Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Duh Bates

Duh Bates (Page 8)
Thread Tools
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2012, 01:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Yeotch.
Also, OP ****in' nailed it.
To subego and Dakar: was the above supposed to be a zinger? I predicted an Obama win in 2008, but was offering some defense of stupendousman who was at the time, not unlike now, fending off a pack of emotional leftists.

subego - You're of course welcome to sit back and challenge the credibility of anyone with balls enough to actually put forth a prediction, but it doesn't really bolster your own credibility.
ebuddy
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2012, 01:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Yeotch.
Also, OP ****in' nailed it.
Still looking for a prediction by me, that Obama would surely lose anytime after whatever "swing" the convention gave McCain.

All those responses are me, saying that the polls showing things like +10 and +12 Obama probably were not right. I think I even suggested that +4 was closer to the truth, and that was while there were still "undecideds." It ended up being +7.

So, I was pretty much right and I'm being criticized for it?

So sue me.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2012, 01:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post

Still looking for a prediction by me, that Obama would surely lose anytime after whatever "swing" the convention gave McCain.
All those responses are me, saying that the polls showing things like +10 and +12 Obama probably were not right. I think I even suggested that +4 was closer to the truth, and that was while there were still "undecideds." It ended up being +7.
So, I was pretty much right and I'm being criticized for it?
So sue me.
Speaking only for myself, I was onboard the 538 bandwagon in 2008, so I knew full well that the +10s and +12s were outliers. I would bet that most people did, so this is pretty irrelevant.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2012, 01:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post

To subego and Dakar: was the above supposed to be a zinger? I predicted an Obama win in 2008, but was offering some defense of stupendousman who was at the time, not unlike now, fending off a pack of emotional leftists.
subego - You're of course welcome to sit back and challenge the credibility of anyone with balls enough to actually put forth a prediction, but it doesn't really bolster your own credibility.
I think it is you being emotional if you even considered for a moment that Dakar was trying to get in a zinger. He was speaking matter-of-fact, the original poster did nail it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2012, 06:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Still looking for a prediction by me, that Obama would surely lose anytime after whatever "swing" the convention gave McCain.
All those responses are me, saying that the polls showing things like +10 and +12 Obama probably were not right. I think I even suggested that +4 was closer to the truth, and that was while there were still "undecideds." It ended up being +7.
So, I was pretty much right and I'm being criticized for it?
So sue me.
As already stated, the quote you were given which you claim was made during the convention bump was made post-debates.

In the thread I linked to you are predicting a "close race". You even go so far as to say come Election Day, some could end up "very disappointed and confused".


So, that confusion and disappointment was supposed to be over Obama only winning by four instead of ten?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2012, 06:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
To subego and Dakar: was the above supposed to be a zinger? I predicted an Obama win in 2008, but was offering some defense of stupendousman who was at the time, not unlike now, fending off a pack of emotional leftists.
subego - You're of course welcome to sit back and challenge the credibility of anyone with balls enough to actually put forth a prediction, but it doesn't really bolster your own credibility.
Bullshit.

One person made a non-specific crack. One or two people are merely disagreeing with stupendousman (not surprising because he was utterly mistaken), and then you have a warp-core breach.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2012, 07:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
As already stated, the quote you were given which you claim was made during the convention bump was made post-debates.
...when apparently some polls where showing a toss up within the margin of error, and others where basing their polling on up to a 12 point Democrat advantage that never materialized.

..In the thread I linked to you are predicting a "close race". You even go so far as to say come Election Day, some could end up "very disappointed and confused".
Most of the pollsters over-estimated how much Obama would win by. Reuters where off almost 5 points. Most of the others by 3. So yes, I'm pretty sure that the guys who where off so far most certainly where "very disappointed and confused." Of course, they all had significant "undecided," of which the majority went to Obama. In a race where there are no incumbents, it's not easy to predict who the undecideds will go for late in the race. However, history does show a long trend of challengers ending up a point or a few up on election day. If you want to use 2008 as the standard, then we'd also have to assume that exempt for maybe Rasmussen, you need to subtract the 3 points the pollsters spotted Obama to get a correct humber. I mean, if 2008 is the standard we are using for polling and turn out.

Given the fact that polling shows a small advantage in decided voters for Romney EXCEPT for the ones that make the unsupported assumption there will be something like a +8 Dem. advantage (when trending polling data shows a likely + Rep. vote) and he's the challenger, it would seem that the advantage here goes to Romney. Even if you look at the EC, Obama is only ahead in some of the major swing states if you spot him the same turnout as 2008, which no one I've seen who doesn't work for the DNC believes will ever happen, and for which there is absolutely no data that I've seen to support. This is even before "undecideds" are accounted for and they tend to be independents, who all polling seem to show is breaking toward Romney.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2012, 11:56 PM
 
I never predicted McCain would win.

I mean... I did predict he'd win, now there's proof, but it must have been right after the convention.

I mean... I did predict he'd win long after the convention, now there's proof. It didn't stop me from repeating my former claim a few times before checking, and once I checked, a McCain win was still at the far end of a 12 point spread in the polls. I stand by my claim.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2012, 02:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I never predicted McCain would win.
I mean... I did predict he'd win, now there's proof, but it must have been right after the convention.
You've still not provided the proof. I've seen lots of threads where I explained that Obama's lead was exaggerated (it was) and could end up leaving people wondering (it did) why most all the polls but just a couple had it so wrong, and that in such a case we really don't know WHAT the end results would be. Depending on actual turnout and who got the "undecideds," McCain COULD have pulled off a surprise win. Since there was no incumbent, the undecideds went to Obama in addition to the few points he was actually up prior to the election before the "undecideds" broke his way.

