|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Oct 16, 2012 21:52:27 GMT -5
Draw. Don't really see this moving the needle. MR will remain slightly in the lead. Tonight was not a game changer.
On to Monday.....
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Oct 16, 2012 22:01:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Oct 16, 2012 22:05:18 GMT -5
The fact that NL4E thinks it's a draw, shows that Obama won. Just sayin....
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Oct 16, 2012 22:10:49 GMT -5
I love that people bring up, most accurate since 1980. Since 1980 there's has only been two elections when the outcome was truly in doubt. Reagan in 80' and 84' won in landslides, Clinton won by hefty margins in both 92' and 96'. Only 2000 and possibly 04' would require someone to be accurate. I would love to see how accurate his actual margins are. But we'll just ignore that because NL4E is giddy that he's predicting a win for Romney. I personally don't treat Nate Silver as law, nor do I count this guy. What they do is great. And both have slightly different methodologies. But neither is infallible. Unless this guy perfectly predicts the margins as well as winner and losers (which as I said, over the bast 30 years, picking winners and losers has not been too bothersome of a task), then I'll just treat this guy as I treat Nate Silver: an interesting take on the race. That's the only way to take it.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Oct 16, 2012 22:16:15 GMT -5
Focus groups of undecided voters favor Romney here. Interesting. Let's see what the polls do.....
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Oct 16, 2012 22:18:23 GMT -5
Focus groups of undecided voters favor Romney here. Interesting. Let's see what the polls do..... Post your source and who conducted the focus group... Also the statistic of the group would be nice. Is this a group of undecideds who normally lean conservatives or democrat...
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Oct 16, 2012 22:40:25 GMT -5
Focus groups of undecided voters favor Romney here. Interesting. Let's see what the polls do..... Post your source and who conducted the focus group... Also the statistic of the group would be nice. Is this a group of undecideds who normally lean conservatives or democrat... it was frank luntz. if frank luntz is nonpartisan, then i'm paul weller. obama kicked ass and took names tonight. romney even lost the crowd.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2012 22:43:01 GMT -5
It was nice to see an actual debate this time around, but it wasn't very moving to me. That said, if Romney doesn't win a debate, then it is a loss. The incumbent is always the winner in a close debate. Public opinion tends to lean to the current President in these situations.
What does all this mean? Who the f--- knows.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Oct 16, 2012 22:49:27 GMT -5
I suspect the needle will move. Not the same 4 point bump that Romney received, but a bump. Probably 2.
I think lowered expectations for Obama and heightened expectations for Romney will make Obama's performance and win look better than it was. I'd be literally shocked if the needle didn't move at all. I think that's living in a dream world. The perception that most people went into this debate with decides what moves the needle. Just as the perception of the first debate was people having high expectations of Obama's performance, while having lowered ones of Romney. So when Romney trounced Obama, it was made bigger and gave him a big bump because of the perceptions that people took into it and Romney seriously defying those expectations.
I don't see how that would change now. Obama will get a bump, but not one as large as the one Romney received after the first debate.
We'll know in 3-7 days what kind of bumps, if any, Obama receives (note: Rasmussen is on a 3 day rotation, while Gallup is on a 7 day. If there is a bump for Obama it will show by the weekend in Rasmussen and won't fully develop for a whole week in Gallup. Always look at field dates when looking at polls).
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Oct 17, 2012 12:27:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Oct 17, 2012 12:29:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thomaslivesforever on Oct 17, 2012 12:42:33 GMT -5
Fuck off.
