|
|
On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution. Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule. Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights?
Yet you already acknowledged that there is a distinction by using the word "temporary"; there is no temporary donation of blood/marrow/organs. It's not quite apples and oranges but it isn't far off.
|
On October 25 2012 12:09 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:05 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? And that is simply contingent on the belief that fetuses aren't people. Lots of people disagree. Actually, as I argued a few pages back, it doesn't matter. Even if you accept that fetuses are people, it's a violation of a person's rights to force them to serve as an incubator. Just as you're not forced to donate blood/bone marrow/organs/etc to sustain other's lives (not even your family members), women should not be forced to (temporarily) donate their uteruses/blood/nutrients/etc to sustain another life. But is forcing someone into slavery better then murdering an innocent life? For one person its a huge problem and a large inconceivably bad situation. For the other its purely a death sentence. If you can't understand where the other side is coming from you shouldn't fight so hard against them on the issue.
wait, but the woman (except in cases of rape) agreed to get pregnant. you could look at that as sort of a deal b/w her and the potential baby as "if i get pregnant, i will carry you to completion". wouldnt that mean that the woman is violating that biological agreement/ killing someone through omission or w/e?
and no, being drunk/ high/etc are stupid excuses. just saying.
|
On October 25 2012 12:09 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:05 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? And that is simply contingent on the belief that fetuses aren't people. Lots of people disagree. Actually, as I argued a few pages back, it doesn't matter. Even if you accept that fetuses are people, it's a violation of a person's rights to force them to serve as an incubator. Just as you're not forced to donate blood/bone marrow/organs/etc to sustain other's lives (not even your family members), women should not be forced to (temporarily) donate their uteruses/blood/nutrients/etc to sustain another life. But is forcing someone into slavery better then murdering an innocent life? For one person its a huge problem and a large inconceivably bad situation. For the other its purely a death sentence. If you can't understand where the other side is coming from you shouldn't fight so hard against them on the issue.
Is forcing you to donate one of your kidneys better than letting someone die?
|
On October 25 2012 11:54 ey215 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 11:50 nevermindthebollocks wrote:On October 25 2012 11:42 xDaunt wrote:On October 25 2012 11:37 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 11:29 xDaunt wrote:On October 25 2012 11:26 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 11:22 Jaaaaasper wrote:On October 25 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:Are we feeling the imminent blowout yet? Foster McCollum White Baydoun (FMW)B, a national public opinion polling and voter analytics consulting firm based in Michigan and representing the combined resources of Foster McCollum White & Associates (Troy Michigan) and Baydoun Consulting (Dearborn Michigan) conducted a telephone-automated polling random survey of Michigan registered and most likely November 2012 General election voters for Fox 2 News Detroit to determine their voting and issue preferences for the presidential election.
An initial qualifying statement was read to respondents asking them to participate only if they were very likely to vote in the November General Election.
Thirty five thousand (35,000) calls were placed, and 1,122 respondents fully participated in the survey. The margin of error for this total polling sample is 2.93% with a confidence level of 95%.
The 2012 United States Presidential election will be held on November 6, 2012. Who are you most likely to vote for in the election?
President Barack Obama 46.92%
Republican Nominee Mitt Romney 46.56%
another candidate 2.30%
Undecided 4.23% Source. The fact the it came from fox makes it look unreliable to my eye, but Obama has a lead even in their poll And there it is... RCP has the polling firm listed as (D) next to it's name. That does mean what I think it means right? Reading comprehension isn't so good around here. Not only did Fox News not do the poll, but Fox News did not release the story.... Yep, I just knew someone would see "Fox" and assume it's FNC and claim bias. I am curious as to the internals of the poll though, can't seem to find them anywhere. Most of the polls that I have seen still have party-ID internals way out of whack in favor of Obama. I have seen the arguments suggesting that this shouldn't matter, but I really am not convinced, if for no other reason than Romney has been crushing Obama among independents for months. Hell, I don't even really buy that there has been a 15-point swing towards Romney as these polls reflect. I simply can't imagine that there are really that many people who haven't made up their minds. so let me get this right, a poll that shows more support for obama must therfore be flawed? Many polls in August/September were using models that either had the same or larger margin of Democrats than the actual voting difference in the 2008 election. 2008 was an unprecedented turnout/wave election for Democrats and skeptics don't think that the difference will be as large this year. The "voter intensity" polling data points to that being the case. Whether or not it skews the polls outside the margin of error is debatable.
