EPTin the case of job creators not creating jobs, clear case of lack of incentives and government inefficency.
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 1102
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
in the case of job creators not creating jobs, clear case of lack of incentives and government inefficency. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On October 30 2012 03:01 Adreme wrote: If the state isnt in contention then there really is no reason to vote beyond of course civic duty and all that and is part of reason turnout is horrible. You've obviously never seen an actual ballot in your life. Of course, if you're under or recently turned 18, there's nothing wrong with that. | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On October 30 2012 03:09 xDaunt wrote: Saying that the EC system discourages voting is silly. When people vote during presidential elections, they aren't just voting for the president. There are always many, many other issues on the ballot ranging from local elections to state constitutional amendments. If people aren't voting, it's not because of the EC system. It's because they are lazy and disengaged. Truth. I always enjoy the, "I'm protesting the system so I'm not voting." Ok dumb ass, enjoy having no representation. Politicians care about voters, not people who aren't voting. | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On October 30 2012 03:15 oneofthem wrote: in the case of voters not voting, clear case of laziness and disengagement. in the case of job creators not creating jobs, clear case of lack of incentives and government inefficency. What a horrible analogy you're trying to make. There is no relation between those two things. | ||
|
Swazi Spring
United States415 Posts
Democrats tried frantically to say that it didn't matter and that Democrats were only being oversampled, because Obama was up in the polls and so more people associated themselves with the Democratic Party. Yet, Romney is now dominating in the polls by a wide margin and yet Democrats are STILL being oversampled. If the Democratic Party's excuse for being oversampled is true, then this would not be the case. Anyone care to elaborate on this? User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On October 30 2012 03:15 oneofthem wrote: in the case of voters not voting, clear case of laziness and disengagement. in the case of job creators not creating jobs, clear case of lack of incentives and government inefficency. Ummm, lack of incentives? The incentive for your business to make more money or for your investment to reap profit is a pretty strong incentive. If a company has a greater demand for their product, they are going to hire more people, they aren't going to sit on their hands and not make more money. If jobs aren't being created, it is simply because creating those jobs would result in greater inefficiency and losses. The government can't dictate the health of the economy, they can only support it with artificially low interest rates and deficit spending.... And we are doing both to a very large degree. People really view economics in a strange way... I read things like this and my head spins. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 30 2012 03:24 oneofthem wrote: the brilliant spirit of my observation trumps any problems in picking the actual examples. Several conservative posters have been banned for "observations" of such quality. Just saying. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 30 2012 03:21 Swazi Spring wrote: As we all know, Romney has been absolutely destroying Obama in all of the polls for the past month. However, just two months ago, President Kardashian was actually in the lead. When President Kardashian was in the lead, it was revealed that Democrats were being oversampled by a wide-margin. Democrats tried frantically to say that it didn't matter and that Democrats were only being oversampled, because Obama was up in the polls and so more people associated themselves with the Democratic Party. Yet, Romney is now dominating in the polls by a wide margin and yet Democrats are STILL being oversampled. If the Democratic Party's excuse for being oversampled is true, then this would not be the case. Anyone care to elaborate on this? Parroting Rush Limbaugh is not going to get you very far around here. I like Rush, and you are raising a legitimate point. Just clean up your posting. | ||
|
Swazi Spring
United States415 Posts
