sector have perpetrated a scam. 1) you have to pay lots and lots of money for a small pool of talent 2) that talent is measured by either this quarters stock price/dividend or "beating" expectations. the long term view hasn't existed for some time now. as proof when did R&D get increased anywhere?

ok it might have at some startup
 
2012-10-21 12:25:38 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: cc_rider: taoistlumberjak: I don't know if anyone has noticed, but yahoo news has gone really hard right lately. Not as far right as fox news, but far enough that I've noticed the same thing in a number of articles. Namely, that they're pushing a clearly one-sided view on the issues.

I noticed this a few years back. The comments on yahoo are now almost as bad as the worst YouTube comments.

Who the hell owns Yahoo at this point?


Isn't it in a partnership with ABC News now?
 
2012-10-21 12:25:45 PM  

Yankees Team Gynecologist: You don't think Romney can realistically win IA, NV, CO, FL, and VA? Assuming Obama wins OH, PA, and WI, this makes for a very possible 269-269 tie.

Don't get me wrong, I sure as hell hope you're right, and I realize the odds are still in Obama's favor, but it's still too close to comfort.


I don't think so. I can see Romney taking VA but not FL. There's really no way Romney takes PA unless the Democrats fail to get out the vote. I don't think it will come down to a tie. It will be decisive one way or the other, but if Obama wins, all we'll hear about is the popular vote, which is meaningless but which will be close.
 
2012-10-21 12:26:05 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: cc_rider: taoistlumberjak: I don't know if anyone has noticed, but yahoo news has gone really hard right lately. Not as far right as fox news, but far enough that I've noticed the same thing in a number of articles. Namely, that they're pushing a clearly one-sided view on the issues.

I noticed this a few years back. The comments on yahoo are now almost as bad as the worst YouTube comments.

Who the hell owns Yahoo at this point?


all the people who used to post on foxnews.com probably went there after they shut the comments section down for being too embarrassing.
 
2012-10-21 12:27:44 PM  

Ivo Shandor: 17% - Odds of "winning" a game of Russian roulette
25% - Odds of a flipped coin coming up 'heads' twice in a row
32.1% - Chance of a Romney presidency according to 538
50% - Odds of a single coin flip coming up 'heads'


Okay. Now tell me the odds of 538 biffing a projection.
 
2012-10-21 12:27:59 PM  

cc_rider: taoistlumberjak: I don't know if anyone has noticed, but yahoo news has gone really hard right lately. Not as far right as fox news, but far enough that I've noticed the same thing in a number of articles. Namely, that they're pushing a clearly one-sided view on the issues.

I noticed this a few years back. The comments on yahoo are now almost as bad as the worst YouTube comments.


Not just for their politics, either. Even the comments there on things like hockey are enough to cause me serious mental agony.

The people who still use Yahoo! actively are idiots. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by that at this point.
 
2012-10-21 12:28:02 PM  

Tor_Eckman: See Silver's numbers posted above. Obama with an almost 70% chance to win and rising.


Even assuming that's accurate, a 70% chance of winning is not the same thing as having 70% of the electoral vote in a moderately secure bag. You wouldn't feel good about 30% on anything reasonably important.

Recently I've seen more of these "undecided" voters and what they're (in)capable of, and that's what worries me.
 
2012-10-21 12:28:25 PM  
You libs scared yet?
 
2012-10-21 12:28:50 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: I can see Romney taking VA but not FL.


That's odd. Because I think it's more likely for Romney to win Florida than it is to win Virginia.

All the poll I've seen in Florida seem to favor Romney by a narrow margin.
 
2012-10-21 12:30:27 PM  

MechaDupek: You libs scared yet?


Um, yes. Terrified. But probably not for the reasons you think.
 
2012-10-21 12:30:46 PM  

Tor_Eckman: Yankees Team Gynecologist: Tor_Eckman: As long as you are trying to push the narrative that this is a close race. Which it really isn't.

Why would you think this race isn't close?

See Silver's numbers posted above. Obama with an almost 70% chance to win and rising.

It's closer than I would like, but barring something really unusual happening Romney would need not one but several miracles to happen to actually pull it off.


Miracles = voter suppression/intimidation, Romney family purchasing voting machines, etc.

Today's GOP is the greatest threat America has ever faced. Do NOT underestimate their ability/willingness to steal this election.
 
2012-10-21 12:30:51 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Dwight_Yeast: I can see Romney taking VA but not FL.

That's odd. Because I think it's more likely for Romney to win Florida than it is to win Virginia.

All the poll I've seen in Florida seem to favor Romney by a narrow margin.


I agree; Florida hasn't gone back since Nate Silver colored it red. Virginia's flipped a couple times.
 
2012-10-21 12:31:13 PM  

Ivo Shandor: 17% - Odds of "winning" a game of Russian roulette
25% - Odds of a flipped coin coming up 'heads' twice in a row
32.1% - Chance of a Romney presidency according to 538
50% - Odds of a single coin flip coming up 'heads'


That would work if the race depended on the outcome of one or two events, but it doesn't, it depends on roughly 50 (I forget how many states can split their EV). Each one of those outcomes is a separate event. Some are certain: Obama will win CA and NY, Romney TX and UT, and some are less so. But the events aren't equally weighted: winning CA and NY mean a hell of a lot more than winning TX.
 
