Politics

[timm3117]

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

A NYTIMES story about someone or something being Biased? Well, I guess they would know.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

A NYTIMES story about someone or something being Biased? Well, I guess they would know.

Silver was picked up by the Times after he was successful. He's not a partisan. He's a statistician. He relies on his model being accurate. That's how he'll maintain credibility.

We'll know in a couple of weeks who was the most accurate. Silver's record is as good as anyone's.

 

[ubet49]

president

president

Any one voting for the Romney ticket will be making a big mistake. He has changed is position so many times just to fit the need. He stands for the rich and only the rich. He flauts all his toys and houses as he runs fro president. Get a clue.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

Any one voting for the Romney ticket will be making a big mistake. He has changed is position so many times just to fit the need. He stands for the rich and only the rich. He flauts all his toys and houses as he runs fro president. Get a clue.

Everyone listen to this guy!! Romney hasn't stopped talking about his money, cars, houses and hordes of expensive prostitutes this entire campaign! Come back to Earth, Romney! You can't relate to the average man.

 

[timm3117]

Silver was picked up by the Times after he was successful. He's not a partisan. He's a statistician. He relies on his model being accurate. That's how he'll maintain credibility.

We'll know in a couple of weeks who was the most accurate. Silver's record is as good as anyone's.

Just pointing out when you align yourself with the NYTIMES, CNN, or FOXNEWS. People will question your bipartisanship.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Any one voting for the Romney ticket will be making a big mistake. He has changed is position so many times just to fit the need. He stands for the rich and only the rich. He flauts all his toys and houses as he runs fro president. Get a clue.

All Deomcrats should be terrified of Romney. This whole year has been a ruse! He is not nearly as conservative as he claimed in the Republican primaries. Secretly, he is much more moderate! He seems to seek to lead from the middle, taking positions that are popular with the majority of voters (not unlike Bill Clinton, except that its bad when Romney does it).

In fact, I have proof that he was the govenor of one of the most Democratic states in the country!!! Obama passing Obamacare proves he loves the middle class. Romney passing Romneycare in a democratic state proves he loves the rich! Can't you see!

Worst of all, it appears that if Romney gets in office he won't talk down to the other side of the aisle like they are ignorant school children and fanatics. WATCH OUT! This guy is a closet moderate!

 

[Downinthebend]

Any one voting for the Romney ticket will be making a big mistake. He has changed is position so many times just to fit the need. He stands for the rich and only the rich. He flauts all his toys and houses as he runs fro president. Get a clue.

I'm voting George Washington

 

[Downinthebend]

Check this out, and then ask yourself whether they are the terrorists or we are.

Newsgaming.com -- September 12th

BTW this was made before drone strikes.

Obviously the only flaw in our drone policy is the timer doe

 

[Rizzophil]

Everyone listen to this guy!! Romney hasn't stopped talking about his money, cars, houses and hordes of expensive prostitutes this entire campaign! Come back to Earth, Romney! You can't relate to the average man.

Show me the links of his quotes. I have never heard him talk about himself regarding money, cars, or houses.

Conversely, I have heard his vision for America.

What is Obama's plan for the next four years besides more taxes, more spending, and more debt?

 

[Numeros]

Not sure if serious...

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

I did look it up a long time ago, and Rasmussen was not one of the most accurate in 2008.

Obama won by 7.3 points, 52.9 to 45.6.
CNN & Ipsos came closest with a 7-point spread, 53/46.
Rasmussen underestimated Obama with a 6-point spread, 52/46.

Fordham University released a (final) report which showed that eight pollsters were more accurate than Rasmussen. http://www.fordham.edu/images/acade...campaign_/2008 poll accuracy panagopoulos.pdf

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Show me the links of his quotes. I have never heard him talk about himself regarding money, cars, or houses.

Conversely, I have heard his vision for America.

What is Obama's plan for the next four years besides more taxes, more spending, and more debt?

