2012 Elections

[custom36 4]

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.

[custom36 4]

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.

[CaneBrain 95]

It's next on my list.

[timwakefield 68]

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?

[ShakeZuma 585]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/24/us/libya-benghazi-e-mails/index.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?

[CaneBrain 95]

Maybe they didn't consider a claim on Facebook to be definitely 100% accurate?

[iZuma 764]

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?

[custom36 4]

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

[CaneBrain 95]

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.

[SilentSnow 1]

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

[iZuma 764]

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.

[JustDoIt 10]

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.

[CaneBrain 95]

Looks a lot more like different branches of intelligence disagreeing and creating confusion than a cover-up based on what SS posted.

[JustDoIt 10]

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.

[CaneBrain 95]

I both agree with Jon Stewart and still reached a different conclusion than you. Not surprising.

[JustDoIt 10]

I both agree with Jon Stewart and still reached a different conclusion than you. Not surprising.

 

Take off the blinders............you'll get it.

[CaneBrain 95]

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.

[CaneBrain 95]

Take off the blinders............you'll get it.

 

I know you are but what am I.

[JustDoIt 10]

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.

[CaneBrain 95]

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.

[CaneBrain 95]

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?

[JustDoIt 10]

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.

[CaneBrain 95]

Ok Letterman is a viable source going forward. Good to know.

[CaneBrain 95]

Mitt and Ann Romney are both big liars:

 

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/david-letterman-presents-ann-and-mitt-romney-lies/

[JustDoIt 10]

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.