The Debates!

[StrangeSox]

Are you hedging a Romney win here with shananigans???

 

No, I'm saying that the debates don't matter too much while also taking a passing jab at the "Unskewed Polls" hilarity.

[Soxbadger]

None of it matters. The people who really are going to win in the economy, bet on both Obama and Romney. The rest, well like Obama said, hope for a tech boom like Clinton because that was what helped the economy, not tax manipulation.

 

The only place where the election really matters is social issues.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Jenksismyhero]

Well, as they say, perception is reality and of course every politician flip flops, just some more than others. Obama isn't percieved as a flip flopper, unfair or not while Romney is seen as someone who will say anything for political expidiency. The GOP were very effective against Kerry in that regard. The Obama team has also been effective on Romney on that front, especially considering that there is a ton of video out there. Romney was a moderate Republican as Gov, lot's of conservatives pundits like Coulter hated the idea as Romney the GOP standard bearer. He has shifted way to the right to appease his base and I can understand that but that's an opening the Democrats can exploit.

 

If Romney were to win (I still think he won't based on the battleground state polls so far), I think he'll mostly be a moderate except on foriegn affairs with neocons making a comeback and we'll see tax breaks for the wealthy and the deficit will just keep on growing. Republicans always talk about balanced budgets but when was the last time they actually left a surplus? They always talk about smaller government but it ezpands under them, or am I wrong?

 

Anyways, where's Balta, haven't seen anything from him lately.

 

Obviously it's way, way early still, but Romney just took the lead in Ohio, Florida and Virginia among likely voters. The race is getting much closer than people think, and the closer it gets, the better for Romney. People will come out to vote if they think there's a legit chance that he'll win.

[StrangeSox]

Some of the fact checks on this thing were pretty dumb:

 

■Obama accused Romney of proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. Not true. Romney proposes to offset his rate cuts and promises he won’t add to the deficit.

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denve...e-declarations/

 

Hey, factcheck.org? That was the point--Romney's proposed rate cuts amount to $5T dollars and he hasn't given in plausible way to close that gap other than vague promises that contradict each other.

 

or this:

 

bama again said he’d raise taxes on upper-income persons only to the “rates that we had when Bill Clinton was president.” Actually, many high-income persons would pay more than they did then, because of new taxes in Obama’s health care law.

 

Is factcheck.org incapable of understanding the context in which that statement was made? Even though they quoted the part specifically talking about rates?

 

or politifact:

 

The claim is based on a study done by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan group that has analyzed the tax plans of the candidates. The center examined Romney’s proposals for a 20 percent reduction in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions.

 

The center estimated that altogether, the lost revenues would total $480 billion by 2015. The Obama campaign adds up the cost over a decade and winds up with $4.8 trillion, which it then rounds up to $5 trillion.

 

The conclusion is accurate but misleading. Yes, the cuts would total that amount, but as Obama himself noted as he continued speaking, Romney hopes to offset the lost revenues by closing loopholes and deductions. The reductions in tax breaks are as much a part of Romney’s plan as the tax cuts.

 

hey dummies, the point is that Romney refuses to specify any of those loopholes and deductions and his other promises (no tax increases for anyone, the rich pay the same amount) mean that the math can't possible add up. Which is the point. "But Romney says he won't!" doesn't make it half-true.

 

PS: This is more annoyance with "fact checkers" and how terrible our media is than about Romney.

[StrangeSox]

[StrangeSox]

Obviously it's way, way early still, but Romney just took the lead in Ohio, Florida and Virginia among likely voters. The race is getting much closer than people think, and the closer it gets, the better for Romney. People will come out to vote if they think there's a legit chance that he'll win.

 

FWIW Rasmussen and WeAskAmerica have both had a consistent Republican house effect of 1-2 points.

[Jenksismyhero]

FWIW Rasmussen and WeAskAmerica have both had a consistent Republican house effect of 1-2 points.

 

Fine, but that still puts them in the "too close to call" range, whereas before Obama was up a bunch (and growing) just a few weeks ago.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

Fine, but that still puts them in the "too close to call" range, whereas before Obama was up a bunch (and growing) just a few weeks ago.

Not exactly. Being within the margin of error doesn't mean it's impossible to have any sort of confidence in your outcomes. Here's a helpful chart:

 

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/...8_08/014294.php

The idea of a "statistical tie" is based on the theory that (a) statistical results are credible only if they are at least 95% certain to be accurate, and (b) any lead less than a poll's margin of error is less than 95% certain.

