Politics

[Polish Leppy 22]

I don't have the time or the interest to take each of your points apart. They're foolish right wing crazy talk and don't warrant the expenditure of energy. I'll tell you what, though: if you can go back and flesh out those arguments an provide some empirical support for them and explain the point you are trying to make with each of them and how they help you make that point, I'll be happy to engage you in a discussion about it. As it is, I'm not going to waste my time dismantling a bunch of meritless nonsense for the same reason I wouldn't call Sean Hannity's radio show. Your answer about gas prices belies the folly of trying to have an adult discussion with you.

So I'm a hateful, right-winger spewing lies about the president and his record and I'm completely off base, but you can't break any of the 8 arguments I put on the table. Alright. That settles that.

As Drew Rosenhaus would say: "Next question, please."

 

[PraetorianND]

Since I have to go to work I will just point out one issue with your post for now but I think it exemplifies why RI attacked you. Lets look at number 6 that you posted.

Either you don't know what Socialism is or you spend way too much time watching/listening to Hannity, Limbaugh and/or Beck.

In fact every country that has socialized medicine would be laughing at your right now. How is making people buy insurance from insurance companies socialism? This isn't a single payer system or anything along that line.

Also you are already paying for them to get healthcare you just don't see it. Every time someone with out insurance goes to the ER and gets treated and can't pay for it, we all do. The hospital writes some off, charges insurance companies more for their clients visits and then the insurance companies charge you more because they are a for profit company. There are many other ways that uninsured individuals cost you more but that is one of the main ways.

Also generally speaking throwing Lenin out there is considered inflamatory especially since this isn't socialized medicine which makes your statement seem more hateful.

Ok I am off to work but I am leaving you all with a question. For those of you who hate the idea of a single payer system (socialized medicine) what do you think of the VA system?

And I will preempt the question of quality with a study showing that the VA is actual a pretty damn good system
Improving Quality of Care: How the VA Outpaces Other Systems in Delivering Patient Care | RAND

Anecdotally I will disagree with you completely on VA healthcare. From my experiences it is terrible. Rarely have I ever gone to an appointment and gone in and out in less than a few hours. Also, if you live in South Bend, you have to drive all the way to Indianapolis to get care. I had to do it multiple times while I was law student at ND. It sucks, especially when Chicago is much closer (different region technically). Sometimes I had to go to Fort Wayne too for some things (dental).

I think the article you cite is also skewed because it's measuring people getting care. Well, when you don't have to personally pay for care, there is a greater chance that you're going to go get it (which is a good thing). But the study is premised around receiving care not quality of that care.

That being said I think we should all have healthcare. I just don't think the VA is a good model necessarily.

 

[PraetorianND]

Brevity is the soul of wit.

FIFY

 

[Irish Houstonian]

So I'm a hateful, right-winger spewing lies about the president and his record and I'm completely off base, but you can't break any of the 8 arguments I put on the table. Alright. That settles that.

As Drew Rosenhaus would say: "Next question, please."

We "Racist Republican Jerks" can only be solved through electro-shock therapy.

 

[RDU Irish]

So CENTRALIZED socialized medicine is the answer. Screw flyover country, just hit major metro areas and let the reds drive hours to find a doctor. Of course gas will also be $10 an hour so you get to stick it to rural areas that much more.

I see value in government involvement in basic public health issues (such as vacines) and the major medical expenses (catastrophic coverage). For everyday issues I fundamentally believe it is personal responsibility to seek AND pay for it. Unless consumers become even remotely cost conscious we will never get health care under control.

Recent visit I found out ANYTHING removed from the body has to be sent for a pathology report. Great deal for pathologists, I am forced to have a service in which I see zero value in this instance. No discretion by the surgeon, just send it all in? F-ing ridiculous handout to pathologists. But at least I can get the care in town and don't have to drive 100 miles for it like I will under your utopia socialized medicine.

 

[RDU Irish]

So my dad told me he is voting Romney, first time in his 68 years on this planet he has voted anything other than Democrat for President (at least that he admits).

I look at the Wisconsin recall to reinforce my hope that the polls are off. Recall was tight in the polls but Walker ran away with it.