i hear all this talk about less enthusiasm this election but i think more people will vote for obama this time because we have to protect his health care reform and the only real reason people had last time to not vote for him was because he didn't have the typical decades of experience in government but people have now seen him as president
|
On October 25 2012 12:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:
"Likely voters" are usually asked a separate set of questions similar to how you screen for health studies. I could be wrong on both points, I'm going off 538 and memories of a class a year ago with a political science/network science professor.
Gallup's "likely voter" procedure is actually pretty involved. I read this a couple days ago and I thought it was interesting so here is the link:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/111268/How-Gallups-likely-voter-models-work.aspx
|
On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution. Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule. Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights?
Thats not a valid comparison at all. By being an organ donar or not doesn't directly but instead indirectly effect the chance that you can save someone else's life. By choseing abortion you are directly making the effort to end the chance that a person has to live.
|
On October 25 2012 12:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:04 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 11:58 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 25 2012 11:50 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 11:42 xDaunt wrote:On October 25 2012 11:37 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 11:29 xDaunt wrote:On October 25 2012 11:26 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 11:22 Jaaaaasper wrote:On October 25 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:Are we feeling the imminent blowout yet? [quote] Source. The fact the it came from fox makes it look unreliable to my eye, but Obama has a lead even in their poll And there it is... RCP has the polling firm listed as (D) next to it's name. That does mean what I think it means right? Reading comprehension isn't so good around here. Not only did Fox News not do the poll, but Fox News did not release the story.... Yep, I just knew someone would see "Fox" and assume it's FNC and claim bias. I am curious as to the internals of the poll though, can't seem to find them anywhere. Most of the polls that I have seen still have voter-ID internals way out of whack in favor of Obama. I have seen the arguments suggesting that this shouldn't matter, but I really am not convinced, if for no other reason than Romney has been crushing Obama among independents for months. Hell, I don't even really buy that there has been a 15-point swing towards Romney as these polls reflect. I simply can't imagine that there are really that many people who haven't made up their minds. I know the argument is that most of these polling firms are using a turnout model that is similar to the 2008 election. I don't buy that turnout model either. The question is how much does it change the polls? One thing I'm curious about, is if the media keeps telling us that the party identification doesn't matter why does CNN go out of their way before announcing their debate night snap polls that more Republicans tend to watch the debates than Democrats and so the numbers may not reflect the actual electorate. (I think they end up with a 1/3 each D/R/I on that specific poll.) Well, the party ID internals aren't really related to the turnout models. That's more the marked decrease in Republicans and the rise in independents. When a poll shows 40% of respondents were Democrats, 30% were Republican, and 30% were independents, it looks like the poll is oversampling Democrats and Independents and (if the outcome is about 50/50) also looks like independents overwhelmingly favor Romney. Now, there are a couple ways you can look at this. One is that pollsters are using methodologies that are oversampling Democrats. If they've changed their methods, there's a chance of this; the problem is most polls keep the same methods from election to election. Another explanation is that the demographics have changed such that the old methodologies are no longer accurate ways to gather samples; cell phones and land lines could be an explanation here. The problem is that cell phone polls tend to be more favorable to Obama, so that doesn't seem to explain it. There's also potential changes in response to phone calls, ad saturation, and overpolling, but that's a hell of a problem that crushes surveying in general. The most cogent explanation (in my opinion), is that the vitriolic nature of the U.S. has lowered partisan identification in both parties and increased the number of self-proclaimed "independents." Meanwhile many members of the Tea Party don't necessarily identify as Republican anymore, and thus independents lean Romney. Which explanation you pick probably depends a great deal on which candidate you want to win. We'll probably know which was right in retrospect, but only in retrospect. Edit: Then there's the likely/registered voter dichotomy, which is another kettle of fish. Not living in a swing state and never being called by a pollster I don't know the answer to this, but I thought I heard that some of the reputable polling firms don't actually ask which party you id with but it's based off of a set of questions? I know I heard that they do that to determine "Likely Voters" in the last couple of days. I could be way off base here and feel free to correct me. I *think* that they typically use self-reported measures of Democrat and Republican, though again it varies by poll. Asking questions to determine party ID means you are accenting various issues, which may influence how individuals respond due to priming, though there are probably methods to do that without priming. "Likely voters" are usually asked a separate set of questions similar to how you screen for health studies. I could be wrong on both points, I'm going off 538 and memories of a class a year ago with a political science/network science professor. Edit: I mean think about it. Party identification is in and of itself a valuable quantity for political scientists. Trying to herd people into a party ID reduces the usefulness of the data.