2012-10-21 12:32:22 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: What is really depressing to me is that the bulk of the current wealth inequality in this country, the shift of money into the hands of a very few has happened in my lifetime, in the last 30 years.


IMO because of what you wrote about the banks now just churning money. there is no tangible product. even in the service industry where you don't see the product it's there. the kid handing you your big mac is doing something tangible. a credit default swap adds what of tangible value?
 
2012-10-21 12:32:28 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Ivo Shandor: 17% - Odds of "winning" a game of Russian roulette
25% - Odds of a flipped coin coming up 'heads' twice in a row
32.1% - Chance of a Romney presidency according to 538
50% - Odds of a single coin flip coming up 'heads'

That would work if the race depended on the outcome of one or two events, but it doesn't, it depends on roughly 50 (I forget how many states can split their EV). Each one of those outcomes is a separate event. Some are certain: Obama will win CA and NY, Romney TX and UT, and some are less so. But the events aren't equally weighted: winning CA and NY mean a hell of a lot more than winning TX.


Only Maine and Nebraska split their EV, I think.
 
2012-10-21 12:32:35 PM  

MechaDupek: You libs scared yet?


You know, this is not the kind of rhetoric that gets looked fondly upon in history books. You don't go around just openly telling your own countrymen to be afraid of you unless you are actively TRYING to get the Villain Edit. Seriously, what was with those black-and-white 'November Is Coming' billboard ads in 2010? Does anyone ever do that and look like the good guys afterwards?
 
2012-10-21 12:33:57 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Dwight_Yeast: I can see Romney taking VA but not FL.

That's odd. Because I think it's more likely for Romney to win Florida than it is to win Virginia.

All the poll I've seen in Florida seem to favor Romney by a narrow margin.


If the Democratic PACs push the "Romney/Ryan want to turn SS into a voucher system" hard in FL, there seems to me a chance Obama might win it. I could see FL coming down to not being called on election night, but I don't think we're looking at a repeat of 2000.

/should have fixed the system at that point.
 
2012-10-21 12:33:58 PM  

Gosling: MechaDupek: You libs scared yet?

You know, this is not the kind of rhetoric that gets looked fondly upon in history books. You don't go around just openly telling your own countrymen to be afraid of you unless you are actively TRYING to get the Villain Edit. Seriously, what was with those black-and-white 'November Is Coming' billboard ads in 2010? Does anyone ever do that and look like the good guys afterwards?


They're fascists.
 
2012-10-21 12:34:20 PM  

The Great EZE: Yeah, if Obama wins Ohio it's all over.


Not if he loses IA and NV. Maybe this is unlikely, but they're small states and could easily be offset by a surprise in WI, PA, or OH.

Thigvald the Big-Balled: Miracles = voter suppression/intimidation, Romney family purchasing voting machines, etc.

Today's GOP is the greatest threat America has ever faced. Do NOT underestimate their ability/willingness to steal this election.


Exactly.
 
2012-10-21 12:36:06 PM  

Lost Thought 00: 2 farking weeks. We just have to survive 2 more farking weeks


I know. Will we be able to "grey out" the politics tab for a couple of days?
 
2012-10-21 12:36:31 PM  

Ivo Shandor: Tor_Eckman: See Silver's numbers posted above. Obama with an almost 70% chance to win and rising.

It's closer than I would like, but barring something really unusual happening Romney would need not one but several miracles to happen to actually pull it off.

Really?

17% - Odds of "winning" a game of Russian roulette
25% - Odds of a flipped coin coming up 'heads' twice in a row
32.1% - Chance of a Romney presidency according to 538
50% - Odds of a single coin flip coming up 'heads'


Here's why I don't like percentage "odds" when predicting an election: odds are for things that depend on pure chance and elections aren't chance. Obama or Romney aren't going to win this election because they got lucky. It'll be because they got the most electoral votes based on 51 smaller elections. And everybody on both sides would do well to remember that. The analysis may get more sophisticated but the fundaments stay the same: turnout and local economy.

I like to use Nate's quantitative numbers, but only so I can make a more accurate qualitative assessment in my head. He says 67.9% odds of an Obama win. I take that to mean that if voter turn out is what we expect it to be and if another October 2008 doesn't happen then Obama should win. And right now neither of those things are expected to happen. It's a more accurate way of thinking and you can leave your 20-sided die in the drawer.
 
2012-10-21 12:38:46 PM  
The media sucks for insisting on treating this as a horse race. On the other hand, this race was always bound to tighten and always bound to be closer than 2008. It actually serves Democrats to perceive this race as tighter than it is because that's the only way they are going to guarantee that they get out the vote to the extent they need. Fear is a powerful motivator.
 
2012-10-21 12:39:02 PM  

Yankees Team Gynecologist: The Great EZE: Yeah, if Obama wins Ohio it's all over.

Not if he loses IA and NV. Maybe this is unlikely, but they're small states and could easily be offset by a surprise in WI, PA, or OH.


True, but at the same time he'll probably win Virginia with a 3rd party spoiler, which would cancel out losing IA/NV or, more likely*, WI. Either way, winning OH is the key.

/* - more likely but still not very likely
 
2012-10-21 12:39:14 PM  
A huge decline in Democratic registration when compared to four years ago should give even the most sanguine liberals some food for thought.
 
2012-10-21 12:41:12 PM  

smitty04: A huge decline in Democratic registration when compared to four years ago should give even the most sanguine liberals some food for thought.