That's quite a bit different than me just stating that I thought McCain was going to end up being the victor, nor is it a good rebuttal to dispute the fact that for the most part, the only polls showing Obama up in important swing states, or in the national polls, are using 2008 turnout numbers or even predicting bigger turnout - something no individual political analyst will go on record as predicting and for which there is no data to support. In fact, there's a bunch of data to support the Dem. advantage being cut in half or more. Exaggerating Dem. turnout is what hurt the pollsters in 2008. It seems as though some never learn the lesson, or do and simply don't care.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2012, 03:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post

You've still not provided the proof. I've seen lots of threads where I explained that Obama's lead was exaggerated (it was) and could end up leaving people wondering (it did) why most all the polls but just a couple had it so wrong, and that in such a case we really don't know WHAT the end results would be. Depending on actual turnout and who got the "undecideds," McCain COULD have pulled off a surprise win. Since there was no incumbent, the undecideds went to Obama in addition to the few points he was actually up prior to the election before the "undecideds" broke his way.
That's quite a bit different than me just stating that I thought McCain was going to end up being the victor, nor is it a good rebuttal to dispute the fact that for the most part, the only polls showing Obama up in important swing states, or in the national polls, are using 2008 turnout numbers or even predicting bigger turnout - something no individual political analyst will go on record as predicting and for which there is no data to support. In fact, there's a bunch of data to support the Dem. advantage being cut in half or more. Exaggerating Dem. turnout is what hurt the pollsters in 2008. It seems as though some never learn the lesson, or do and simply don't care.
If most polls were exaggerated, why did 538 under-predict Obama's 2008 victory?

Until you can answer that, I cannot really wrap my head around whatever it is you are trying to say.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2012, 03:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I find that shit obnoxious as hell.
That's because you're too dug in and need to calm down a bit IMO. I wouldn't be trying so hard to lighten things up if it weren't so apparent that folks' partisan sensitivities were all bundled up here.

How do you guys know they're oversampling? Based on your preferred pollster?
No, based on the models citing +7 (D) or +9 (D) or an average of +6 (D) when all ancillary polling on enthusiasm and interest show the edge to Republicans this year. Those factors are readily available in just about every poll I've seen. Do you have polls oversampling Republicans? Again, I'm not suggesting a conspiracy theory here, just flawed modeling.

It's also worth noting that someone like Nate Silver weighs past results into his aggregates. Therefore if Pollster A tends to be R+1 and Pollster B is D+3, he anticipates for that lean. That means Pollster B would have to be D +6 to reinsert bias. (I think. P could destroy me on this)
No, but selective sampling opens you up to distorted results. Doesn't mean you can't be right, but if you are it doesn't mean what you did was sound, either.
That's the other thing I've seen cited like crazy this year, MOE.
Okay, Romney is +1, sprinkle +1 for oversampling and subtract 3 for MOE and you get Obama +1. The sword cuts both ways but you guys don't seem to want to acknowledge it.
I fully acknowledge this. Of course a MOE could go both ways, I'm not proclaiming clairvoyance here. There are a couple of reasons why I believe the MOE will swing toward Romney. Crudely; A. Favorability @ +3 B. Issue-by-issue polling that shows the economy as most important and Romney scoring higher in confidence among likely voters on the economy. C. Break of undecideds toward the challenger. D. Likely voter enthusiasm. I'm stretching none of these factors beyond the MOE offered by the popular polling entities we both claim to be watching.

And Rasmussen is the only person who does this?
I doubt it, but theirs would not roll the other flaws up into its conclusion. You've acknowledged the degree of noise in polling, rolling more variables into the conclusion isn't necessarily going to improve it because of a larger, overall sample size.

To be fair, you're shunning what seems to be more thorough and better targeted measurement for a different measure that can be misleading and isn't exclusive for victory.
None of them are exclusive for victory, not Silver's, not anyone's.

Sure, it's rare, but that doesn't mean impossible. Further, while it give another "pulse" it's an unfocused and misleading one. Third, it seems to be the only source of your position and that's why I'm pointing out it's illogical.
You're only basis for opposing this is by citing that US elections are not won by popular vote while failing to acknowledge how rarely they're at odds.

Ah, but that's the thing. Sure, I don't see R+5 in the cards, but I'm far from ruling out something as high as +3.
I'm looking at the same data, using the same numbers, and coming to a different conclusion based on the headroom in the data. You disagree.

I'm rattling your cage because when I ask how to come to your conclusion the methodology appears to be hoop jumping (unskew!), cheery picking (Ras!), and/or less accurate metrics (Popular vote!) all seem to be involved.
My take is within the MOE/headroom offered by RCP. I'm concluding there will be factors in play that push this headroom toward Romney, you disagree and believe while they might push a little toward Romney, not enough to win the election. We can't both be right, but I maintain I am and that Romney will break out by +5% come election day and will win the election. Again, my projection is not outside any of the numbers bandied about here, you're just reading more or less into them based on your own set of preferences. I've also been looking at other polls such as RCP, but what I prefer of Ras! is their use of contemporaneous "interest" measurements. I would be more interested in this methodology regardless of who it breaks for and I'm not prone to delusions of grandeur with this stuff. Again, (not that it wasn't apparent) I was very displeased with McCain's campaign and from the polling data available at the time (late in October) predicted an Obama victory by +4%. There are many factors to consider from the polling data and I've not laid them all out here for expediency's sake, but early voters - Gallup - Romney 52% to 45%, 90% of Republicans support Romney - 86% of Democrats support Obama, 75% of registered Democrats express “high interest” in voting, compared to 85% of Republicans. In 2008, nearly 90% of Democrats expressed a high interest in voting. Issue-by-issue polling shows an advantage Romney. Romney also enjoys a substantial lead among Independents.