|
|
|
Post by Let It 🩸 on Oct 17, 2012 17:47:59 GMT -5
Tearful Mitt Romney Announces He Has Rare Disease Where You Can't Sit Quietly On Stool When Repeatedly Asked To HEMPSTEAD, NY—Highly emotional in the wake of last night’s town-hall-style debate, a tearful Mitt Romney called a press conference this morning to “come clean” about having a rare, little-understood disease known as Shuttlesworth Syndrome, a condition that prevents its victims from sitting quietly on stools anytime they are repeatedly told to do so. “As a sufferer of this rare disorder, being told to sit down and shut up—particularly when a stool is involved—only provokes in my central nervous system a violent overreaction that forces me to behave in the exact opposite manner,” Romney told reporters, his voice cracking with emotion as he revealed his secret to the world. “Without meaning to, I reflexively stand up, stride forward, and continue trying to speak—doing so even, and especially, when one or more people are instructing me to stop talking immediately and go back to my stool. It is a truly debilitating condition that I have battled all my life.” Romney said additional symptoms of the syndrome include an inability to maintain a convincing human smile, inexplicable reversals of previously stated policy positions, and an impaired ability to chuckle without sounding like a deranged maniac. www.theonion.com/articles/tearful-mitt-romney-announces-he-has-rare-disease,29959/
|
|
|
Post by mkoasis on Oct 17, 2012 23:22:08 GMT -5
That binder full of women comment from last night was pretty funny. Definitely up there with the Big Bird hoopla.
|
|
|
Post by Let It 🩸 on Oct 18, 2012 5:20:13 GMT -5
That binder full of women comment from last night was pretty funny. Definitely up there with the Big Bird hoopla. yeah, he seemingly seems out of touch with everything and lives in a fantasy mormon world. just the kind of person that doesn't need to be leader of the free world. God bless..
|
|
|
Post by eva on Oct 18, 2012 6:11:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Let It 🩸 on Oct 18, 2012 17:13:37 GMT -5
Would A Man Who Doesn't Support Women Let His Wife Pick Out Any Oven She Wants For Her Birthday? During last night’s town hall debate at Hofstra University, my opponent Mr. Obama made a number of false accusations about my political positions, but none more egregious than his claim that my policies are in some way a threat to American women. As he has throughout this long campaign season, the president charged that I’m not advocating enough for women’s rights, that I’m ignoring the needs of hardworking mothers and daughters—in short, a litany of lies designed to convince undecided voters that I’m woefully indifferent to the needs of this country’s women. So to Mr. Obama and all the undecided Americans out there, let me now ask you this simple question: Would a man who doesn’t support women let his wife pick out any oven she wants for her birthday? Let me say it again: Would a man who’s supposedly out-of-touch with the needs of today’s women hand over his credit card to his wife for the day, say “here you go, honey,” and let her buy whatever oven her heart desires? With a new set of cutlery to boot? My opponent would no doubt say, “Yeah, right. A man like Mitt Romney would never let his wife go to Sears.com and pick out any oven she wants, especially when there’s nothing wrong with the one she already has.” Well, I hate to break it to you, Mr. President, but that’s exactly what I did. When Ann turned 63 this year, I gave her explicit permission to purchase any oven on the market. Green, brown, blue, brick, ceramic—it didn’t matter to me, so long as Ann was happy and ran her final choice by me first. Now does that sound like a policy from someone who doesn’t respect women? After all, the kitchen is her space. I call it “Ann’s part of the house.” Like millions of wives and mothers across America, she’s a strong, independent woman who deserves every opportunity to grow and thrive without being told what to do in the privacy of her own home. That’s why I let her decide everything about the kitchen: what color she wants to paint it, what food she wants to buy, what meals she wants to make. In fact, I make a point of never going in there if I can help it, especially if Ann is cooking or cleaning. I give her full rein over the whole kitchen. Who was it that let her decide where we went on vacation this year, and the year before that? Who was it that let her pick out almost all of my dress shirts? Who was it that said, “Sure, you can have your book club meeting at our house,” even though it meant ceding the living room to 10 of her chattering friends for an entire night? That’s right: me. Mitt Romney. So no one on this earth, neither the president nor his increasingly belligerent league of supporters, can accuse Mitt Romney of undermining the progress of women. If anyone can attest to my long record of inclusion and equality on women’s issues, believe me, it’s Ann Romney. Over the course of my campaign for the presidency, she’s been there every step of the way, standing beside me at important speeches, helping me host fundraising events, and tagging along on various business trips. At the Republican National Convention in Florida this year, I even let her get up on stage and recite my policies in front of my supporters. That was a pretty big deal for her! And as someone who believes women can and do make valuable contributions to the workplace, I’ve made a point of including Ann in my professional life as well. When I was CEO of Bain Capital, I’d often invite her to the office—the very same office, mind you, where I conducted business with powerful men from all over the world—and let her file documents, or send some faxes off before a big meeting. Of course, I supervised her quite closely to make sure she did everything correctly, but that’s only natural when money is on the line. As you might expect, she did a bang-up job! I even invited her back the next day to answer some phone calls. That’s how much trust I put in Ann, and that’s how much trust I put in women all across America. So as the election draws near and my opponent continues his unrelenting mission to distort my record on women’s issues, I simply ask you to look at the relationships in my personal life, as those often speak louder than words. And I’m sure if Ann were allowed to talk about it, she would say the exact same thing. www.theonion.com/articles/would-a-man-who-doesnt-support-women-let-his-wife,29966/
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Oct 18, 2012 17:57:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Let It 🩸 on Oct 18, 2012 18:13:35 GMT -5
very telling that Romney's winning in the states containing the most morons. God bless.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Oct 20, 2012 17:13:12 GMT -5
HAAHAHAHAHAHA
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Oct 21, 2012 14:38:29 GMT -5
ever notice that conservatives cite the polls that show romney in the lead, but when obama's leading, the numbers are "cooked?"