Got a citation for this?
 
2012-10-21 12:42:11 PM  

Mugato: I don't remember the media pulling this kind of shiat with the '08 race. It was not a close race at all and they didn't pull any shenannegans to convince us that it was. That I can remember anyway, I was sort of drunk that decade.


That's because people would tune in just to hear Sarah Palin talk. And to imagine her naked.
 
2012-10-21 12:42:48 PM  

Cats_Lie: Mugato: I don't remember the media pulling this kind of shiat with the '08 race. It was not a close race at all and they didn't pull any shenannegans to convince us that it was. That I can remember anyway, I was sort of drunk that decade.

That's because people would tune in just to hear Sarah Palin talk. And to imagine her naked.



Nobody wants to imagine Paul Ryan naked.
 
2012-10-21 12:43:01 PM  

smitty04: A huge decline in Democratic registration when compared to four years ago should give even the most sanguine liberals some food for thought.


Well when Republican registrars keep throwing their registrations in the trash, what do you expect?
 
2012-10-21 12:43:04 PM  

Thigvald the Big-Balled: .

Today's GOP is the greatest threat America has ever faced. Do NOT underestimate their ability/willingness to steal this election.


Bears repeating. I can't even believe we still have to be worried about this shiat in the 21st century. "American Exceptionalism" my farking ass! :(
 
2012-10-21 12:43:12 PM  

Curious: IMO because of what you wrote about the banks now just churning money. there is no tangible product. even in the service industry where you don't see the product it's there. the kid handing you your big mac is doing something tangible. a credit default swap adds what of tangible value?


Pretty much. While bankers should always have some power (they can act as a balance, when well-regulated) we need to shift things so that companies that make things and do things return to the fore and are allowed to make and do things, rather than worrying about their stock price and quarterly earnings.

It hit me last night, reading the thread on the voting machines, how dangerous PRIVATE companies have become as well. Some things which should be under public scrutiny and control aren't because the companies that make/do them (build voting machines, for instance) are privately-owned and don't have to report to anyone.
 
2012-10-21 12:43:30 PM  

Cats_Lie: Cats_Lie: Mugato: I don't remember the media pulling this kind of shiat with the '08 race. It was not a close race at all and they didn't pull any shenannegans to convince us that it was. That I can remember anyway, I was sort of drunk that decade.

That's because people would tune in just to hear Sarah Palin talk. And to imagine her naked.


Nobody wants to imagine Paul Ryan naked.


You're doing it right now, aren't you?
 
2012-10-21 12:43:48 PM  

The Great EZE: I like to use Nate's quantitative numbers, but only so I can make a more accurate qualitative assessment in my head. He says 67.9% odds of an Obama win. I take that to mean that if voter turn out is what we expect it to be and if another October 2008 doesn't happen then Obama should win. And right now neither of those things are expected to happen. It's a more accurate way of thinking and you can leave your 20-sided die in the drawer.


I hope you're right, but I take "chance of winning" to mean odds in exactly the coin-flip sense. Yes, the unknowns aren't exactly based on "luck," but they may as well be random since, again, they're unknowns. I assume Nate Silver has translated all of that into coin-flip speak, which is why he presents it as a percentage "chance."
 
2012-10-21 12:46:23 PM  
 
2012-10-21 12:46:51 PM  

EnviroDude: Subby fails reading comprehension?


Still waiting.


Show your work.
 
2012-10-21 12:47:56 PM  

smitty04: On our podcast today, Brian Ward, Steve Hayward and I talked about the obviously bogus polls that purport to show Barack Obama with a big lead in various swing states, even though those same polls show Romney winning independent voters by significant margins. Those results make sense only if enormous numbers of voters are signing up as Democrats.


Yeah...this citation sounds legit.
 
2012-10-21 12:50:44 PM  

Mrtraveler01: smitty04: On our podcast today, Brian Ward, Steve Hayward and I talked about the obviously bogus polls that purport to show Barack Obama with a big lead in various swing states, even though those same polls show Romney winning independent voters by significant margins. Those results make sense only if enormous numbers of voters are signing up as Democrats.

Yeah...this citation sounds legit.


Smitty's a troll or an idiot. Either way, he's best Ignored.

/been adding a lot of people to the List the last couple days
//surprised at certain old names I haven't seen in years showing up again all teh sudden...
 
2012-10-21 12:51:42 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: That would work if the race depended on the outcome of one or two events, but it doesn't, it depends on roughly 50 (I forget how many states can split their EV). Each one of those outcomes is a separate event. Some are certain: Obama will win CA and NY, Romney TX and UT, and some are less so. But the events aren't equally weighted: winning CA and NY mean a hell of a lot more than winning TX.


Sure, but the 538 result is presented as the overall "chance of winning" _after_ considering all of those factors. I have no idea how accurate the prediction is, but that's what he is saying the odds are.

The Great EZE: Here's why I don't like percentage "odds" when predicting an election: odds are for things that depend on pure chance and elections aren't chance. Obama or Romney aren't going to win this election because they got lucky.


There is always going to be some random variation in the vote counts. Maybe someone's dog got sick and she had to take him to the vet instead of going to the polling place. Maybe someone didn't use a dark enough pencil mark to fill out an optical-scan ballot. Maybe an undecided voter happened to hear someone else in the lineup complaining that his job was just outsourced to China. Now if one side or another has a big enough lead then that doesn't matter; a 72%-to-28% win is the same as a 68%-to-32% win. Conversely, if enough of the local races are close to being a 50-50 split then that random variation can bubble up and become significant to the overall result.
 