I suppose polling is the thing I'll learn more about going into the midterms. I've always been more interested in the policy/messaging myself. I suspect that with the rise of the new media that this poll stuff isn't going away any time soon.
|
On October 25 2012 12:14 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:09 Sermokala wrote:On October 25 2012 12:05 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? And that is simply contingent on the belief that fetuses aren't people. Lots of people disagree. Actually, as I argued a few pages back, it doesn't matter. Even if you accept that fetuses are people, it's a violation of a person's rights to force them to serve as an incubator. Just as you're not forced to donate blood/bone marrow/organs/etc to sustain other's lives (not even your family members), women should not be forced to (temporarily) donate their uteruses/blood/nutrients/etc to sustain another life. But is forcing someone into slavery better then murdering an innocent life? For one person its a huge problem and a large inconceivably bad situation. For the other its purely a death sentence. If you can't understand where the other side is coming from you shouldn't fight so hard against them on the issue. Is forcing you to donate one of your kidneys better than letting someone die?
No, but it's better than killing someone.
|
On October 25 2012 12:14 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:09 Sermokala wrote:On October 25 2012 12:05 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? And that is simply contingent on the belief that fetuses aren't people. Lots of people disagree. Actually, as I argued a few pages back, it doesn't matter. Even if you accept that fetuses are people, it's a violation of a person's rights to force them to serve as an incubator. Just as you're not forced to donate blood/bone marrow/organs/etc to sustain other's lives (not even your family members), women should not be forced to (temporarily) donate their uteruses/blood/nutrients/etc to sustain another life. But is forcing someone into slavery better then murdering an innocent life? For one person its a huge problem and a large inconceivably bad situation. For the other its purely a death sentence. If you can't understand where the other side is coming from you shouldn't fight so hard against them on the issue. wait, but the woman (except in cases of rape) agreed to get pregnant. you could look at that as sort of a deal b/w her and the potential baby as "if i get pregnant, i will carry you to completion". wouldnt that mean that the woman is violating that biological agreement/ killing someone through omission or w/e?
That's not true, if your using contraception correctly, I'm pretty sure your disagreeing with getting pregnant. And rape is the obvious example where your not agreeing to fucking anything like you pointed out.
However, what if we fixed this, by spreading sex education, and how to have safe healthy sex? I'm pretty sure we had this exact discussion two days ago. The problem is many conservatives are against sex education cause it promotes sex, as if it's some sin or something. 0.o
|
On October 25 2012 12:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution. Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule. Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights? Yet you already acknowledged that there is a distinction by using the word "temporary"; there is no temporary donation of blood/marrow/organs. It's not quite apples and oranges but it isn't far off.
Blood and marrow are replaced by the body. The point is, you'd consider a forced "donation" to be a huge violation of your rights, even if it doesn't cost you much in the long run (and pregnancy, by contrast, carries substantially greater costs than donating blood/marrow).
|
On October 25 2012 12:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution. Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule. Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights? Yet you already acknowledged that there is a distinction by using the word "temporary"; there is no temporary donation of blood/marrow/organs. It's not quite apples and oranges but it isn't far off.