 

There are two problems with this: first, 95% is not some kind of magic cutoff point, and second, the idea that the MOE represents 95% certainty is wrong anyway. A poll's MOE does represent a 95% confidence interval for each individual's percentage, but it doesn't represent a 95% confidence for the difference between the two, and that's what we're really interested in.

 

In fact, what we're really interested in is the probability that the difference is greater than zero — in other words, that one candidate is genuinely ahead of the other. But this probability isn't a cutoff, it's a continuum: the bigger the lead, the more likely that someone is ahead and that the result isn't just a polling fluke. So instead of lazily reporting any result within the MOE as a "tie," which is statistically wrong anyway, it would be more informative to just go ahead and tell us how probable it is that a candidate is really ahead. Here's a table that gives you the answer to within a point or two:

 

Polls that show a tightening race are still good for Romney, obviously. But one rounds' worth does not a trend make.

 

[Y2HH]

Not exactly. Being within the margin of error doesn't mean it's impossible to have any sort of confidence in your outcomes. Here's a helpful chart:

 

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/...8_08/014294.php

 

 

Polls that show a tightening race are still good for Romney, obviously. But one rounds' worth does not a trend make.

 

Hasn't Rasmussen been closer to reality the past few elections in their polling results?

[StrangeSox]

Hasn't Rasmussen been closer to reality the past few elections in their polling results?

 

No. They did pretty well in 2008 but missed really, really badly in 2010.

 

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ormed-strongly/

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ts-become-bias/

 

edit: and they were actually less accurate in 2008 than commonly thought. Not that they were bad, but there were other firms that ended up being slightly more accurate than Rasmussen was.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports

 

According to Politico, "Rasmussen’s final poll of the 2008 general election — showing Obama defeating Arizona Sen. John McCain 52 percent to 46 percent — closely mirrored the election’s outcome."[40] In reference to the 2008 presidential election, a Talking Points Memo article said, "Rasmussen's final polls had Obama ahead 52%-46%, which was nearly identical to Obama's final margin of 53%-46%, and made him one of the most accurate pollsters out there."[41] An initial Nov.5, 2008 Fordham University analysis ranked 23 survey research organizations on the accuracy of their final, national pre-election polls, assuming a 6.15% margin of victory by Obama. Rasmussen Reports and Pew Research Center tied as the most accurate.[42] Obama's actual margin was 7.2%, and a complete analysis published in 2009 by the same author, Costas Panagopoulos, revealed Rasmussen to be tied for 9th most accurate. Democracy Corps, Foxnews/Opinion Dynamic, CNN/Opinion Research, and Ipsos/McClatchy all predicted an accurate seven point spread.

 

edit2: because Rasmussen uses robopolling, they're not legally allowed to call cell phones. That was a negligible effect in 2004, but it's impact is only growing over time as more and more young individuals and families opt for cell phones only. That will skew your samples.

Edited October 5, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

Discussing polls is as boring as watching paint dry.

 

[StrangeSox]

Obsessing over day-by-day movements is boring as hell, but I like looking at the larger poly-sci/stats pictures.

[Soxbadger]

Large poli sci picture of US.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=....svg&page=1

 

A few of those states will move every election or so, but generally not much has changed.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Soxbadger

[MexSoxFan#1]

Obviously it's way, way early still, but Romney just took the lead in Ohio, Florida and Virginia among likely voters. The race is getting much closer than people think, and the closer it gets, the better for Romney. People will come out to vote if they think there's a legit chance that he'll win.

Link?

 

Nate Silver's Fivethirtyeight blog and RealClearPolitics still have Obama leading in those states plus the national polls, albeit Silver states that Romney's bounce from the debates will show sometime early next week...

[StrangeSox]

RCP has new polls from Ras and WAA out for the states jenks mentioned.

[MexSoxFan#1]

RCP has new polls from Ras and WAA out for the states jenks mentioned.

OK, thanks.

 

Anyways, this race will tighten, never expected a blowout but when Nate Silver starts showing Obama's chances of winning are 50/50, I'll start worrying...right now Obama's forecast of winning is 87.1to Romney's 12.9 and right now it projects Obama winning 321.2 ECVs to Romney's 216.8. His model has really been accurate in 2008 and 2010.

[SOXOBAMA]

Most Presidents lose their first debate. Reagan got his ass kicked by Mondale and yet Reagan destroyed him in the election

 

Reagan might have had the most succinct message for those who think incumbents have the advantage in debates: “Shut up.” That was what an angry Reagan yelled at David Stockman during preparations for his first 1984 debate with Mondale. Stockman, Reagan’s budget director, was playing Mondale in the prep sessions, and Reagan biographer Lou Cannon reported that his attacks on Social Security left the president “shaken” and angry, provoking his outburst. Stockman and Reagan’s other top aides knew that the president had been lazy in his approach to the debate and had grown soft and unprepared for his showdown with Mondale. The result, as Reagan himself acknowledged, was that Mondale clobbered the president in Louisville, Ky.