2012-10-21 12:52:56 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Mrtraveler01: smitty04: On our podcast today, Brian Ward, Steve Hayward and I talked about the obviously bogus polls that purport to show Barack Obama with a big lead in various swing states, even though those same polls show Romney winning independent voters by significant margins. Those results make sense only if enormous numbers of voters are signing up as Democrats.

Yeah...this citation sounds legit.

Smitty's a troll or an idiot. Either way, he's best Ignored.

/been adding a lot of people to the List the last couple days
//surprised at certain old names I haven't seen in years showing up again all teh sudden...


www.askingsmarterquestions.com
 
2012-10-21 12:52:58 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: smitty's a troll or an idiot. Either way, he's best Ignored.


I was just amazed that he actually cited a shiatty blog.
 
2012-10-21 12:54:02 PM  

smitty04: Dwight_Yeast: Mrtraveler01: smitty04: On our podcast today, Brian Ward, Steve Hayward and I talked about the obviously bogus polls that purport to show Barack Obama with a big lead in various swing states, even though those same polls show Romney winning independent voters by significant margins. Those results make sense only if enormous numbers of voters are signing up as Democrats.

Yeah...this citation sounds legit.

Smitty's a troll or an idiot. Either way, he's best Ignored.

/been adding a lot of people to the List the last couple days
//surprised at certain old names I haven't seen in years showing up again all teh sudden...

[www.askingsmarterquestions.com image 450x302]


You come up with a better citation than some shiatty right-wing blog called Powerline and maybe I'll start believing you.
 
2012-10-21 12:59:31 PM  

Tor_Eckman: Well, I believe what they are saying is RCP is now predicting that among the states that are supposedly safe, Romney now has an EV advantage for the first time since the real race started. Which is actually newsworthy. As long as you are trying to push the narrative that this is a close race. Which it really isn't.


But this is historically true in every election. GOP has had the default lead of safe states for a few decades, just that the GOP had farked up so badly some of them had edged into "almost toss-up" territory.
 
2012-10-21 01:00:02 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: "Of the 13 polls of swing states released on Thursday, Mr. Obama held leads in 11 of them."

-Nate Silver


Nate Silver's a liberal commie (when his polls support Obama)
 
2012-10-21 01:00:24 PM  
The new Bain ads running in Ohio are pretty deadly, and strike a chord in that state especially. We'll see what impact they have on the polls there, but Ohioans aren't keen to elect a professional job outsourcer.
 
2012-10-21 01:00:43 PM  

Ivo Shandor: Sure, but the 538 result is presented as the overall "chance of winning" _after_ considering all of those factors. I have no idea how accurate the prediction is, but that's what he is saying the odds are.


As I pointed out the other day here, think of it as the beginnings of Psycho-history: we want to know the outcome of a complex event involving human beings. So there's a bunch of math and we get a percentage, as we move closer to the event occurring, the accuracy gets better, but -and this is where it gets fun- knowing the percentage affects the outcome. This is the first election where people are really paying attention to Nate Silver, so he may well be shaping events as he predicts them.

/This all makes sense if you grew up watching Quantum Leap
//Asimov does a better job of fleshing out how it would really work.
 
2012-10-21 01:01:25 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Smitty's a troll or an idiot. Either way, he's best Ignored.


Now, now... don't be so narrow-minded. He could easily be both.
 
2012-10-21 01:01:37 PM  
 
2012-10-21 01:02:46 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Dwight_Yeast: smitty's a troll or an idiot. Either way, he's best Ignored.

I was just amazed that he actually cited a shiatty blog.


Yeah, I'm surprised you actually got a cit out of him, but every once in a while a troll around here surprises us.
 
2012-10-21 01:03:36 PM  

smitty04: Mrtraveler01: You come up with a better citation than some shiatty right-wing blog called Powerline and maybe I'll start believing you.

Ohio is not alone. An August study by the left-leaning think tank Third Way showed that the Democratic voter registration decline in eight key swing states outnumbered the Republican decline by a 10-to-one ratio. In Florida, Democratic registration is down 4.9 percent, in Iowa down 9.5 percent. And in New Hampshire, it's down down 19.7 percent.


There we go. Was that so hard?
 
2012-10-21 01:05:14 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: The new Bain ads running in Ohio are pretty deadly, and strike a chord in that state especially. We'll see what impact they have on the polls there, but Ohioans aren't keen to elect a professional job outsourcer.


New you say? I'd love to see it. Do you have a catch phrase or quote or something that I can use to search the tubes?
 
2012-10-21 01:09:23 PM  
If the media and the Republicans get together and wish really hard, maybe they can turn this election into the close race that this isn't.
 
2012-10-21 01:09:35 PM  
The thing to consider from that article was that the the decrease in Democrats was accompanied by the increase in Independents, not Republicans.

And trends tend to show Independents in states like Ohio more likely to back Obama than Romney.

But that being said, we still need to get out the vote no matter how much the GOP stops them.
 