No comparing a fetus to a child is apples and oranges.
|
On October 25 2012 12:14 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:09 Sermokala wrote:On October 25 2012 12:05 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? And that is simply contingent on the belief that fetuses aren't people. Lots of people disagree. Actually, as I argued a few pages back, it doesn't matter. Even if you accept that fetuses are people, it's a violation of a person's rights to force them to serve as an incubator. Just as you're not forced to donate blood/bone marrow/organs/etc to sustain other's lives (not even your family members), women should not be forced to (temporarily) donate their uteruses/blood/nutrients/etc to sustain another life. But is forcing someone into slavery better then murdering an innocent life? For one person its a huge problem and a large inconceivably bad situation. For the other its purely a death sentence. If you can't understand where the other side is coming from you shouldn't fight so hard against them on the issue. Is forcing you to donate one of your kidneys better than letting someone die?
Yes of course it is. However the government and society as a whole can't force someone to save another. they can and should stop them from killing another.
|
On October 25 2012 12:16 ey215 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 25 2012 12:04 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 11:58 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 25 2012 11:50 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 11:42 xDaunt wrote:On October 25 2012 11:37 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 11:29 xDaunt wrote:On October 25 2012 11:26 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 11:22 Jaaaaasper wrote:
[quote]
The fact the it came from fox makes it look unreliable to my eye, but Obama has a lead even in their poll And there it is... RCP has the polling firm listed as (D) next to it's name. That does mean what I think it means right? Reading comprehension isn't so good around here. Not only did Fox News not do the poll, but Fox News did not release the story.... Yep, I just knew someone would see "Fox" and assume it's FNC and claim bias. I am curious as to the internals of the poll though, can't seem to find them anywhere. Most of the polls that I have seen still have voter-ID internals way out of whack in favor of Obama. I have seen the arguments suggesting that this shouldn't matter, but I really am not convinced, if for no other reason than Romney has been crushing Obama among independents for months. Hell, I don't even really buy that there has been a 15-point swing towards Romney as these polls reflect. I simply can't imagine that there are really that many people who haven't made up their minds. I know the argument is that most of these polling firms are using a turnout model that is similar to the 2008 election. I don't buy that turnout model either. The question is how much does it change the polls? One thing I'm curious about, is if the media keeps telling us that the party identification doesn't matter why does CNN go out of their way before announcing their debate night snap polls that more Republicans tend to watch the debates than Democrats and so the numbers may not reflect the actual electorate. (I think they end up with a 1/3 each D/R/I on that specific poll.) Well, the party ID internals aren't really related to the turnout models. That's more the marked decrease in Republicans and the rise in independents. When a poll shows 40% of respondents were Democrats, 30% were Republican, and 30% were independents, it looks like the poll is oversampling Democrats and Independents and (if the outcome is about 50/50) also looks like independents overwhelmingly favor Romney. Now, there are a couple ways you can look at this. One is that pollsters are using methodologies that are oversampling Democrats. If they've changed their methods, there's a chance of this; the problem is most polls keep the same methods from election to election. Another explanation is that the demographics have changed such that the old methodologies are no longer accurate ways to gather samples; cell phones and land lines could be an explanation here. The problem is that cell phone polls tend to be more favorable to Obama, so that doesn't seem to explain it. There's also potential changes in response to phone calls, ad saturation, and overpolling, but that's a hell of a problem that crushes surveying in general. The most cogent explanation (in my opinion), is that the vitriolic nature of the U.S. has lowered partisan identification in both parties and increased the number of self-proclaimed "independents." Meanwhile many members of the Tea Party don't necessarily identify as Republican anymore, and thus independents lean Romney. Which explanation you pick probably depends a great deal on which candidate you want to win. We'll probably know which was right in retrospect, but only in retrospect. Edit: Then there's the likely/registered voter dichotomy, which is another kettle of fish. Not living in a swing state and never being called by a pollster I don't know the answer to this, but I thought I heard that some of the reputable polling firms don't actually ask which party you id with but it's based off of a set of questions? I know I heard that they do that to determine "Likely Voters" in the last couple of days. I could be way off base here and feel free to correct me. I *think* that they typically use self-reported measures of Democrat and Republican, though again it varies by poll. Asking questions to determine party ID means you are accenting various issues, which may influence how individuals respond due to priming, though there are probably methods to do that without priming. "Likely voters" are usually asked a separate set of questions similar to how you screen for health studies. I could be wrong on both points, I'm going off 538 and memories of a class a year ago with a political science/network science professor. Edit: I mean think about it. Party identification is in and of itself a valuable quantity for political scientists. Trying to herd people into a party ID reduces the usefulness of the data. I suppose polling is the thing I'll learn more about going into the midterms. I've always been more interested in the policy/messaging myself. I suspect that with the rise of the new media that this poll stuff isn't going away any time soon.