While showing Obama up by 1, Politico's Battleground Poll in its “vote election model,” is projecting that Mitt Romney will defeat President Obama 52% to 47% when the following factors are considered; "In sum, this data indicates this election remains very close on the surface, but the political environment and the composition of the likely electorate favor Governor Romney. These factors come into play with our “vote election model” – which takes into account variables like vote intensity, voters who say they are definite in their vote, and demographics like age and education. In that snapshot of today’s vote model, Mitt Romney leads Barack Obama by five-points – 52% to 47%. While that gap can certainly be closed by the ground game of the Democrats, reports from the field would indicate that not to be the case, and Mitt Romney may well be heading to a decisive victory." So, here you have an example of the headliner saying one thing and the small disclaimer saying something entirely different. Why? The factors I've suggested all along.

Are there electoral aggregators that show a probably Romney victory? The only criticism I've seen is that they aggregate pollster bias, which is possible, but would require the majority of pollsters to be mistaken or biased (likely?). If someone like RCP of 538 is wrong, it probably won't be because of their model, but because of the data they were given. If Ras is wrong, it will not be because of the data they were given, but the model they used. I can see an argument made for computer models not seeing the whole picture, but humans are just as likely to insert bias or fudge things because they don't look right.
Right, that's why I offered the Romney +5% supposition as a "prediction" and not as a prophetic quatrain. i.e. you're too worked up over it.
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2012, 04:23 AM
 
Why do you guys who are critical of the non-Rasmussen polls feel these pollsters have made such a grievous mistake in how they do their jobs? Shouldn't they understand the art of polling as well as you do?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2012, 07:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post

If most polls were exaggerated, why did 538 under-predict Obama's 2008 victory?

Until you can answer that, I cannot really wrap my head around whatever it is you are trying to say.
I don't claim to know the voodoo Silver uses to produce his guesses, based on the guesses of others.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2012, 07:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Why do you guys who are critical of the non-Rasmussen polls feel these pollsters have made such a grievous mistake in how they do their jobs? Shouldn't they understand the art of polling as well as you do?
Yeah, they should. However, year after year major polls just get it wrong. Either they don't know as much, or they are distorting the polls on purpose. Though, this is really nothing more than educated guessing, when you start weighing, and not an exact science.

We'll know for sure in a week whether the +8 Dem advantage the pollsters predicting Obama being up is correct, or the data that Rasmussen and Gallup has collected which shows that the Dem advantage will be reduced or non-existent in 2012 is right. Obama will need turnout in 2012 to be just as strongly Dem. as 2008 for him to have a chance of winning.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2012, 07:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
To subego and Dakar: was the above supposed to be a zinger?
Uh, no?



Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Still looking for a prediction by me, that Obama would surely lose anytime after whatever "swing" the convention gave McCain.
It was already posted.

Smart money isn't on Obama. Especially given the number of undecideds, the "bradley effect" and the fact that whatever lead he did have was enhanced by unrealistic weighting of Democrats in the sample. If it's a statistical tie now in the polls, that pretty much means that Obama is down in reality. He needs to be up at least 6 just to be even. He's NEVER going to get double the record turnout that some pollsters are giving him in the polls.
"The smart money isn't on Obama." - No way to intrepret that other than you don't think he's was more likely to win.
"It's a statistical tie, that pretty much means that Obama is down in reality." - Self-explanatory. You think Obama is down – i.e., he won't win.

Only the last line deals with your overall poll negativity.

Sure, later, when pressed by besson you backed off and hedged, but I'd love to see you spin the above claim as not being favorable to McCain.



Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Speaking only for myself, I was onboard the 538 bandwagon in 2008, so I knew full well that the +10s and +12s were outliers. I would bet that most people did, so this is pretty irrelevant.
Yeah, I noticed that you mentioned 538 and RCP back then. I'll give you credit for being ahead of the curve. I never even looked into Nate Silver until this year.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2012, 07:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I don't claim to know the voodoo Silver uses to produce his guesses, based on the guesses of others.
Posted last page.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2012, 08:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
That's because you're too dug in and need to calm down a bit IMO. I wouldn't be trying so hard to lighten things up if it weren't so apparent that folks' partisan sensitivities were all bundled up here.
Yeah, I don't like shit talk in general. Has nothing to do with the subject.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No, based on the models citing +7 (D) or +9 (D) or an average of +6 (D) when all ancillary polling on enthusiasm and interest show the edge to Republicans this year.
Well, please enlighten me and share some of those polls. Ones from the last month preferably.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Again, I'm not suggesting a conspiracy theory here, just flawed modeling.
I've acknowledged this.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I fully acknowledge this. Of course a MOE could go both ways, I'm not proclaiming clairvoyance here. There are a couple of reasons why I believe the MOE will swing toward Romney. Crudely; A. Favorability @ +3
I think that has logic to it.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I doubt it, but theirs would not roll the other flaws up into its conclusion. You've acknowledged the degree of noise in polling, rolling more variables into the conclusion isn't necessarily going to improve it because of a larger, overall sample size.
A stats person would need to weigh in on this one.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
None of them are exclusive for victory, not Silver's, not anyone's.
Ugh, you misread this. I'm saying that there are better ways to predict election outcome and that you could be right in your specific measure and still be wrong on final outcome. Hence, it's an illogical barometer to favor.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You're only basis for opposing this is by citing that US elections are not won by popular vote while failing to acknowledge how rarely they're at odds.
Because your argument has all of the quality of "A black man has never won a Presidential election." Unlikely ≠ Impossible. FFS, we just saw it happen 12 years ago. It could have happened again in 2004 – and because of the very same state as this year.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'm looking at the same data, using the same numbers, and coming to a different conclusion based on the headroom in the data.
No, we're not. We're using different data(pollsters) and different numbers. But I guess that's the point. If you shared my method of measurement, it'd be much harder to predict a Romney victory.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Right, that's why I offered the Romney +5% supposition as a "prediction" and not as a prophetic quatrain. i.e. you're too worked up over it.
Stop with this shit. I don't think the poll aggregators are "prophetic quatrains". I'm making a case that they are more accurate and focus on better indicators.