 

Shaken by a performance that he immediately called “terrible,” Reagan told reporters a few days later that he had found debating as an incumbent much more difficult than debating as a challenger. “I think the incumbent is—unless he drops a bomb on the other fellow—is going to automatically be tagged as not having done well because he didn’t destroy somebody.” Asked if an incumbent is always at a disadvantage, Reagan responded, “Sure, because he’s under attack. I look back now at the times in debates when I wasn’t the incumbent and never realized how easy it was to be on the other side.”

Edited October 5, 2012 by SOXOBAMA

[greg775]

Most Presidents lose their first debate. Reagan got his ass kicked by Mondale and yet Reagan destroyed him in the election

 

Reagan might have had the most succinct message for those who think incumbents have the advantage in debates: "Shut up." That was what an angry Reagan yelled at David Stockman during preparations for his first 1984 debate with Mondale. Stockman, Reagan's budget director, was playing Mondale in the prep sessions, and Reagan biographer Lou Cannon reported that his attacks on Social Security left the president "shaken" and angry, provoking his outburst. Stockman and Reagan's other top aides knew that the president had been lazy in his approach to the debate and had grown soft and unprepared for his showdown with Mondale. The result, as Reagan himself acknowledged, was that Mondale clobbered the president in Louisville, Ky.

 

Shaken by a performance that he immediately called "terrible," Reagan told reporters a few days later that he had found debating as an incumbent much more difficult than debating as a challenger. "I think the incumbent is—unless he drops a bomb on the other fellow—is going to automatically be tagged as not having done well because he didn't destroy somebody." Asked if an incumbent is always at a disadvantage, Reagan responded, "Sure, because he's under attack. I look back now at the times in debates when I wasn't the incumbent and never realized how easy it was to be on the other side."

 

Very interesting stuff.

I do sense in looking back that Obama seemed very perturbed that he had to defend himself.

[StrangeSox]

Obama was caught off guard by Romney disavowing every position the president brought up. He never recovered and hit back at the multiple openings he was given.

[MexSoxFan#1]

Obama was caught off guard by Romney disavowing every position the president brought up. He never recovered and hit back at the multiple openings he was given.

Kerry also haunted W in the first debate and the next 2 were seen as Kerry wins but not an asswhupping like the first debate and still W won the election.

 

Debates aren't the game changers they once were...if they ever were.

Edited October 5, 2012 by MexSoxFan#1

[mr_genius]

Obama was caught off guard by Romney disavowing every position the president brought up. He never recovered and hit back at the multiple openings he was given.

 

Obama had no details, no ideas, no plan. Just his usual marketing slogans. It still amazes me that a certain segment of the population buys into it; but I suppose we are talking about the bottom of the intellectual barrel. They will believe anything with a shiny logo and marketing slogan.

[MexSoxFan#1]

Obama had no details, no ideas, no plan. Just his usual marketing slogans. It still amazes me that a certain segment of the population buys into it; but I suppose we are talking about the bottom of the intellectual barrel. They will believe anything with a shiny logo and marketing slogan.

OTOH, Mitt has taken both sides of every issue! Well, maybe except for tax breaks for the wealthy, that he has been consistently pro tax cuts!

Edited October 5, 2012 by MexSoxFan#1

[Y2HH]

OTOH, Mitt has taken both sides of every issue! Well, maybe except for tax breaks for the wealthy, that he has been consistently pro tax cuts!

 

...right, because this is something Obama never does.

 

Oh, wait...he has just as many times. I guess that means you won't be voting for either!

 

Let's see, what has Obama flip flopped on, right in front of your face, but you don't give a f*** about it...because you relate yourself to a party instead of relating yourself to reality/logic.

 

* Gitmo closing. Nope, Gitmo staying open.

* End wars. Ehh, no...keep wars going.

* Gay marriage bad! No, Gay marriage good!

* No deficit spending. Deficit spending.

* No spying on citizens. More spying on citizens!

* No tax cuts for the rich. Eh, f*** it...let's extend the Bush tax cuts.

* No cracking down on Weed/Hemp. Make that more cracking down on Weed/Hemp!

* More transparency. Nope, make that less transparency.

* No more business as usual in Washington. Wait, scratch that...just as much if not more business as usual in Washington!