Once newspapers got here polling finally got big! And it'll be here even after the papers are dead.
Edit: I guess the other thing to think about with polls is that there are two kinds of polling firms: ones that want to get "scoops" and ones that want to get good predictions. The latter tend to produce a loooooot more polls that are a lot more reliable. Whenever you see a poll, try to see which kind of company it is.
|
On October 25 2012 12:15 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution. Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule. Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights? Thats not a valid comparison at all. By being an organ donar or not doesn't directly but instead indirectly effect the chance that you can save someone else's life. By choseing abortion you are directly making the effort to end the chance that a person has to live.
If someone was hooked up to your bloodstream and needed to stay attached to continue living, you have no obligation to continue sustaining them. Forcing you to keep sustaining them would be a violation of your rights. Yes, unplugging them ends their chance to live, but it's not your responsibility to keep them alive at cost to you in the first place.
|
On October 25 2012 12:16 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:14 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:09 Sermokala wrote:On October 25 2012 12:05 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? And that is simply contingent on the belief that fetuses aren't people. Lots of people disagree. Actually, as I argued a few pages back, it doesn't matter. Even if you accept that fetuses are people, it's a violation of a person's rights to force them to serve as an incubator. Just as you're not forced to donate blood/bone marrow/organs/etc to sustain other's lives (not even your family members), women should not be forced to (temporarily) donate their uteruses/blood/nutrients/etc to sustain another life. But is forcing someone into slavery better then murdering an innocent life? For one person its a huge problem and a large inconceivably bad situation. For the other its purely a death sentence. If you can't understand where the other side is coming from you shouldn't fight so hard against them on the issue. wait, but the woman (except in cases of rape) agreed to get pregnant. you could look at that as sort of a deal b/w her and the potential baby as "if i get pregnant, i will carry you to completion". wouldnt that mean that the woman is violating that biological agreement/ killing someone through omission or w/e? That's not true, if your using contraception correctly, I'm pretty sure your disagreeing with getting pregnant. And rape is the obvious example where your not agreeing to fucking anything like you pointed out. However, what if we fixed this, by spreading sex education, and how to have safe healthy sex? I'm pretty sure we had this exact discussion two days ago. The problem is many conservatives are against sex education cause it promotes sex, as if it's some sin or something. 0.o
i agree with sex ed... contraception is a bit more grey for me far as prevention goes. i mean, i know its cheap but i don't really want to be paying for what is essentially somebody's... recreation.
with proper education, people should know contraception is not 100%. however, by using it properly and doubling up (pill + condom), the chances are really, really low. the risk is there, you accept it and have sex knowing its there if you've been educated. in the case you do get pregnant, that was a risk you were willing to take, and the great RNG in the sky got you.
|
On October 25 2012 12:17 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution. Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule. Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights? Yet you already acknowledged that there is a distinction by using the word "temporary"; there is no temporary donation of blood/marrow/organs. It's not quite apples and oranges but it isn't far off. No comparing a fetus to a child is apples and oranges.
