Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Better check your facts............I guess all the other polls are also biased for Rep., because they all are all pretty much in the same ball park. Like I said, he was spot on in 2008.

 

Presidential race not all that matters - Obama had 360+ EC votes (I think?), so that was a pretty tough one for anyone to screw up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What's the difference between a particular gene sequence in an abstract sense and a particular gene sequence that exists within a cell? Can you explain the difference in a way that doesn't boil down

This is pretty funny. The problem isn't the itty bitty details. The problem is Romney refuses to say if he's going to play Poker or Go Fish with the cards, and is on record as saying he doesn't know

I see.   I'd rather give the poor tax breaks than give them welfare. As a general rule. Let them keep their money to live on rather than take their money and then provide for them.

Everyone was pretty spot on in 2008, Gallup was probably spot on once too as was Reuters and whoever else. Nate Silver 's methodology is scientifically and mathematically sound and gives all polls a seat at the table.

 

Have you checked out his book? I'm only 60 pages through, but I've been really impressed thus far. Also learned he was a poker player, which I don't remember learning before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously you did not check internals and focus groups.

 

Debate Didn't Change The Dynamic; Obama More Aggressive, But Not More Persuasive

 

http://www.wbur.org/...namic-unchanged

 

http://www.publicpol...tDebatePoll.pdf

Check out the Independents.

More/Less Likely to Vote Obama?

 

You quoted this as a challenge to Cane saying that Obama won the last 2 debates.

 

In your second link, question 2 is "Regardless of who you plan to vote for, who do you think won the debate tonight, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?"

 

The responses are:

 

Obama: 53%

Romney: 42%

Unsure: 5%

 

So in what sense does your link show that Obama did not win that debate?

Link to post
Share on other sites

why not? if the pages were run by known terrorists which they must have assumed they were since they were being monitored, then what more do you need for suspicion? facebook and twitter are just methods of communication, no different than if they posted it on their own website. but the main point is that they DID have indications that it was an organized attack but still insisted that they didn't and that it was all because of that video. I mean, really? that doesn't bother you at all?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't there protocols to the whole "reporting terrorist attacks to the public" thing? Like getting confirmation, making sure survivors are safe, confidentiality, etc etc. 24 hours seems like pretty quick turnaround for the federal government

Link to post
Share on other sites

why not? if the pages were run by known terrorists which they must have assumed they were since they were being monitored, then what more do you need for suspicion? facebook and twitter are just methods of communication, no different than if they posted it on their own website. but the main point is that they DID have indications that it was an organized attack but still insisted that they didn't and that it was all because of that video. I mean, really? that doesn't bother you at all?

 

I don't think you report suspicions to the public based on Facebook and Twitter. They insisted they didn't have confirmation that it was an organized attack and numerous people at Dept of State and intelligence have said that there was miscommunication.

 

I'm also far more concerned with how well they track down the perpetrators than how quickly they labeled it correctly.

 

What if they had reported right away that it was a possible terrorist attack based on unconfirmed claims on Facebook and Twitter......and then it turned out that was all BS? Then, how stupid do they look? It took them too long to confirm what happened and that's a mistake that they need to correct in the future. Beyond that, I don't care.

 

I also think both parties should take a long, hard look at the recent cuts to embassy security that passed the House (with bipartisan support no less) and assess if that was a wise decision. If this was an outlier, then so be it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t1

 

 

uh, interesting. why even lie about it? I don't get it. what does the white house gain by saying it was random instead of pre-planned?

 

They weren't lying about it, but reporting information as it became known. Are Republicans going to throw the CIA under the bus now also in their attempt to discredit Obama?

 

This whole thing is getting ridiculous. There is no scandal here, just more desperate attempts by neocons to attack Obama.

 

 

http://www.slate.com...ya_e_mails.html

 

http://www.slate.com...telligence.html

 

http://www.washingto...8b7c_story.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

edit, to custom's post: yeah I mean that would make sense for the first few days and what not, and I was thinking that it would even make sense to say like "we don't know who is responsible" for a while so it's easier for them to track down/collect evidence on the group that actually did it, but they're still sticking to the "we had no idea" story even now well after the fact. that's what biden said in the debate, no? jay carney and susan rice have both said it a bunch, that they had no evidence that it was preplanned, which now is obviously a lie.