Taxes have decreased under Obama.
FactCheck.org : Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years

His proposed increase would raise them to Clinton levels, but only on the highest income earners. Top incomes were taxed at more than twice that rate under Eisenhower...the hippie.
THE HISTORY OF TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are - Business Insider

Even Paul Ryan's severe budget wouldn't be balanced until 2040.
Fact check: Will Romney balance the budget? - latimes.com

And most of the deficit is because of unfunded wars, reduced tax revenues because of the economic collapse, and reduced revenues because of the Bush tax cuts.
CHART OF THE DAY: Reminder, The Deficit You're Freaking Out About Is Bush's Fault - Business Insider

Spending hasn't been that much higher, save for the stimulus, which saved 3.3 million jobs.
CBO: Stimulus added up to 3.3M jobs - Josh Boak - POLITICO.com

 

[In Lou I Trust]

Show me the links of his quotes. I have never heard him talk about himself regarding money, cars, or houses.

Conversely, I have heard his vision for America.

What is Obama's plan for the next four years besides more taxes, more spending, and more debt?

Lol... you're late to the party, bud. I was being facetious. I'll use the sarcasm font next time...

By the way... you left out expensive prostitutes. Are you hinting at something???

 

[GoIrish41]

What is Obama's plan for the next four years besides more taxes, more spending, and more debt?

Living in the White House

He'll obiously plans to primarily focus sending taxpayer money directly to poor people upon request. If he has time, he might take your guns away, hand out rubbers to junior high schoolers, legalize meth and gay marriage, gut the Defense budget and make abortions not only legal but paid for directly by taxes on rich, right wing white guys.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

Living in the White House

He'll obiously plans to primarily focus sending taxpayer money directly to poor people upon request. If he has time, he might take your guns away, hand out rubbers to junior high schoolers, legalize meth and gay marriage, gut the Defense budget and make abortions not only legal but paid for directly by taxes on rich, right wing white guys.

Sign me up, man!! I'd like a piece of gub'ment cheese!

 

[Irish Houstonian]

St. Louis Archdiocese takes out anti-Obamacare ad.

Pretty effective too.

'You wouldn’t force a vegetarian to buy you a hamburger' - 16 sec. video hits HHS mandate | LifeSiteNews.com

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

What is Obama's plan for the next four years besides more taxes, more spending, and more debt?[/QUOTE]

Romney's plan is less taxes for the super rich , more spending, and more debt.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Taxes have decreased under Obama.
FactCheck.org : Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years

His proposed increase would raise them to Clinton levels, but only on the highest income earners. Top incomes were taxed at more than twice that rate under Eisenhower...the hippie.
THE HISTORY OF TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are - Business Insider

Even Paul Ryan's severe budget wouldn't be balanced until 2040.
Fact check: Will Romney balance the budget? - latimes.com

And most of the deficit is because of unfunded wars, reduced tax revenues because of the economic collapse, and reduced revenues because of the Bush tax cuts.
CHART OF THE DAY: Reminder, The Deficit You're Freaking Out About Is Bush's Fault - Business Insider

Spending hasn't been that much higher, save for the stimulus, which saved 3.3 million jobs.
CBO: Stimulus added up to 3.3M jobs - Josh Boak - POLITICO.com

"If a man posts information in a thread where nobody wants to know it, does it matter?" is the new "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear, does it make a sound?"

 

[Me2SouthBend]

Just pointing out when you align yourself with the NYTIMES, CNN, or FOXNEWS. People will question your bipartisanship.

So if he is aligned w Fox News and the New York Times, which way is he leaning? Color me confused.

 

[pkt77242]

So if he is aligned w Fox News and the New York Times, which way is he leaning? Color me confused.

A pastor at an Evangelical megachurch who is getting "massages" from a guy?

 

[Buster Bluth]

Any one voting for the Romney ticket will be making a big mistake. He has changed is position so many times just to fit the need. He stands for the rich and only the rich. He flauts all his toys and houses as he runs fro president. Get a clue.

I lol'd.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Anyone have a chance to see any of the rogue-candidate debate last night? I vote in Massachusetts, which Obama will win by 25%. After I vote for Liz Warren, I might just drop a vote for a third party candidate since my vote for President doesn't matter anyway. Jill Stein is on the ballot here, I'm sure. I'd also vote for Gary Johnson. I don't agree with either of them on everything, but I do agree with them on a TON of things; most of all that they have actual genuine opinions that haven't been worn down by mainstream politics. More importantly, we'd be so much better off as a country if there were a viable third party to keep the two major parties honest.