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Oct 21, 2012 15:45:56 GMT -5
ever notice that conservatives cite the polls that show romney in the lead, but when obama's leading, the numbers are "cooked?" What's amazing is how consistent Gallup (which has the best reputation of them all, mind you) has been over the last week: www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspxThat doesn't mean it's right or it wont change, but time is running out. A MR win is on the cards I think now, while it was dubious about a month ago.....(although for reasons I cited, it shouldn't have been).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2012 20:36:33 GMT -5
Polls are just statistics, and the first thing you learn in any statistics class is that you can make stats say whatever you want, good or bad. Both parties quote stats as they see fit to meet their point.
No big deal really.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Oct 21, 2012 22:42:47 GMT -5
Polls are just statistics, and the first thing you learn in any statistics class is that you can make stats say whatever you want, good or bad. Both parties quote stats as they see fit to meet their point. No big deal really. You have to take the polls as a whole. Many have a bad habit of cherry picking polls that fit what they want to believe, or not properly researching a poll before using it. One should definitely look at field dates, such as when the poll was taken; secondly, if it was likely or registered voters. Then, the actual sample size. A poll which surveys 2,500, instead of 500, has a much better chance of being accurate. Lastly, lean. Some polls lean a certain way. One example is PPP. They lean Democratic by about 1.5 points. Another is Rasmussen which leans 1.5-2 point Republican. Gravis Marketing has a heavy Republican lean of about 3-5 points. NBC has a 2 point Democratic lean. There are 6 National Trackers: Gallup, Rasmussen, RAND, Ipsos/Ruerters, IBD, and I believe one more. Some good pollsters are CNN, FOX (they're actually fairly accurate), CBS/Washington Post etc. University and local newspaper polls can be good too. There's such a wide swath of information out there. But unfortunately people rarely take any of these factors into account when looking at a poll. Instead, most look at 2-3 raw numbers and take what they like, instead of looking at the 20 or so polls which come out everyday (which is a major problem I have with RCP. It takes the averages of polls, but excludes many, and doesn't put a house effect for lean in their averages. It's the bare numbers average. Consequently, either candidates' standing can be supremely understated or overstated). Polls in the end are snapshots in time. If you're only looking at say 3-5 polls, then you have a less likely chance of knowing the state of the race, than someone who looks at 20 polls. If a poll is a snapshot, then why limit the snapshots you have? Have as many as possible, for as long as possible. Looking at 3-5 polls a day will give continuous snapshots with only a bit of a trend. Looking at 20 polls and taking into account all the factors stated above, will give you a lot more trends to see. Rather than being one of those cable news network who only look at the few polls which suit their perception. And are often very blind to what trends in the polling are happening.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Oct 22, 2012 17:15:56 GMT -5
All the people on the village green, are gathered around their TV screens, to hear the government about to speak about soldier boys and Jesus freaks.....
So who else is watching the 3rd and final debate tonight (on Foreign Policy)?
|
|