Still waiting to meet that McCain voter that is switching to Obama.

 

[Rhode Irish]

So I'm a hateful, right-winger spewing lies about the president and his record and I'm completely off base, but you can't break any of the 8 arguments I put on the table. Alright. That settles that.

As Drew Rosenhaus would say: "Next question, please."

There is a difference between "can't" and ignoring something undeserving of a response. I certainly "could" and maybe I will if I find some time, but I'm not going to take time out of my work day to argue with a fool. If you had said something worthy of rebuttal I would have addressed it last night.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I think Rhode saw some recent polls before running of the deep end with his rant.

For the record, everyone is stupid who doesn't back my guy!

But hey, that is the stuff that riles the base. That was Obama's stance in the last two debates, rant and accuse without regard for facts. Shove as many words in your opponents mouth as you can and don't expose a single thought of your own. Obama was angry and unpresidential in the foreign policy debate and exhibited why he has alligator arms when it comes to reaching across the aisle.

As for swing voters who don't eat and breath politics, I think Romney reinforced the idea that he is not the monster Obama tried to paint him as and nothing like Bush.

Swing state firewall is in tact. Not sweating.

 

[RDU Irish]

Swing state firewall is in tact. Not sweating.

Figured you had some serious selection bias working for you. So your firewall only allows Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow to provide your "news"? If you try to google Rush or Hannity does your computer explode?

 

[PraetorianND]

And so your criticism is that candidates who say stuff they don't mean to get votes renders then obsolete?

If you vote for anyone other than Ron Paul, you're a hypocrite.

I'm not sure if any candidate in history has so blatantly changed his policies to gain a nomination. If you can think of one please fill me in. Also, don't try to derail my point by attacking me as a person.

My point is that if you would "do the same thing" it likely means you are not going to find fault in Romney's strategy. I on the other hand think it shows a complete lack of integrity and character. You see it as playing the game, I see it as lying. That's fine.

One thing that seriously concerns me however is the impact of his flip-flopping. You may see it as harmless but I disagree. I think it creates a lot of distrust towards the government from domestic citizens and foreign governments and foreign citizens. I personally could never trust Romney because he basically sold out to get the nomination and is now selling out again to try to win office. I will never trust him. It would be the same if I was a republican. Feel free to disagree, because I'm sure you will. But there is nothing to disagree with in this post. I simply cannot trust this guy because he has flip-flopped (straight up lied) to get into this position.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Figured you had some serious selection bias working for you. So your firewall only allows Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow to provide your "news"? If you try to google Rush or Hannity does your computer explode?

I'm confused....RCP average has Obama ahead in enough swing states to win the election. As does Nate Silver (who has now been dismissed by the right because he has Obama ahead, even though he has been the most accurate forecaster over the last several elections).

Maybe you think that the tide of Romney's momentum will overcome that firewall, but if you think that only Matthews and Maddow are giving the President a shot, I'm not the one with the "selection bias."

 

[autry_denson]

Figured you had some serious selection bias working for you. So your firewall only allows Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow to provide your "news"? If you try to google Rush or Hannity does your computer explode?

Suggestion: Look at some data before you ridicule someone as biased: Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com

 

[DSully1995]

1) A degree doesn't impress me. What you've produced/ achieved over a career does. I don't want a community organizer in the White House any more than I want George Bush teaching a class on public speaking.

2) Getting elected president of the United States isn't a one man achievement. That's a large scale operation and Obama got elected because of his speaking ability and running as a Reagan moderate. We know this now all to be false.

3) I bring up the grades because libs loved calling Bush an idiot but he got better grades than Kerry and we still don't know Obama's grades. Love double standards.

4) What has he done to our country? We're far worse off now (aside from taking out bin *****) than we were 4 years ago in every aspect. That question deserves an entirely new thread. Everything that should be up (private sector jobs, home ownership, take home pay, etc) is down and everything that should be down (debt, deficits, unemployment, food stamps, gas prices, inflation) is up. Last night, despite all this, the president has the audacity to tell Americans we are stronger than we were 4 years ago. Welcome to the twilight zone.