And you can stop with the stereotypical "emotional liberal" slight when you get dog-piled. Because somehow this disagreement is far more unreasonable than all the other discussions happening around the forum.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2012, 08:08 AM
 
...and lest I now get pinged with being "overconfident", based on 538, my "optimistic" predictor, Romney still has a 20% chance of winning.

If you told me I had a 20% chance of getting in a car crash, I'd stay home that day.
If you told me I had a 20% chance of winning a million bucks, I'd be super-excited.

Edit: It's also worth noting I hold this election in strong comparison to '04. While Bush may have claimed "mandate", Kerry was still within one state - Ohio - of an electoral win.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2012, 08:16 AM
 
Toronto Star: Biden calls Romney’s Jeep ad “an outrageous lie”

I'm glad Biden is using the word "lie." Obama was being diplomatic in the last two debates by saying "that's just not true," in response to Romney's ridiculous assertions, but he and Biden are being more aggressive now. In Rolling Stone magazine, Obama called Romney a bullish!tter, which is fncking awesome for a President to say. I can just see Mitt and Ann grinding their teeth over this, and it makes me smile.

Maddow: Romney doubles-down on ludicrous lie about Jeep and China.

Jeep should sue Mitt Romney personally for libel and slander. Telling these naked lies about a neutral third party should not go unpunished.

And Obama has regained all the momentum he lost in the first debate: 538 estimates 300 EC votes for Obama, and a 79% chance to win a second term.


I think this election comes down to character. Romney is morally defective. He lies non-stop without remorse, and he is dragging his entire party down with him. He was labelled a liar in the primary, and he is being labelled a liar in the election campaign, because he is.

When this election is over, Romney is going to get a brutal public-character reaming by his fellow Republicans like you've never seen. They will drag his name thru the mud worse than George W Bush. Mark my words: Romney will be grouped with Nixon and Bush by fellow Republicans, and he will be judged even worse that they are today, because he trashed the Republican brand without even coming close to winning. The only person hated worse than a loser or a liar is a liar AND a loser.

The crazy part is: Mitt Romney thinks of himself as a highly moral person. He tells his wife to get on the the news and brag about what a highly principled person her husband is. He tells Lying Ayn Ryan to get on the news and brag how charitable Mitt is. It's disgusting. I don't think I've ever seen a person more deluded about himself on the national stage in history.

If you vote for Romney, you are voting to be lied to, non-stop, for the next four years. If you don't recognize Romney as a liar, that makes you stupid, or worse, as morally defective as he is, because you think his flagrant lies are good for America and/or the Republican party.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2012, 10:43 AM
 
care to list any truth you've heard from Owe-bama in the last 5 years?
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2012, 11:28 AM
 
Bloomberg: Romney has been using a Mormon charity as a tax shelter since 1996.

This is partly how Romney has been avoiding taxes. We don't know if there are any more charities which he has been do this thru. We don't know how much tax he has avoided in this manner. But this is probably the root of Harry Reid's assertion that Romney avoided taxes for 10 years. This is probably some of what Romney wanted to hide by not releasing his tax returns.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2012, 03:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Toronto Star: Biden calls Romney’s Jeep ad “an outrageous lie”
I'm glad Biden is using the word "lie." Obama was being diplomatic in the last two debates by saying "that's just not true," in response to Romney's ridiculous assertions, but he and Biden are being more aggressive now. In Rolling Stone magazine, Obama called Romney a bullish!tter, which is fncking awesome for a President to say. I can just see Mitt and Ann grinding their teeth over this, and it makes me smile.
Maddow: Romney doubles-down on ludicrous lie about Jeep and China.
Jeep should sue Mitt Romney personally for libel and slander. Telling these naked lies about a neutral third party should not go unpunished.
And Obama has regained all the momentum he lost in the first debate: 538 estimates 300 EC votes for Obama, and a 79% chance to win a second term.
I think this election comes down to character. Romney is morally defective. He lies non-stop without remorse, and he is dragging his entire party down with him. He was labelled a liar in the primary, and he is being labelled a liar in the election campaign, because he is.
When this election is over, Romney is going to get a brutal public-character reaming by his fellow Republicans like you've never seen. They will drag his name thru the mud worse than George W Bush. Mark my words: Romney will be grouped with Nixon and Bush by fellow Republicans, and he will be judged even worse that they are today, because he trashed the Republican brand without even coming close to winning. The only person hated worse than a loser or a liar is a liar AND a loser.
The crazy part is: Mitt Romney thinks of himself as a highly moral person. He tells his wife to get on the the news and brag about what a highly principled person her husband is. He tells Lying Ayn Ryan to get on the news and brag how charitable Mitt is. It's disgusting. I don't think I've ever seen a person more deluded about himself on the national stage in history.
If you vote for Romney, you are voting to be lied to, non-stop, for the next four years. If you don't recognize Romney as a liar, that makes you stupid, or worse, as morally defective as he is, because you think his flagrant lies are good for America and/or the Republican party.
Egadz.