2012-10-21 01:11:54 PM  
smitty04:Ohio is not alone. An August study by the left-leaning think tank Third Way showed that the Democratic voter registration decline in eight key swing states outnumbered the Republican decline by a 10-to-one ratio. In Florida, Democratic registration is down 4.9 percent, in Iowa down 9.5 percent. And in New Hampshire, it's down down 19.7 percent.

Oh no! Since people are absolutely required to vote with their party affiliations, under penalty of execution, that's just terrible news for Democratic candidates! Everybody panic!

Hey, wait a minute... I live in Iowa, I'm a registered Republican, and will be voting very close to a straight-party Democratic ticket next month. Because here on Earth, party registration counts have nothing to do with election results.

Oops, didn't mean to interrupt your mental vomit with common sense. Please carry on.
 
2012-10-21 01:14:19 PM  
A word of caution to those of you calling out trolls in this thread-that sort of thing is being dealt with swiftly and severely lately.

Trust me.
 
2012-10-21 01:15:30 PM  

Yankees Team Gynecologist: The Great EZE: I like to use Nate's quantitative numbers, but only so I can make a more accurate qualitative assessment in my head. He says 67.9% odds of an Obama win. I take that to mean that if voter turn out is what we expect it to be and if another October 2008 doesn't happen then Obama should win. And right now neither of those things are expected to happen. It's a more accurate way of thinking and you can leave your 20-sided die in the drawer.

I hope you're right, but I take "chance of winning" to mean odds in exactly the coin-flip sense. Yes, the unknowns aren't exactly based on "luck," but they may as well be random since, again, they're unknowns. I assume Nate Silver has translated all of that into coin-flip speak, which is why he presents it as a percentage "chance."


Sam Wang another highly respected poll analyzer with a great track record put Obama at a 90% chance on NPR during an interview with himself and Silver, and talked a good bit about this sort of thing
 
2012-10-21 01:17:28 PM  

The Great EZE: New you say? I'd love to see it. Do you have a catch phrase or quote or something that I can use to search the tubes?



It's called "The Stage," and I guess it isn't technically "new." Priorities USA is just bringing it back and doing a big ad buy in Ohio with it. Probably the best campaign ad I've seen this year. 2.5M views on YouTube.

There's another Ohio ad about GM that I believe is new, and it's pretty killer as well.
 
2012-10-21 01:20:40 PM  

Tor_Eckman: A word of caution to those of you calling out trolls in this thread-that sort of thing is being dealt with swiftly and severely lately.

Trust me.


I said "could be," not "is." :)
 
2012-10-21 01:21:38 PM  

raerae1980: Mugato: I don't remember the media pulling this kind of shiat with the '08 race. It was not a close race at all and they didn't pull any shenannegans to convince us that it was. That I can remember anyway, I was sort of drunk that decade.

I don't remember them doing it either.


It IS a close race. It's going to come down to who can get their people excited enough to go to the polls. It really doesn't help Democrats to sit back like the hare and say "Relax, we've got this in the bag" without noticing that the tortoise is slowly crossing the finish line.

Don't be complacent. This is important.

Vote for f*ck's sake.
 
2012-10-21 01:22:10 PM  

Smelly McUgly: If the media and the Republicans get together and wish really hard, maybe they can turn this election into the close race that this isn't.


I don't even know what you get as a right wing punditry site by claiming this is a tight race instead of one where they really really need to get out and get people to the polls, they should be pushing a bit of panic like red alert times. I think that's a blunder by those in the right wing media.
 
2012-10-21 01:22:43 PM  
The Great EZE:

Still.

Too.

Close.

As mentioned in another thread, I fear that I'm going to spend these last two weeks just screaming "How the fark are you so POPULAR!?" at my computer. Unless I woke up in an alternate universe where Americans suddenly like sending their sons and daughters off to die in multiple Middle East wars while being blatantly owned by the 1% at home. 


Basically, THIS
 
2012-10-21 01:28:46 PM  

Headso: I don't even know what you get as a right wing punditry site by claiming this is a tight race instead of one where they really really need to get out and get people to the polls, they should be pushing a bit of panic like red alert times. I think that's a blunder by those in the right wing media.


I think they're hoping for a repeat of the mid-terms, where a lot of Republicans won because of low voter turnout. If they convince people that Romney has a good chance of winning as it gets close, they hope that the Democrats will just stay home. Spooking their base isn't going to help their cause, as their base are particularly dumb sheep.
 
2012-10-21 01:30:30 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: The Great EZE: New you say? I'd love to see it. Do you have a catch phrase or quote or something that I can use to search the tubes?


It's called "The Stage," and I guess it isn't technically "new." Priorities USA is just bringing it back and doing a big ad buy in Ohio with it. Probably the best campaign ad I've seen this year. 2.5M views on YouTube.

There's another Ohio ad about GM that I believe is new, and it's pretty killer as well.


LOL, I think it says a lot (little good) about me that I think of "The Stage" as being old and busted. I'll be glad when this is all over.

I guess I was hoping that Team Obama had some new devastating stuff saved for the home stretch. I'm talking something that would make "The Stage" look like that joke "Big Bird" ad. Makes me wonder why campaigns tend to roll out stuff like "The Stage" and the "47%" ad so early in August and September.

Obama is the 21st century candidate. He's plugged into social media. He should crowdsource some of this stuff. If Farkers can raise almost $15,000 to make some silly internet meme happen we can certainly come up with a 30-second spot that calls Romney the second coming of Satan in a reasonable and classy way.
 