5) "When Congress refuses to act, Joe (Biden) and I will." February 21, 2012. I don't make this $hit up. I'm taking the guy at his own word.

6) Obamacare is by far the biggest tool for redistribution of wealth, forcing one group of people to pay for another group. As our pal Vladimir Lenin said, "Socialized medicine is the cornerstone of the communist state."

7) What does that image look like? The past four years repeated without worrying about another pesky election and as he promised Putin in Russia..."more flexibility."

8) Your words...not mine. If you aren't bothered by the socialist dictators of the world lining up behind Obama, that's a you problem.

Ill take you up on this,
1)
I want a smart president, and achievements are great, but to suggest that Romney can the greatest country in the world because of his work as a venture capitalist (dont bring up salt lake, he go Fed. Gov. hand outs for that), is in my mind crazy, its not like they move the president into the white house and let him loose, hell have advisors for everything, damn even Reagan did a good job, the guy was so clueless he used cue cards to know his policies.

4) I get it. Your seeing economic disaster can you need someone to blame, but come on man, 4 years after the worst recession since the great depression, with a GLOBAL financial crisis (Euro etc.) youll blame Obama?

5) Republicans have from day one been determined to make Obama a one term president.

6) Non-sense, absolutely ridiculous, socialized medicine might the cornerstone of communism, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU HAVE. Im Canadian, we have soc. med., its very diffferent from what you have. As for income redistribution: ofcourse thats what it is, because that the idea behind insurance companies, everyone pays in, those in need get the most out, hwat the US has been doing is not even letting the need in at all.

7) Obama strikes any type of deal with Russia youd be on his case, politics if non-doing.

8) Ofcourse they would, hes obviously close to them on the spectrum, so they rather him, 'hey if Limbaugh is supporting Romney, a romney for is a vote for Limbaugh" goes both ways.

Have a nice day.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Romney continues to stand behind Richard Mourdock. You are the company that you keep...

 

[irishbird]

Romney continues to stand behind Richard Mourdock. You are the company that you keep...

^this

 

[ND NYC]

in completel;y simplistic terms i think this election boils down to:

do the American people want a Boss...or a President.

 

[RDU Irish]

Suggestion: Look at some data before you ridicule someone as biased: Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com

Using only the "adjusted polling average" of the supposed toss-up states (CO, FL, IA, NH, NV, OH, VA, WI)-

Florida (29) - 2.0% Romney lead (with dem $s leaving the state recently) If conceded to Romney, puts EVs at 235 Romney to 237 Obama

Colorado (9)- .5% Romney lead (46.9% Obama overall)

Iowa (6) - 1.2% Obama lead (48.1% Obama overall)

New Hampshire (4) - .9% Obama lead (48.1% Obama overall)

Nevada (6)- 1.7% Obama lead (48.3% Obama overall)

Ohio (18) - 1.7% Obama lead (47.5% Obama overall)

Virginia (13)- .2% Romney lead (47.1% Obama overall)

Wisconsin (10) - 2.5% Obama lead (49.1 Obama overall)


Not exactly a landslide fellas. Obama is stuck below 50%. Consider 48.5% as win threshold (which assumes 3% to fringe candidates) and Obama only wins Wisconsin if he can't pick up more votes from here. At 48% he adds 26 EV for 263 total electoral votes (IA, NH and NV added to WI). Under 48% in OH, VA and CO cannot make Obama fans comfy.

So, is 4% going to Gary Johnson, especially in swing states? Is Obama picking up votes or losing them as an incumbent? Which base is more reliable this time around?

If you learned anything in Wisconsin, union households will not be vocal in supporting Romney. A 1 or 2 percent swing in results versus adjusted polls is very possible, if not probable.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

At least Obama's not a flip-flopper like the last two presidential candidates from Massachusetts.

Obama Says To Look At "Videotape" For His Flip-Flops

 

[In Lou I Trust]

I'm confused....RCP average has Obama ahead in enough swing states to win the election. As does Nate Silver (who has now been dismissed by the right because he has Obama ahead, even though he has been the most accurate forecaster over the last several elections).