All this and still no reason why the forum should accept your judgement on which candidate's dishonesty is more egregious. So, some shill for their liar and envelope themselves in shamelessly partisan hit-pieces; others simply vote for Romney and are interested in being lied to, they're stupid, or morally defective, believing flagrant lies are good for America...

... it's beginning to look a lot like Facebook. I'm sullied for even responding. Thanks.
ebuddy
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2012, 04:12 PM
 
He shot himself in the foot with the "Romney wants to quintuple the defense budget" claim.

I'm with besson. I want this stupid thing to be over.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2012, 06:13 PM
 
Dirtiest election in modern history, shameful shit going on with both candidates.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2012, 09:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
He shot himself in the foot with the "Romney wants to quintuple the defense budget" claim.
Who is he? Do you mean me? That's not true. I never claimed Romney wants to quadruple the defence budget. Ever.

I was trying to figure out what the hell you were talking about here, and then I remembered a previous, similar post from you that made no sense at the time but I didn't have the chance to figure it out then. Here's the context:
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna
(Romney will) bloat the Pentagon budget to a degree never seen in American history
Originally Posted by subego
In 2009, the Pentagon asked for $500 billion, less some change.
In 1953, the Pentagon asked for $450 billion, less some change.
In 2012, 450 billion 1953 dollars is the equivalent almost four trillion dollars.
Isn't there enough to get the guy on without claiming he's going to quintuple the defense budget?
I assume you are talking about the same thing then as you are now.

Your mistake is you are correcting the 1953 figures for inflation. But the chart I was referencing already corrected for inflation. Here it is again:



As you can clearly read at the top, these numbers are already adjusted for inflation. So neither this chart, nor me, nor Obama is claiming that Romney plans to quintuple the Pentagon budget over 1953 levels. And I'm not sure how you came to $450B in 1953, since it was more like $775B in 1953.

In other words, Romney really does want to bloat the Pentagon budget to levels never seen in American history. I don't have pre-1950 inflation-adjusted budget numbers available to me, and while I'd guess the inflation-adjusted dollars of the WWI or WWII are likely in the $2+ trillion range, that wasn't bloat - the US was actually at war. Romney wants to spend nearly $900B a year in 2020 in peacetime. It's reckless, pointless, and fncking moronic waste of money.

And the sad reality is, Romney wants to bloat an already bloated Pentagon budget. Obama's Pentagon budget plan in peacetime is still larger than the Pentagon budget during the height of the Vietnam war.

Imagine the amazing sh!t you could be accomplishing as a nation without flushing all this money down the toilet.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2012, 10:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
All this and still no reason why the forum should accept your judgement on which candidate's dishonesty is more egregious.
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Dirtiest election in modern history, shameful shit going on with both candidates.
Thank you both for your astonishing display of False Equivalency.

Obama made some campaign promises that he failed to achieve (like closing Gitmo). Trying to be an A student and only managing a B average is not dishonesty. Sometimes things are harder than you expect.

But there has never been a campaign quite like the Romney campaign. Among the highlights:

Running a fake goods collection for a real American disaster, just for the photo op.
Washing already clean dishes at a soup kitchen, just for a photo op, and doing the dishes wrong so the staff will have to clean them yet again.
A naked lie that Romney as Governor attended every single funeral for dead soldiers from Massachusetts.
A naked lie that Romney went to women's group looking for potential appointees, when in fact they went to him.
A naked lie that Romney saw his father march with MLK.

Romney lies non-stop about Obama:
A naked lie that Obama said "you didn't build your business" when he clearly said "you didn't build public infrastructure."
A naked lie that Obama doubled the deficit, when in fact the deficit is down.
A naked lie that Obama cut Medicare benefits by $716B, when in fact Obama (and Congress) actually cut $716B in spending.
A naked lie that Obama made no new free trade agreements.
A naked lie that Obama is running away from his record, when in fact Obama preaches about his record at every opportunity.
A naked lie that Obama began his Presidency with an apology tour to the Muslim world, which never happened.
And that's just stuff I can recall off the top of my head. I'm sure I've forgotten many more Romney lies than this.

And then there's the ridiculous lie that Obama wasted $90B in a single year on green energy boondongles:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/05/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-provided-90-billion/

And when lying about himself and lying about Obama wasn't enough, he decided to start lying about Jeep, who should sue his ass off for libel and slander.

And then there's Romney's two-faced behaviour as demonstrated by his 47% speech, which he refused to apologize for, and he just pretends never really happened and refuses to answer any questions about. He told Americans he cares about the 100% during the debates, but we know what he really feels about Americans because he told a room full of his plutocratic buddies exactly what he thinks about them.

But of course, no one can ask Romney any questions anyway, since he hasn't done a single media interview in three fncking weeks!!! He is literally hiding from the press. He is afraid of sticking his foot in his mouth again. A man afraid of the press is gonna stare down Russia and China?? Don't make me fncking laugh. Romney is even afraid of Joy Behar.

And that doesn't even begin to address Romney's ridiculous flip-flopping on FEMA, the auto bailouts, abortion, gun control, and so on. America has literally no idea what Romney will do, because he has no convictions or principles. He lies and flip-flops for the same reason: to win. Not to do what's right, but simply to win.