 

[timm3117]

So if he is aligned w Fox News and the New York Times, which way is he leaning? Color me confused.

The key word is "or" not "and".

I was using those three outlets and an example of biased media. If you were to align with any of the three, I would have to question if you were unbiased.

 

[ickythump1225]

I work on Election Day so I voted today. I live in Georgia so my vote doesn't really mean much but I did vote for Obama. I just loathe the Republican Party and Mitt Romney so much that I felt I had little other choice.

And crap like this reinforces my decision:

GOP's Murdock stands by rape. abortion comment | koaa.com | Colorado Springs | Pueblo |

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

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.

Kudos to you and respect for making the arguments and at least giving reason for disagreeing with me. But...

1) Everyone wants a smart president, but as Gardner points out there are 7 different types of intelligence. What was Obama's greatest achievement pre white house? Law degree? Community organizing? Sorry...noble efforts, but not ready for the white house especially given the economic situation.

4) Wrong again. Obama and company inherited a disaster, but firemen don't walk into a burning building and pour gasoline on it. The "stimulus" was a setback and Obamacare is a financial disaster. He loathes the private sector and knows nothing about job creation because he has no experience in this. Home Depot's CEO has said the same about Obama.

5) Wah wah wah. He had a super majority for the first two years and the second two years Obama had to learn to get along with people who disagreed with him. Didn't get everything he wanted. Tough. That's what happens when you get your *** handed to you in the 2010 election.

6) You guys in Canada can keep your socialized medicine. Coverage doesn't equal qaulity...see public education in the U.S.

7) The president's words...not mine.

8) Socialist dictators publicly support Obama and you think it's because they want to stand against Rush Limbaugh??? Keep telling yourself that. And the point is the President of the United States (D or R) should be NOWHERE near the political philosophy/ belief of a Chavez, Castro, Putin.

 

[phgreek]

Living in the White House

He'll obiously plans to primarily focus sending taxpayer money directly to poor people upon request. If he has time, he might take your guns away, hand out rubbers to junior high schoolers, legalize meth and gay marriage, gut the Defense budget and make abortions not only legal but paid for directly by taxes on rich, right wing white guys.

...why the sarcasm font?

 

[phgreek]

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%.

Silver is biased...smart guy, provides his method...but transparency does not equal neutrality. Personally, I don't give alot of credence to ANY poll or any conglomeration of Polls. Indeed, someone's approach to conglomeration will prove to be better than others in this cycle...so what. Maybe it will be Silver...but I doubt it...if for no other reason than this. No two elections are the same, so unless you are constantly tweeking your model...you'll miss. If you are constantly tweeking your model, then it is likely you are your own worst enemy because you will do so based on...Your own bias. In such a case, maybe Silver's bias aligns with reality...but not likely over multiple elections. Seriously...you think Obama's chances of winning this are near 2-1 (closer to 3-1) over Romney right now...just the reasonable man test has air hissing out of Silver's model in my view. I see this is a tie with a slight lean to Obama...so, Mr. O is ONE bad news cycle from trouble...Stock Market sucked air this week...and Benghazi seems to be a constant negative add Romeny doesn't need to pay for...This thing is too close to call...Silver's numbers...well come on.

 

[RDU Irish]

Taxes have decreased under Obama.
FactCheck.org : Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years

His proposed increase would raise them to Clinton levels, but only on the highest income earners. Top incomes were taxed at more than twice that rate under Eisenhower...the hippie.
THE HISTORY OF TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are - Business Insider

Even Paul Ryan's severe budget wouldn't be balanced until 2040.
Fact check: Will Romney balance the budget? - latimes.com

And most of the deficit is because of unfunded wars, reduced tax revenues because of the economic collapse, and reduced revenues because of the Bush tax cuts.
CHART OF THE DAY: Reminder, The Deficit You're Freaking Out About Is Bush's Fault - Business Insider

Spending hasn't been that much higher, save for the stimulus, which saved 3.3 million jobs.
CBO: Stimulus added up to 3.3M jobs - Josh Boak - POLITICO.com

Do you even look at the links you post? Someone post this pic, it says I have max attachments. The top 1% pay 2.5 times the tax rate of the middle 20% and this is somehow hosing poor people?

http://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/07/Tax_Rates_Top_Middle.png

The first article also says "Much of the decline in 2008 and 2009 was due to the collapsing economy." No sh!t Sherlock.

and - "Meanwhile, rates for those in the middle dropped to a 30-year low of 11.1 percent in 2009, down from the 19.2 percent peak rate of 1981."