Maybe you think that the tide of Romney's momentum will overcome that firewall, but if you think that only Matthews and Maddow are giving the President a shot, I'm not the one with the "selection bias."

I thought Rasmussen has been the most accurate these past few elections? That's the poll that FOX News has been using for the last month.

 

[Domina Nostra]

I think Nate Silver was still in college in 2000. By "last several elections," he means "the 2008 election." He is 1 for 1.

People don't think he is partisan because he is an avowed Progressive that wants Obama to win (which he does), they think he is partisan because his forecasts weigh things very subjectively towards the guy he wants to win. He may turn out to be right, but he is certainly going against the grain on a lot of indicators. If he is as accurate this time as he was in 2008, he'll get the right's attention.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I think the "prediction" polls and polling arguments are much like the OU/ND threads lately.

No point in arguing which poll is better or more accurate, because we'll find out soon enough.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I think Nate Silver was still in college in 2000. By "last several elections," he means "the 2008 election." He is 1 for 1.

People don't think he is partisan because he is an avowed Progressive that wants Obama to win (which he does), they think he is partisan because his forecasts weigh things very subjectively towards the guy he wants to win. He may turn out to be right, but he is certainly going against the grain on a lot of indicators. If he is as accurate this time as he was in 2008, he'll get the right's attention.

He was also the most accurate predictor of the 2010 mid term elections (meaning he didnt project a democratic landslide), and he emerged as a forecaster during the 2008 primaries, in which he obviously was working with far less data. It should be noted that that while Nate Silver had made a name for himself as a leader of the sabermetrics movement in baseball prior to his emergence as an election forecaster, he developed his initial following in the latter field while posting anonymously, so his rise in the political landscape is almost entirely unrelated to his stardom with a particular sect of basball fans. He may be a progressive, but that doesn't make a person bad at math. He has shown a pretty consistent ability to produce formulas that allow him to make predictions that are more accurate than the mainstream (in baseball and now in elections). I'll stick with Silver until he blows one.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I thought Rasmussen has been the most accurate these past few elections? That's the poll that FOX News has been using for the last month.

Not sure if serious...

FOX uses Rasmussen because it's mostly right-leaning. There are some that lean left (PPP for one). That's why the RealClearPolitics poll of polls is frequently pretty close.

That said, Silver is a statistician who has created a model that has been extremely accurate so far.

 

[phgreek]

I think Nate Silver was still in college in 2000. By "last several elections," he means "the 2008 election." He is 1 for 1.

People don't think he is partisan because he is an avowed Progressive that wants Obama to win (which he does), they think he is partisan because his forecasts weigh things very subjectively towards the guy he wants to win. He may turn out to be right, but he is certainly going against the grain on a lot of indicators. If he is as accurate this time as he was in 2008, he'll get the right's attention.

correct...His model worked for 08. The criticism I've read is that he inexplicably places more weight on certain older polls, etc. Conventional wisdom says you should de-emphasize specific polls based on age, ....

The guy clearly provides his rationale...ok its not that clear, but it is there, so I wouldn't put him with NBC...but he too...in my opinion...is polling for effect/impact not out of curiosity.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

Not sure if serious...

FOX uses Rasmussen because it's mostly right-leaning. There are some that lean left (PPP for one). That's why the RealClearPolitics poll of polls is frequently pretty close.

That said, Silver is a statistician who has created a model that has been extremely accurate so far.

Not sure if serious...

Scott Rasmussen has been one of the most accurate pollsters the past two Presidential elections. Look it up.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Not sure if serious...

Scott Rasmussen has been one of the most accurate pollsters the past two Presidential elections. Look it up.

Okay. He was pretty darn close last time. Point taken. In that election, Silver projected 49 of 50 states correctly (he had Indiana for McCain and Obama won by a point).

Here's Silver's criticism of Rasmussen in 2010.
Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com

 

[autry_denson]

Not sure if serious...

Scott Rasmussen has been one of the most accurate pollsters the past two Presidential elections. Look it up.

Polling data is the litmus test for confirmation bias. Who is in the lead is not a political question - it is an empirical question.