And that doesn't even begin to address Romney's inability to apologize (or even feel remorse). No apology or remorse for bad-mouthing 47% of America. No apology or remorse for cutting a kid's hair at prep school, and even laughed about it on the radio as an adult as "pranks and hi-jinks." No apology or remorse about terrifying his own dog enough to shit itself. Of course, that's expected from a guy who wrote a book called "No Apology."
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2012, 11:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Who is he? Do you mean me? That's not true. I never claimed Romney wants to quadruple the defence budget. Ever.
I was trying to figure out what the hell you were talking about here, and then I remembered a previous, similar post from you that made no sense at the time but I didn't have the chance to figure it out then. Here's the context:
I assume you are talking about the same thing then as you are now.
Your mistake is you are correcting the 1953 figures for inflation. But the chart I was referencing already corrected for inflation. Here it is again:

As you can clearly read at the top, these numbers are already adjusted for inflation. So neither this chart, nor me, nor Obama is claiming that Romney plans to quintuple the Pentagon budget over 1953 levels. And I'm not sure how you came to $450B in 1953, since it was more like $775B in 1953.
In other words, Romney really does want to bloat the Pentagon budget to levels never seen in American history. I don't have pre-1950 inflation-adjusted budget numbers available to me, and while I'd guess the inflation-adjusted dollars of the WWI or WWII are likely in the $2+ trillion range, that wasn't bloat - the US was actually at war. Romney wants to spend nearly $900B a year in 2020 in peacetime. It's reckless, pointless, and fncking moronic waste of money.
And the sad reality is, Romney wants to bloat an already bloated Pentagon budget. Obama's Pentagon budget plan in peacetime is still larger than the Pentagon budget during the height of the Vietnam war.
Imagine the amazing sh!t you could be accomplishing as a nation without flushing all this money down the toilet.
My apologies. The table I looked at apparently was inflation adjusted, even though it didn't say so.

However, here's a graph which takes it a few years earlier, and also shows spending as a percent of GDP.



While not the magnitude I incorrectly claimed, it still seems your allegation is false.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2012, 01:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Thank you both for your astonishing display of False Equivalency.
Obama made some campaign promises that he failed to achieve (like closing Gitmo). Trying to be an A student and only managing a B average is not dishonesty. Sometimes things are harder than you expect.
But there has never been a campaign quite like the Romney campaign. Among the highlights:
Running a fake goods collection for a real American disaster, just for the photo op.
Washing already clean dishes at a soup kitchen, just for a photo op, and doing the dishes wrong so the staff will have to clean them yet again.
A naked lie that Romney as Governor attended every single funeral for dead soldiers from Massachusetts.
A naked lie that Romney went to women's group looking for potential appointees, when in fact they went to him.
A naked lie that Romney saw his father march with MLK.
Romney lies non-stop about Obama:
A naked lie that Obama said "you didn't build your business" when he clearly said "you didn't build public infrastructure."
A naked lie that Obama doubled the deficit, when in fact the deficit is down.
A naked lie that Obama cut Medicare benefits by $716B, when in fact Obama (and Congress) actually cut $716B in spending.
A naked lie that Obama made no new free trade agreements.
A naked lie that Obama is running away from his record, when in fact Obama preaches about his record at every opportunity.
A naked lie that Obama began his Presidency with an apology tour to the Muslim world, which never happened.
And that's just stuff I can recall off the top of my head. I'm sure I've forgotten many more Romney lies than this.
And then there's the ridiculous lie that Obama wasted $90B in a single year on green energy boondongles:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/05/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-provided-90-billion/
And when lying about himself and lying about Obama wasn't enough, he decided to start lying about Jeep, who should sue his ass off for libel and slander.
And then there's Romney's two-faced behaviour as demonstrated by his 47% speech, which he refused to apologize for, and he just pretends never really happened and refuses to answer any questions about. He told Americans he cares about the 100% during the debates, but we know what he really feels about Americans because he told a room full of his plutocratic buddies exactly what he thinks about them.
But of course, no one can ask Romney any questions anyway, since he hasn't done a single media interview in three fncking weeks!!! He is literally hiding from the press. He is afraid of sticking his foot in his mouth again. A man afraid of the press is gonna stare down Russia and China?? Don't make me fncking laugh. Romney is even afraid of Joy Behar.
And that doesn't even begin to address Romney's ridiculous flip-flopping on FEMA, the auto bailouts, abortion, gun control, and so on. America has literally no idea what Romney will do, because he has no convictions or principles. He lies and flip-flops for the same reason: to win. Not to do what's right, but simply to win.
And that doesn't even begin to address Romney's inability to apologize (or even feel remorse). No apology or remorse for bad-mouthing 47% of America. No apology or remorse for cutting a kid's hair at prep school, and even laughed about it on the radio as an adult as "pranks and hi-jinks." No apology or remorse about terrifying his own dog enough to shit itself. Of course, that's expected from a guy who wrote a book called "No Apology."
Your impotent rage is causing you to foam at the mouth again, if I cared enough I'd offer to mail you a hanky. I don't give a damn about either candidate, as I mentioned before, I'm not voting for either one of them. I said both sides are dirty, and they are.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2012, 04:08 AM
 
There's a strange video interview on Reddit, with Mitt Romney discussing abortion and the Mormon version of the End Times. It doesn't appear particularly noteworthy from a political perspective, but it does demonstrate how arrogant and short-tempered Romney becomes when he's being challenged on something he just doesn't want to talk about.