 

So, in other words, it's ok when Obama does it all the time, but not Mitt Romney. Ok...we get it.

 

Clue: They both do it.

 

They're both politicians.

 

And those are just the ones off the top of my head...

 

People.

 

Need.

 

To.

 

Wake.

 

The.

 

f***.

 

Up.

Edited October 6, 2012 by Y2HH

[Soxbadger]

Obama had no details, no ideas, no plan. Just his usual marketing slogans. It still amazes me that a certain segment of the population buys into it; but I suppose we are talking about the bottom of the intellectual barrel. They will believe anything with a shiny logo and marketing slogan.

 

You just basically described Romney.

 

Obama is a terrible salesman. If this campaign was about who could sell the most cars or convince the most people that the sun revolves around the Earth, Mitt Romney is going to win 99 out of 100 times.

 

If Mitt was on the what I consider the right side of social issues he may have gotten my vote.

 

But any candidate who has a website that says the following:

 

That is why it is so important to preserve traditional marriage – the joining together of one man and one woman.

 

That has no place in govt. The govt has no right to define tradition. Just because something is tradition does not mean its right. We as a society must constantly evolve and recognize that equality trumps tradition.

 

Because if he wants to play the tradition game, Jews came first, there traditions are over 2x as old as Christians. They win, so stop believing in Jesus, get out your Torah and Ill find you a good Mohel.

 

Its nonsense.

 

Y2hh,

 

It isnt some secret that politicians are 2 faced liars.

 

I think most people vote on social issues and maybe Obama wont live up to his word, but Im not being given another choice. The Republicans want this, not me. Id be very content if the US had another legitimate party to compete against the Democrats for my vote, so that theyd actually have to work for it.

 

I like small govt, I just think the govt telling me how to live my life is the most egregious form of govt interference. And maybe it would be compelling if Romney said that he was going to deregulate drugs and other things I like. But you see thats the problem, they always want to regulate what I want. So in what universe do they get my vote?

[MexSoxFan#1]

...right, because this is something Obama never does.

 

Oh, wait...he has just as many times. I guess that means you won't be voting for either!

 

Let's see, what has Obama flip flopped on, right in front of your face, but you don't give a f*** about it...because you relate yourself to a party instead of relating yourself to reality/logic.

 

* Gitmo closing. Nope, Gitmo staying open.

* End wars. Ehh, no...keep wars going.

* Gay marriage bad! No, Gay marriage good!

* No deficit spending. Deficit spending.

* No spying on citizens. More spying on citizens!

* No tax cuts for the rich. Eh, f*** it...let's extend the Bush tax cuts.

* No cracking down on Weed/Hemp. Make that more cracking down on Weed/Hemp!

* More transparency. Nope, make that less transparency.

* No more business as usual in Washington. Wait, scratch that...just as much if not more business as usual in Washington!

 

So, in other words, it's ok when Obama does it all the time, but not Mitt Romney. Ok...we get it.

 

Clue: They both do it.

 

They're both politicians.

 

And those are just the ones off the top of my head...

 

People.

 

Need.

 

To.

 

Wake.

 

The.

 

f***.

 

Up.

 

I know Obama isn't perfect, never said he was, but he's a lot closer to my political stances than the Republicans.

Tell me why do you defend Romney so much, what great policy ideas does he bring to the table, huh? Or is that you like Romney because he has an R next to his name? I'm a Democrat because I agree more with their platform and I believe the GOP caters to the redneck mouthbreathers. I may not be the wonkiest poster here but the GOP really bother me with their backward anti-science, bible thumping, gun loving intolerent nonsense. I have noticed that a lot of you guys say you are mainly conservatives because you believe in fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets and whatnot, that's total bull crap, When is the last time a Republican president didn't expand the Federal government, didn't soend like a drunken sailor in a Thai whorehouse, let alone actually leave a surplus? Reagan (hero to the right) left a huge deficit at the end of his term and so have every Republican president since. Republican b**** and moan about deficit spending unless it's a Republican president, W went bats*** crazy on that front but nowhere did I see FOX news up in arms about that nor did I see Republican congressmen complaining. Fiscal responsibility my ass. What makes the GOP better? I would really like to hear your reasons. Is it because they hate f*gs, A-rabs and wetbacks? Or is it because redneck Republicans are more 'mericun than us liberal tree hugging Godless commies?

 

If you say it's because you really do believe in balanced budgets and small government, then the GOP isn't the party you should support and you are more blind than what you claim us liberals to be...

 

Open

 

yer

 

f*cking

 

eyes

Edited October 6, 2012 by MexSoxFan#1