2012-10-21 01:39:16 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: The Great EZE: New you say? I'd love to see it. Do you have a catch phrase or quote or something that I can use to search the tubes?


It's called "The Stage," and I guess it isn't technically "new." Priorities USA is just bringing it back and doing a big ad buy in Ohio with it. Probably the best campaign ad I've seen this year. 2.5M views on YouTube.

There's another Ohio ad about GM that I believe is new, and it's pretty killer as well.


Those are both excellent ads. It's damn puzzling that plenty of middle class workers in Ohio will still vote Romney. Empty right wing rhetoric plays well there. Still, I'm hopeful that the majority there won't let it happen. Turnout is everything.
 
2012-10-21 01:42:25 PM  

Raharu: EnviroDude: Subby fails reading comprehension?

Still waiting.


Show your work.


He has a maximum posting limit for each thread and it tops out when someone calls him out on his bullshiat.
 
2012-10-21 01:46:12 PM  
294 * (3/5)
 
2012-10-21 01:47:05 PM  

Rev. Skarekroe: raerae1980: Mugato: I don't remember the media pulling this kind of shiat with the '08 race. It was not a close race at all and they didn't pull any shenannegans to convince us that it was. That I can remember anyway, I was sort of drunk that decade.

I don't remember them doing it either.

It IS a close race. It's going to come down to who can get their people excited enough to go to the polls. It really doesn't help Democrats to sit back like the hare and say "Relax, we've got this in the bag" without noticing that the tortoise is slowly crossing the finish line.

Don't be complacent. This is important.

Vote for f*ck's sake.


I'm not too worried about people here voting. We're junkies. I'm going to vote as hard as I possibly can, and hopefully take some other people to do so as well. It wouldn't matter to me if Nate had Obama at a 99% chance of winning. I don't think complacent people that would stay home based on polls really hang out here.
 
2012-10-21 02:08:31 PM  

sonnyboy11: Those are both excellent ads. It's damn puzzling that plenty of middle class workers in Ohio will still vote Romney. Empty right wing rhetoric plays well there. Still, I'm hopeful that the majority there won't let it happen. Turnout is everything.


It's bad here in Iowa, too. Three things that the majority of Iowa citizens can take pride in - wind power, good public education, and cheap gasoline. Romney has openly stated numerous times that he will dismantle wind power, defund public education and allow public funds to be used on religious schools, and approve the Keystone pipeline to send all of Iowa's cheap gasoline to China. Three things that every Iowan enjoys will be devastated by a Romney administration.

The campaign ads aren't focused on these things. The ones that run on our local channels are blathering on and on about healthcare and employment - two areas that haven't affected us nearly as much as the rest of the nation. But it sure sounds scary. The result? Obama is only leading by a few points here, when common sense alone should make it a landslide.
 
2012-10-21 02:10:21 PM  

Mugato: He has a maximum posting limit for each thread and it tops out when someone calls him out on his bullshiat.


Could we start calling him out on his initial posts.

/so tired of the Internet Dentist and all his myriad alts.
 
2012-10-21 02:18:28 PM  

EnviroDude: Subby fails reading comprehension?


Hey E.Disfunction.

Still waiting for you to show your work.
 
2012-10-21 02:36:10 PM  
For all the raging at Nate Silver for being too liberal and at Real Clear Politics for being too conservative, their numbers are essentially the same.

They both are projecting a 52 / 48 Senate majority for the Democrats. And They are both projecting that Obama will take Ohio and win the election.

If there is any bias in either site, it's only reflected in their handling of Colorado and New Hampshire, both of which are polling extremely close & could go either way, but neither of which will actually matter in the end.

All other states & races they are making the exact same call on.
 
2012-10-21 02:36:48 PM  

Tor_Eckman:

I'm not too worried about people here voting.


I am, but mostly younger voters. I keep hearing that the ones who very much played a decisive role in electing Obama in 08 are pretty much sitting this one out. There's no big rallies on campuses any more and I think voting has gone from cool to un-cool.

Also, I hope I'm wrong.
 
2012-10-21 02:36:55 PM  
This reminds me of this awful segment I saw on Hardball the other night where Chuck Todd and some tool from Politico were saying to Matthews that Romney's campaign had the momentum of a runaway fright train and wondered why he was so popular. They even went so far to say they wouldn't be "shocked" if Romney "won" in a landslide.

It was the most embrassing thing I had ever watched in my life and I couldn't believe how Chris Matthews just sat there and swallowed the crap coming out of their mouths.

In an age where people like Nate Silver and Sam Wang exist, giving their information based on science and facts and not snapshots and whatever the media narrative of the day is why does cable news even bother?
 
2012-10-21 02:37:44 PM  
Ever notice how right after certain candidates embarrasses themselves in debates, the media always seem to double down on their efforts to cherry-pick polls that indicate they're actually surging?

Even the supposedly liberal Huffington Post (now owned by the definitely conservative AOL) has been doing this lately.
 
2012-10-21 02:39:31 PM  
The trolls give zero credit to Obama for the death of Osama bin Laden - but if that mission had gone badly, they'd be calling for our president to dragged through the streets behind an Abrams tank. Republiscum can GF themselves.
 
2012-10-21 02:39:52 PM  

skykid: In an age where people like Nate Silver and Sam Wang exist, giving their information based on science and facts and not snapshots and whatever the media narrative of the day is why does cable news even bother?