But for me, the main take away is this: Mitt Romney recommends Cleon Skousen's book The Five Thousand Year Leap as a resource to understand Mormon doctrine. Why would he recommend Skousen for an explication of Mormon doctrine instead of a proper Mormon text?

With that one statement, Romney has moved from being an ordinary Mormon and plutocratic conservative to a Glenn Beck level pseudo-historical whack-job. How can an educated man take Skousen seriously? The man is an utter hack, and a hysterical conspiracy theorist. His religious interpretations are rejected by the Mormon Church, and his historical perspectives are regarded as complete rubbish by historians.

Romney's admiration for Skousen makes Paul Ryan's admiration for Ayn Rand look sensible and moderate by comparison. What other crackpots does Romney admire?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2012, 04:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post

Your impotent rage is causing you to foam at the mouth again, if I cared enough I'd offer to mail you a hanky. I don't give a damn about either candidate, as I mentioned before, I'm not voting for either one of them. I said both sides are dirty, and they are.
Does anything come to mind when you think of the Obama campaign being dirty?
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2012, 05:36 AM
 
Well, I was wrong. Romney is gonna win.

Gingrich email leak: Obama is gonna win.

Since Gingrich is never, ever correct about anything, Romney will win on Tues.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2012, 05:57 AM
 
Romney has apparently decided all this flip-flopping from the pro-choice side to the pro-life side and back again is too much work. From now on, he will stop flip-flopping and hold both opinions simultaneously!

Ads Pushing for Romney Victory Vary by Area on Abortion Issue

In other words, if you live in a mostly pro-life area, you will get the aggressive "Romney is totally pro-life!" ad. If you live in a pro-choice area, you will get the re-assuring "Romney is mostly pro-choice" ad.

Dear Romney: It makes no difference whatsoever whether you support abortion in the case of rape, incest, and health of the mother. Once you tell the Supreme Court to tear up RvW, the states will do whatever they want, and with certainty the pro-life movement will push hard as hell for an end to all abortion, even in cases of rape, incest, and health. You saw it in South Dakota, and you will see it tried and tried and tried non-stop everywhere in the US. Those irritating zealots aren't gonna go away.

If you really want to protect the rights of women to get an abortion in cases of rape, incest, and health of the mother, there is no other existing mechanism to do so other than keeping Roe vs Wade. You would have to amend the Constitution to guarantee a woman's right to abortion in those three instances in order to stop the zealots from banning abortion completely, and that's pretty much impossible to do these days.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2012, 07:36 AM
 
I'm getting a real Buckaroo vibe from lpkmcK in this thread. Except we only saw Buckaroo about once every 3 months.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2012, 08:18 AM
 
I don't know what that means.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2012, 09:03 AM
 
It means you're acting crazy. Stop it. You're not even from the States and both candidates are similar enough that the result won't actually affect you much, if at all. I'm not sure why you're more worked up over this than everyone else.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2012, 09:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
It means you're acting crazy. Stop it. You're not even from the States and both candidates are similar enough that the result won't actually affect you much, if at all. I'm not sure why you're more worked up over this than everyone else.
I'm not really all that worked up. I'm not even really in the bag for Obama so much, as I am disgusted and astounded at the gong show that was the Republican primaries and the Romney campaign. It's just so awful, I can't look away.

I mean, how can anyone NOT react to Romney's flagrant dishonesty? It's just utterly amazing, each lie more absurd than the last one. I mean, when Ann Romney uttered that ridiculous malarky about eating pasta off an ironing board, I was completely hooked. If this was a movie, Mitt Romney would be my favourite villain of all time.

But really, "both candidates are similar enough?" C'mon, there's never been a starker choice since Hoover vs FDR.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2012, 10:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
It means you're acting crazy. Stop it. You're not even from the States and both candidates are similar enough that the result won't actually affect you much, if at all. I'm not sure why you're more worked up over this than everyone else.
I'm not really all that worked up. I'm not even really in the bag for Obama so much, as I am disgusted and astounded at the gong show that was the Republican primaries and the Romney campaign. It's just so awful, I can't look away.
And now many of us are watching you in the same way
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2012, 11:15 AM
 
I realize I'm beating a dead horse here, and the source may not appeal to some but:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...tional-wisdom/

But what about an incumbent who holds a lead but, nevertheless, stands below the so-called magic number of 50 percent? How often do such candidates lose?

I identified a total of 83 incumbents in our database of House, Senate and gubernatorial polls who — with 30 days to go until the election — led their opponents (by any margin) in an average of nonpartisan polls, but who had under 50 percent of the vote. A bit of housekeeping: our database goes back to 1998 and excludes Zogby Interactive polls; the “average” I’m referring to here is a “lo-fi” version that weights for sample size and recentness of the poll, but not for pollster quality.

Let’s first look at the incumbent candidates for Senate. How many candidates who met this definition — leading in the polls, but with less than 50 percent of the vote — were upended in their re-election bid?

Actually, the percentage is pretty high. Of 25 such candidates, 9 of them lost, or 36 percent:

So far, things look pretty good for the “magic number” theory: more than one in three of these Senate incumbents lost, in spite of holding the polling lead. Since, in recent years, polls have rarely called the winner of the race wrong, this is pretty impressive.

What about gubernatorial incumbents? Did they suffer a similar fate?

No; the theory holds up less well here. Of the 23 gubernatorial incumbents who sat at under 50 percent in the polls — but held a lead over their opponents — 19 held on for the victory. That’s a success rate of 83 percent.

How about House candidates? It stands to reason that, to the extent this effect exists, it would be felt the most among House incumbents, since their opponents — who usually lack the pedigrees that challengers in Senate or governors’ races do — will often have poor name recognition until late in the cycle.