 

I mean I don't know, I think there could be some credible reasons for them to lie here like throwing the terrorists off the trail, but until they come out and say as much it sure does look like some sort of cover up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You quoted this as a challenge to Cane saying that Obama won the last 2 debates.

 

In your second link, question 2 is "Regardless of who you plan to vote for, who do you think won the debate tonight, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?"

 

The responses are:

 

Obama: 53%

Romney: 42%

Unsure: 5%

 

So in what sense does your link show that Obama did not win that debate?

 

Page 3

More/Less Likely to Vote Obama?

Independents

More Likely 32%

Less Likely 48%

Didn't Make a Difference 20%

 

The Internals after the second debate was devastating to Obama as linked wbur

The focus groups were not kind after debate 2 and 3

http://www.democrati....com/1251168555

 

When you look at polls it is to your advantage to check internals.

 

Earlier some of the polls showing Obama way up was showing +10 democratic sample which is ridiculousbat

 

As far as bumps from debate we will see in the next few days if there is a bump for Obama.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't there protocols to the whole "reporting terrorist attacks to the public" thing? Like getting confirmation, making sure survivors are safe, confidentiality, etc etc. 24 hours seems like pretty quick turnaround for the federal government

 

God Bless Jon Stewart............Really good reporting, no BS here .

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-1-2012/american-terror-story

 

What more can I say.......spin away guys.

 

Bottom line they totally screwed up and covered up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if the worst national security thing to be said about Obama is that he once failed to quickly and accurately label an attack after it happened, then he has done a fantastic job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if the worst national security thing to be said about Obama is that he once failed to quickly and accurately label an attack after it happened, then he has done a fantastic job.

 

I know this was just a bump in the road and not optimal.............amazing.

 

Gotta love David Letterman last night, PRESIDENT LIED IN DEBATE.

 

DAVID LETTERMAN, HOST: Here's what upset me last night, this playing fast and loose with facts. And the President Obama cites the op-ed piece that Romney wrote about Detroit, “Let them go bankrupt, let them go bankrupt,” and last night he brings it up again. “Oh, no, Governor, you said let them go bankrupt, blah blah blah, let them go bankrupt.” And Mitt said, “No, no, check the thing, check the thing, check the thing.”

Now, I don't care whether you're Republican or Democrat, you want your president to be telling the truth; you want the contender to be lying. And so what we found out today or soon thereafter that, in fact, the President Obama was not telling the truth about what was excerpted from that op-ed piece. I felt discouraged.

RACHEL MADDOW: Because the "Let Detroit go bankrupt" headline you feel like was inappropriate?

LETTERMAN: Well, the fact the President is invoking it and swearing that he was right and that Romney was wrong and I thought, well, he's the president of course he's right. Well, it turned out no, he was taking liberties with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, David Letterman now? Obama wanted to do one thing with the auto industry and Romney wanted to do something completely different. And that's probably why Romney is going to lose Ohio. When you're trying to parse your own editorial to make it better four years later, you've already lost the argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trusted news source David Letterman:

 

http://www.foxnews.c...idnt-pay-taxes/

 

"Yeah, we want to get a look at those tax returns because I believe we will discover that the man has not paid a nickel in United States federal income tax," Letterman said. "That’s right, we have a felon running for president."

 

 

 

So, Obama took liberties with what Romney wrote in 2008 but Romney is a felon. Are we still using Letterman as a source?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trusted news source David Letterman:

 

http://www.foxnews.c...idnt-pay-taxes/

 

"Yeah, we want to get a look at those tax returns because I believe we will discover that the man has not paid a nickel in United States federal income tax," Letterman said. "That’s right, we have a felon running for president."

 

 

 

So, Obama took liberties with what Romney wrote in 2008 but Romney is a felon. Are we still using Letterman as a source?

 

Absolutely, tax returns he starts laughing and drops his head, like get a life guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, David Letterman now? Obama wanted to do one thing with the auto industry and Romney wanted to do something completely different. And that's probably why Romney is going to lose Ohio. When you're trying to parse your own editorial to make it better four years later, you've already lost the argument.

 

Did you read the Op Ed, Romney was totally correct. Those companies would be stronger today. And of course now we know they will be making cars in china.

 

http://nlpc.org/stories/2012/10/23/bailed-out-chrysler-build-jeeps-china

 

Don't count on Obama winning Ohio.

 

It is not over yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...