Because we still have at least two generations (Greatest and Boomer) who were taught that you could trust the news media and who like to have their confirmation bias fed, so they still make money.

It's going to be interesting when people younger than myself -who get their news online and from social media- move to the forefront of politics in a decade or two, as the current crap won't fly.
 
2012-10-21 02:39:57 PM  

clkeagle: sonnyboy11: Those are both excellent ads. It's damn puzzling that plenty of middle class workers in Ohio will still vote Romney. Empty right wing rhetoric plays well there. Still, I'm hopeful that the majority there won't let it happen. Turnout is everything.

It's bad here in Iowa, too. Three things that the majority of Iowa citizens can take pride in - wind power, good public education, and cheap gasoline. Romney has openly stated numerous times that he will dismantle wind power, defund public education and allow public funds to be used on religious schools, and approve the Keystone pipeline to send all of Iowa's cheap gasoline to China. Three things that every Iowan enjoys will be devastated by a Romney administration.

The campaign ads aren't focused on these things. The ones that run on our local channels are blathering on and on about healthcare and employment - two areas that haven't affected us nearly as much as the rest of the nation. But it sure sounds scary. The result? Obama is only leading by a few points here, when common sense alone should make it a landslide.


Over the next two weeks you're likely to see a real blitz of ads there. So perhaps some of the areas you mentioned will get more focus.
 
2012-10-21 02:42:04 PM  

skykid: This reminds me of this awful segment I saw on Hardball the other night where Chuck Todd and some tool from Politico were saying to Matthews that Romney's campaign had the momentum of a runaway fright train and wondered why he was so popular. They even went so far to say they wouldn't be "shocked" if Romney "won" in a landslide.

It was the most embrassing thing I had ever watched in my life and I couldn't believe how Chris Matthews just sat there and swallowed the crap coming out of their mouths.

In an age where people like Nate Silver and Sam Wang exist, giving their information based on science and facts and not snapshots and whatever the media narrative of the day is why does cable news even bother?


You wouldn't be so surprised if you were a regular reader of The Daily Howler.
 
2012-10-21 02:49:18 PM  
WHAT TO MAKE OF DECLINING DEMOCRATIC REGISTRATION?

Powerline blog? Seriously?
"Power Line is an American political publication, providing news and commentary from a conservative point-of-view."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Line
 
2012-10-21 03:38:15 PM  

clkeagle: How could the people running the financial sector not understand the merits of long-term sustainable growth vs. short-term plundering? Increasing the wealth of the lower classes just a little will lead to greater and longer-lasting increases in their own wealth. As I've said in similar threads... I can squeeze more juice from a watermelon than I can from a raisin.


It is a whole new set of pirates.
As soon as one pirate gets his mountain of gold, he runs away and hides with it.
Next pirate steps up and wants his mountain of gold NOW!!!!

Collectively, everyone does better with long term thinking. Individually, a ton of people got CRAZY rich under bush 2.0 and didnt have to pay taxes!!

LOLOLOLOL
 
2012-10-21 03:43:07 PM  

cpw49684: Tor_Eckman: push the narrative that this is a close race

Ding, ding, ding, ding!!!
Exactly. Wouldn't want us to turn off our TVs, would they?


I love that people still think this despite all evidence to the contrary.
 
2012-10-21 04:36:22 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Yankees Team Gynecologist: You don't think Romney can realistically win IA, NV, CO, FL, and VA? Assuming Obama wins OH, PA, and WI, this makes for a very possible 269-269 tie.

Don't get me wrong, I sure as hell hope you're right, and I realize the odds are still in Obama's favor, but it's still too close to comfort.

I don't think so. I can see Romney taking VA but not FL. There's really no way Romney takes PA unless the Democrats fail to get out the vote. I don't think it will come down to a tie. It will be decisive one way or the other, but if Obama wins, all we'll hear about is the popular vote, which is meaningless but which will be close.


I'm phonebanking for obama next weekend in my area of the Philly burbs.

If you have some time, help out, especially now. These last two weeks, we don't need complacency, close race or not.
 
2012-10-21 04:56:55 PM  

Raharu: EnviroDude: Subby fails reading comprehension?

Hey E.Disfunction.

Still waiting for you to show your work.


Forget it, Jake. It's FARK Politics.
 
2012-10-21 05:11:12 PM  

The Great EZE: Still.

Too.

Close.

As mentioned in another thread, I fear that I'm going to spend these last two weeks just screaming "How the fark are you so POPULAR!?" at my computer. Unless I woke up in an alternate universe where Americans suddenly like sending their sons and daughters off to die in multiple Middle East wars while being blatantly owned by the 1% at home.


Uh, we do live in that america.
 
2012-10-21 05:28:15 PM  

Nucleus: The trolls give zero credit to Obama for the death of Osama bin Laden - but if that mission had gone badly, they'd be calling for our president to dragged through the streets behind an Abrams tank. Republiscum can GF themselves.


Oh, there would have been an impeachment hearing if that had gone badly. Guarantee it.

SomeoneDumb: I am, but mostly younger voters. I keep hearing that the ones who very much played a decisive role in electing Obama in 08 are pretty much sitting this one out. There's no big rallies on campuses any more and I think voting has gone from cool to un-cool.