In fact, however, the House incumbents in our sample did well: 31 out of 35 of them won their races, or 89 percent:

If you combine the three types of incumbents — House, Senate, governor — they had a record of 66-17, which equates to a winning percentage of 80 percent. Depending on how you define the term, they may not have been “safe” for re-election — but certainly, most were favorites.
Undecided voters, in other words, are the equivalent of the clock in a football game. If an N.F.L. team holds a 10-point lead at halftime, it is the favorite to go on and win the game. But there is plenty of football left to play, and it will lose some of the time (whereas other times, meanwhile, it will wind up winning by considerably more than 10 points). This is the equivalent of holding a 43-to-33 lead in a political poll, with lots of undecided voters.

On the other hand, an N.F.L. team that holds a 10-point lead with two minutes to play in the fourth quarter will almost never lose. (Nor, for that matter, is it likely to win by much more than 10 points.) This is analogous to having a 53-to-43 lead in the polls: barring the political equivalent of an onside kick and a Hail Mary, such a candidate can start picking out his office furniture.
By the way, the theory espoused by Mr. Kraushaar and others isn’t coming out of nowhere: there is solid evidence that it used to be true, 20 or 25 years ago. Back then, the undecideds in a race usually could be counted upon to break toward the challenger: the name given to this phenomenon was the “incumbent rule.”

But polling has changed since then — as have social norms. On the one hand, pollsters have become more inclined to “push” voters toward an answer — if a voter declines to state a candidate preference initially, the pollster may ask her which candidate she is leaning toward, which may bring implicit preferences to the fore. On the other, voters have perhaps become more willing to advance a candidate preference based on information as thin as party identification. A conservative voter who is unhappy with the Democratic incumbent in their district, for instance, may be willing to note their support for the Republican opponent even if they have never heard of him or her before.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2012, 12:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I'm getting a real Buckaroo vibe from lpkmcK in this thread. Except we only saw Buckaroo about once every 3 months.
I'm putting him back on ignore for good, like Buckaroo, he's too damned annoying and nutty to tolerate.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2012, 03:20 PM
 
Silver's got Obama up another point in the win probabilities. I'd be surprised if that momentum didn't keep going.

Put a fork in it.
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2012, 04:21 PM
 
I've watched enough Buffalo Bills games to know that sometimes you can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It ain't over until the last vote is counted in Ohio.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2012, 04:34 PM
 
It's possible of course, but the new momentum was unexpected, and is certainly going to help if it's still going into Election Day.

What's it from? Good reaction to Sandy?
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2012, 05:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It's possible of course, but the new momentum was unexpected, and is certainly going to help if it's still going into Election Day.
What's it from? Good reaction to Sandy?
A little bit that, sure, but mostly he's been on a positive trend for some time. Obama started rising after the conventions and then kept going until the first debate when he dropped sharply. After that he went back to gaining back slowly but surely. One way to interpret this is that people are generally not satisfied with his performance, but they blame the GOP more, or just don't like Mitt, so they eventually come around to him after seeing the alternative.

And no, it's absolutely not over yet. It's all down to who votes. If the voters who show up look like what Rasmussen thinks they will look like, Romney is sworn in next January. 538 estimates that chance to (right now) 18.6%, but it's not zero.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2012, 02:12 AM
 
Disclaimer: it ain't over until its over.

In the not-over news, Obama picked up another three points and some change in Silver's model.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2012, 03:41 AM
 
Meh. If the press was doing it's job it would not be close. (Libya and Sandy)

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/video/#!/news/local/Stranded-New-Yorker--People-Are-Defecating-in-the-Hallways/177007621
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/video/#!/on-air/as-seen-on/Sandy-Starved-New-Yorkers-Dumpster-Dive/176839571

Obama swooped in and got his photo-op, then back to the campaign trail. Union uility crews are chasing off non union crews from other states.

The WH was quick to release a pic of Obama in the Situation room during Sandy. Where is the pic of him during the Bengahzi attack? Why wasn't the Counterterrorism Security Group assembled?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2012, 03:53 AM
 
Think about that for a second.

Might it be related to knowing the hurricane was coming for a whole week?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2012, 04:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Think about that for a second.
Might it be related to knowing the hurricane was coming for a whole week?
You mean as opposed to the multiple attacks on the embassy in the months preceding the one that killed our ambassador and the multiple pleas over several months indicating declining conditions?
ebuddy
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2012, 04:04 AM
 
Attacks?

Like with rocket launchers and shit?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2012, 05:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Attacks?
Like with rocket launchers and shit?
On April 6th a couple of people threw explosives over the compound wall.

On June 6, a bomb was planted near the American Mission’s outer wall, blowing out a 12-foot-wide hole.

On June 11, the lead vehicle of the British ambassador’s convoy was hit by an armor-piercing rocket-propelled grenade, wounding a British medic and driver. The British envoy left Benghazi the next day, and the British post in the city was closed on June 17.
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2012, 05:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
On April 6th a couple of people threw explosives over the compound wall.
On June 6, a bomb was planted near the American Mission’s outer wall, blowing out a 12-foot-wide hole.
On June 11, the lead vehicle of the British ambassador’s convoy was hit by an armor-piercing rocket-propelled grenade, wounding a British medic and driver. The British envoy left Benghazi the next day, and the British post in the city was closed on June 17.
Would you say this is equal to the level of negligence on the part of the Bush administration with respect to the warnings he had prior to the September 11, 2001 attack?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:42 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,