I know you struggle with anything other than binary logic, but taking a smaller piece of a bigger, faster growing pie is often better than taking a bigger piece of a smaller pie. That is why REVENUE is up despite lower tax rates.

So consider this link that illustrates taxes as a PERCENT of GDP United States Government Revenue History - Charts

Versus this one showing actual revenue collected. http://specfriggintacular.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/federal-revenue-1965-to-present.jpg

Funny how the collections peak in 2000 and 2007 when the economy was doing well and then go down when we have a recession. Might help if we had more people working and paying taxes, but somehow that is poor bashing to suggest people actually prefer work to welfare? US Employment and Jobs | Department of Numbers

Do a little math here, if the average worker is making less (135 million times a conservative $3000/year reduction in pay = $405B of wages "lost") and 5 million fewer people are working ($50,000 times 5 million = $250B wages "lost") we get $655B of incomes that should/could be on the tax rolls at this point of a recovery. Apply the average tax rate on the middle 20% and we get $65B - $70B of additional government revenue from income taxes. Then add 14% FICA taxes lost and the government is missing out on another $90B of revenue for a total of $155B revenue lost due do poor employment opportunities.

And don't forget more people working means fewer on food stamps, unemployment and even Social Security (I work with plenty of people forced into earlier SS collection due to losing work). Is $75B an unreasonable reduction in spending from this? Look, I just fixed 20%+ of our deficit!

 

[RDU Irish]

St. Louis Archdiocese takes out anti-Obamacare ad.

Pretty effective too.

'You wouldn’t force a vegetarian to buy you a hamburger' - 16 sec. video hits HHS mandate | LifeSiteNews.com

That is an incredibly effective ad. All women. Quick retort in the coffee shop, b/c we all know that is all the more words you can get in edgewise when libs are railing about the evils of others.

15 seconds means you get 2x the bang for the buck and don't overstay America's limited attention span.

 

[RDU Irish]

Anyone have a chance to see any of the rogue-candidate debate last night? I vote in Massachusetts, which Obama will win by 25%. After I vote for Liz Warren, I might just drop a vote for a third party candidate since my vote for President doesn't matter anyway. Jill Stein is on the ballot here, I'm sure. I'd also vote for Gary Johnson. I don't agree with either of them on everything, but I do agree with them on a TON of things; most of all that they have actual genuine opinions that haven't been worn down by mainstream politics. More importantly, we'd be so much better off as a country if there were a viable third party to keep the two major parties honest.

Finally, something I can agree with. I thought this was a good climate for a Ross Perot type to make a big splash. A less goofy Ross Perot type that is (i.e. not Donald Trump or Ron Paul).

 

[RDU Irish]

"If a man posts information in a thread where nobody wants to know it, does it matter?" is the new "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear, does it make a sound?"

Not that Obama lets facts get in the way of a good story but the "facts" provided run counter to the points argued.

Yeah, the caption on the picture AT THE FRONT of the stimulus article says it created 500K to 3.3M and y'all latch onto 3.3M as an absolute fact. F-ing hypocritical would be a severe understatement. BTW - That equals $240,000 to $1.6 million spent PER F-ING JOB. And yet you hang your hat on this wonderful "accomplishment"?

Since I prefer solutions to complaints, that $800 billion could have been used for a four year corporate tax holiday. Better yet, permanent reduction of corporate taxes to 20%, since businesses do better in a stable environment versus 0% one year and 35% the next.

Maybe Obama is right, we need more math teachers. Only problem is we need them to tutor the "adults" in this country.