A lot of elderly will sit this one out too. They hate both Romney and Obama. I'm predicting this will be the lowest voter turnout of any Presidential election. That's why every vote is so important, especially in swing states.

Hell, even one or two of the smaller "safe" states might swing a different way, just because of skewed voter representation.
 
2012-10-21 05:51:43 PM  
Might want to check this out before you go giving Obama the nod:

Link
(Washington Post)
 
2012-10-21 06:01:06 PM  

tony41454: Might want to check this out before you go giving Obama the nod:

Link
(Washington Post)


I love that you A. Use a Gallup National Poll which has been proven to be an outlier because Romney's "advantage" comes from the South in states that will overwhelmingly vote for him and B. Cite the link as from the Washington Post when it's from the Moonie Times.
 
2012-10-21 06:05:54 PM  

cpw49684: I can remember "it's a horserace" bullshiat from every national election.
What else would the pundits say? You can ignore us now?
The political parties also need to keep their constituents motivated up to election day.


Yeah, in Nate Silver's book he talks about the predictions from The McLaughlin Group pundits the week of the election. IIRC, it was two McCain's, one too close to call, and only one Obama, in spite of all the polls showing an EV win for Obama.

\Pundits take controversial stances, more at 11.
 
2012-10-21 06:19:40 PM  

smitty04: Mrtraveler01: You come up with a better citation than some shiatty right-wing blog called Powerline and maybe I'll start believing you.

Ohio is not alone. An August study by the left-leaning think tank Third Way showed that the Democratic voter registration decline in eight key swing states outnumbered the Republican decline by a 10-to-one ratio. In Florida, Democratic registration is down 4.9 percent, in Iowa down 9.5 percent. And in New Hampshire, it's down down 19.7 percent.


Except 08 had a hotly contested primary, and in many states, you have to be registered with a party to vote in their primary. So people like me register D, vote that year, and switch back to their preferred third party until the next heated primary.
 
2012-10-21 06:31:15 PM  
I have a prediction: Obama is going to lose the popular vote total by a percentage point or two, but win the Electoral College by at least 50 votes. Republicans, and particularly the Tea Party idiots are going to howl and moan about the election being stolen, because few of them have the mental capacity to remember 12 years ago, and the rest won't care because it's totally different this time.
 
2012-10-21 06:39:39 PM  

Notabunny: cameroncrazy1984: "Of the 13 polls of swing states released on Thursday, Mr. Obama held leads in 11 of them."

-Nate Silver

Too many words!

538.jpg


The FiveThirtyEight infographics are all I need to know about the race. Any other source that puts out numbers that diverges from Nate Silver's calculations are questionable at best and intentionally misleading at worse.
 
2012-10-21 07:01:00 PM  

Tor_Eckman: Well, I believe what they are saying is RCP is now predicting that among the states that are supposedly safe, Romney now has an EV advantage for the first time since the real race started. Which is actually newsworthy. As long as you are trying to push the narrative that this is a close race. Which it really isn't.


In other words, Obama is still winning, just by less than he was a few weeks ago. So they can spin that into "Romney's losing by less than he was! That means he's winning! Yay!"
 
2012-10-21 07:30:12 PM  

Mrtraveler01: smitty04: A huge decline in Democratic registration when compared to four years ago should give even the most sanguine liberals some food for thought.

Got a citation for this?


But don't you see, the rate at which Democrats have signed up new voters has dropped. Just like how the rate at which new states have been added to the union has dropped to 0% since 1959 means that US is shrinking! WE'RE DOOMED!
 
2012-10-21 08:16:43 PM  
The rightwing assault on math continues.
 
2012-10-21 08:42:42 PM  
If I had a nickel for every time EnviroDude was asked to show his work and didn't...
 
2012-10-21 09:42:03 PM  

Bucky Katt: The rightwing assault on math continues.


If it doesn't fit on a standardized Scantron test, they think it doesn't count.
 
2012-10-21 11:14:02 PM  
If we only count the votes that are for Romney, Romney will have a very strong showing.
 
2012-10-22 03:03:48 AM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Mrtraveler01: smitty04: A huge decline in Democratic registration when compared to four years ago should give even the most sanguine liberals some food for thought.

Got a citation for this?

But don't you see, the rate at which Democrats have signed up new voters has dropped. Just like how the rate at which new states have been added to the union has dropped to 0% since 1959 means that US is shrinking! WE'RE DOOMED!


The other number the GOP likes to point to is the fact that the number of people seeking work keeps dropping, forgetting that Baby Boomers are retiring in ever-increasing numbers.
 
2012-10-22 08:07:36 AM  

Smelly McUgly: If the media and the Republicans get together and wish really hard, maybe they can turn this election into the close race that this isn't.


Check the polls. It is a close race. Obama has the advantage, but the last farking thing we need to do is get all cocky and complacent like we were before Denver.
 
2012-10-23 08:27:26 PM  

Yankees Team Gynecologist: You don't think Romney can realistically win IA, NV, CO, FL, and VA?


Romney is a 3-1 underdog to win in NV right now.

Romney has only 37% chance of winning IA.

The odds of Romney winning all 5 of states you mention using odds based on Intrade.com prediction market are currently: .371 * .241 * .554 * .725 * .591 = .021 or a ~ 2.1% chance.

2% chance is somewhat realistic, but there are many other combinations that give Romney a more realistic chance of winning.
 
Displayed 165 of 165 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report