No it isn't.
Blood and marrow are replaced by the body. The point is, you'd consider a forced "donation" to be a huge violation of your rights, even if it doesn't cost you much in the long run (and pregnancy, by contrast, carries substantially greater costs than donating blood/marrow).
Not if there was a law that said "If you do X there's a chance you'll have to donate some blood/marrow/maybe a kidney" and X was the one thing in the world everyone wanted to do.
Except it isn't a law of man we're talking about here, it's a law of nature.
This analogy is getting you nowhere, it's just bad.
If someone was hooked up to your bloodstream and needed to stay attached to continue living, you have no obligation to continue sustaining them. Forcing you to keep sustaining them would be a violation of your rights. Yes, unplugging them ends their chance to live, but it's not your responsibility to keep them alive at cost to you in the first place.
Yeah, if you aren't responsible for their need for blood.
There's a slightly big element of the situation you're leaving out here.
|
On October 25 2012 12:17 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution. Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule. Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights? Yet you already acknowledged that there is a distinction by using the word "temporary"; there is no temporary donation of blood/marrow/organs. It's not quite apples and oranges but it isn't far off. No comparing a fetus to a child is apples and oranges.
Thats your opinion and you have a right to it. I however and a lot of other people believe that its wrong. And that point alone is the reason why there is so much fighting about it. There really isn't a way to get over that difference of opinion on the person hood debate.
|
On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution. Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule. Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights?
Lets put it this way, where exactly does the Constitution grant you bodily autonomy? If it did then all of those things would not be allowed, but they are.
|
Are pro-lifers here against sex ed and contraceptives?
|
On October 25 2012 12:20 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:16 BlueBird. wrote:On October 25 2012 12:14 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:09 Sermokala wrote:On October 25 2012 12:05 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? And that is simply contingent on the belief that fetuses aren't people. Lots of people disagree. Actually, as I argued a few pages back, it doesn't matter. Even if you accept that fetuses are people, it's a violation of a person's rights to force them to serve as an incubator. Just as you're not forced to donate blood/bone marrow/organs/etc to sustain other's lives (not even your family members), women should not be forced to (temporarily) donate their uteruses/blood/nutrients/etc to sustain another life. But is forcing someone into slavery better then murdering an innocent life? For one person its a huge problem and a large inconceivably bad situation. For the other its purely a death sentence. If you can't understand where the other side is coming from you shouldn't fight so hard against them on the issue. wait, but the woman (except in cases of rape) agreed to get pregnant. you could look at that as sort of a deal b/w her and the potential baby as "if i get pregnant, i will carry you to completion". wouldnt that mean that the woman is violating that biological agreement/ killing someone through omission or w/e? That's not true, if your using contraception correctly, I'm pretty sure your disagreeing with getting pregnant. And rape is the obvious example where your not agreeing to fucking anything like you pointed out. However, what if we fixed this, by spreading sex education, and how to have safe healthy sex? I'm pretty sure we had this exact discussion two days ago. The problem is many conservatives are against sex education cause it promotes sex, as if it's some sin or something. 0.o i agree with sex ed... contraception is a bit more grey for me far as prevention goes. i mean, i know its cheap but i don't really want to be paying for what is essentially somebody's... recreation. with proper education, people should know contraception is not 100%. however, by using it properly and doubling up (pill + condom), the chances are really, really low. the risk is there, you accept it and have sex knowing its there if you've been educated. in the case you do get pregnant, that was a risk you were willing to take, and the great RNG in the sky got you.
Yet funding contraception for everyone might bring down abortions. If abortions are really that evil, wouldn't that help? Your tax dollars go towards other recreational things, like the olympics, or local stadiums, etc. In this case your tax dollars would go to preventing unwanted pregnancy, therefore preventing the "Murder" of "fetuses"(i completely disagree, but whatever) So in your context, you'd prefer to just not pay taxes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