If you want information that reinforces what you would like to believe you pick one poll that you like and don't pay attention to others. Romney supporters, I'd suggest you go with the Gallup poll and ignore the others - it's probably far from accurate but it will make you feel good.

If you want information that predicts the truth you should start by acknowledging that all surveys make assumptions and some are likely to be systematically biased. However, any systematic or random sources of bias are likely to even out as you take more and more samples. You incorporate information from all polls, and you make your methods explicit and consistent.

RealClearPolitics does this - my own opinion is that they do it in a relatively unsophisticated way, although I haven't investigated in enough detail to state this with conviction. Silver does it with more thought put into the methods. To say someone like Silver is biased - someone who uses all available information and has made his methods explicit and transparent - is a very clear indication that: a) you have no understanding of how surveys work, or b) you don't want to hear news that is inconsistent with what you want to hear. If you fit either of these descriptions, go ahead and look up the Gallup poll and sleep well - but you might also prepare yourself for a shock when Romney doesn't end up winning the popular vote by 6%.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Polling data is the litmus test for confirmation bias. Who is in the lead is not a political question - it is an empirical question.

If you want information that reinforces what you would like to believe you pick one poll that you like and don't pay attention to others. Romney supporters, I'd suggest you go with the Gallup poll and ignore the others - it's probably far from accurate but it will make you feel good.

If you want information that predicts the truth you should start by acknowledging that all surveys make assumptions and some are likely to be systematically biased. However, any systematic or random sources of bias are likely to even out as you take more and more samples. You incorporate information from all polls, and you make your methods explicit and consistent.

RealClearPolitics does this - my own opinion is that they do it in a relatively unsophisticated way, although I haven't investigated in enough detail to state this with conviction. Silver does it with more thought put into the methods. To say someone like Silver is biased - someone who uses all available information and has made his methods explicit and transparent - is a very clear indication that: a) you have no understanding of how surveys work, or b) you don't want to hear news that is inconsistent with what you want to hear. If you fit either of these descriptions, go ahead and look up the Gallup poll and sleep well - but you might also prepare yourself for a shock when Romney doesn't end up winning the popular vote by 6%.

Gallup has Romney down to a 3 point lead among likely voters. It's actually Obama by 1 in the registered voters category. The oddity of the Gallup poll is that Obama has an approval of +11 (53-42). That doesn't fit well with their last few weeks of head to head polling.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

Polling data is the litmus test for confirmation bias. Who is in the lead is not a political question - it is an empirical question.

If you want information that reinforces what you would like to believe you pick one poll that you like and don't pay attention to others. Romney supporters, I'd suggest you go with the Gallup poll and ignore the others - it's probably far from accurate but it will make you feel good.

If you want information that predicts the truth you should start by acknowledging that all surveys make assumptions and some are likely to be systematically biased. However, any systematic or random sources of bias are likely to even out as you take more and more samples. You incorporate information from all polls, and you make your methods explicit and consistent.

RealClearPolitics does this - my own opinion is that they do it in a relatively unsophisticated way, although I haven't investigated in enough detail to state this with conviction. Silver does it with more thought put into the methods. To say someone like Silver is biased - someone who uses all available information and has made his methods explicit and transparent - is a very clear indication that: a) you have no understanding of how surveys work, or b) you don't want to hear news that is inconsistent with what you want to hear. If you fit either of these descriptions, go ahead and look up the Gallup poll and sleep well - but you might also prepare yourself for a shock when Romney doesn't end up winning the popular vote by 6%.

Thank you for your unbiased, nonpartisan take on polls.

 

[Domina Nostra]

I love you ACamp. There has been 350 cases of voter fraud in this country the past 10 years. Thats 35 a year nationwide Good thing PA, OH, and FL, are spending all those tax dollars to enforce voter fraud laws. Its an epidemic. But it's OK because these laws ensure that Mitt Romney will win PA. Just ask PA Rep. Mike Turzai.

Are you serious?

Patrick Moran, son of Va. Rep. Jim Moran, resigns from campaign after O’Keefe video released - The Washington Post