On October 30 2012 03:27 xDaunt wrote: Parroting Rush Limbaugh is not going to get you very far around here. I like Rush, and you are raising a legitimate point. Just clean up your posting. Did "President Kardashian" really start with Rush? I know he's said it before, but it's a pretty common name I hear people call Obama. I'm not really sure where it originated though. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On October 30 2012 03:21 Swazi Spring wrote: As we all know, Romney has been absolutely destroying Obama in all of the polls for the past month. However, just two months ago, President Kardashian was actually in the lead. When President Kardashian was in the lead, it was revealed that Democrats were being oversampled by a wide-margin. Democrats tried frantically to say that it didn't matter and that Democrats were only being oversampled, because Obama was up in the polls and so more people associated themselves with the Democratic Party. Yet, Romney is now dominating in the polls by a wide margin and yet Democrats are STILL being oversampled. If the Democratic Party's excuse for being oversampled is true, then this would not be the case. Anyone care to elaborate on this? Welcome back from Disneyland. I'm not quite sure where you're getting these numbers from. RCP does show Romney having made some progress post-Denver, but Obama is maintaining leads in the states that matter. I disagree with their averaging everything methodology, but that's whatever. Fox News is happily cherry picking polls here and there that show Romney progress, though. I tend to ignore those and go with my man Nate Silver. Disagree with his methodology, but I challenge you to find any other one comparable. But the real question here is... what do these "liberal" groups stand to make from skewing the numbers? They lose credibility if they're wrong. And if indeed and in fact there is a huge Republican majority, who watches these liberal news channels and consumes this communist media? How are MSNBC CNN and the like profitable if they're all bullshit and there's a lot of Republican voters who wouldn't touch them with a stick? LOL BACK TO DISNEYLAND WITH YOU. | ||
|
Zaqwert
United States411 Posts
At this point it's not outlier data. Either they are on to something (Romney with a very solid lead) or their methodology is severely flawed. In about a week they'll either be able to do a big "told ya so" or "oops" | ||
|
farvacola
United States18870 Posts
On October 30 2012 03:38 Zaqwert wrote: Gallup has shown Romney up 5-7 points going on 2 weeks now. At this point it's not outlier data. Either they are on to something (Romney with a very solid lead) or their methodology is severely flawed. In about a week they'll either be able to do a big "told ya so" or "oops" Or the scope of reasonable conclusion given the data of a single poll is more narrow than you seem to think. In other words, Gallup can show Romney winning, have Obama win the election, and not have to say "told ya so" or "oops", at least not to anyone reasonable. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On October 30 2012 03:41 xDaunt wrote: Again, I don't think that RCP can be relied upon for anything other than showing trends in the polling. I really think that the failure of the polls to properly account for voter turnout in terms of party ID is a fatal flaw. We'll know soon enough, though. I think all you can really glean from polls is trends, but even then you have to look across the board across all the polls because every poll seems to have a different methodology that skews the results. For example, Obama does better in polls with live calls, versus robo-polling. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On October 30 2012 03:35 ticklishmusic wrote: But the real question here is... what do these "liberal" groups stand to make from skewing the numbers? They lose credibility if they're wrong. And if indeed and in fact there is a huge Republican majority, who watches these liberal news channels and consumes this communist media? How are MSNBC CNN and the like profitable if they're all bullshit and there's a lot of Republican voters who wouldn't touch them with a stick? First, the idea that any liberal loses credibility when they are wrong is laughable. Second, I also wonder how in the world MSNBC can possibly stay afloat. Oh, wait... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/21/stimulus-funds-spent-obama-ads-olbermann-maddow/?page=all | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 30 2012 03:47 Defacer wrote: I think all you can really glean from polls is trends, but even then you have to look across the board across all the polls because every poll seems to have a different methodology that skews the results. For example, Obama does better in polls with live calls, versus robo-polling. Also, I'm not even sure that I buy the "trends" towards Romney that most polls are reflecting. Let's say Romney wins. Are we really to believe that there was actually a 10-15 point swing in opinion towards Romney over the final six weeks? I really don't see how that many people could have been truly undecided. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On October 30 2012 03:48 Kaitlin wrote: First, the idea that any liberal loses credibility when they are wrong is laughable. Second, I also wonder how in the world MSNBC can possibly stay afloat. Oh, wait... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/21/stimulus-funds-spent-obama-ads-olbermann-maddow/?page=all Hey, that's a gross generalization. I admit when I'm wrong about things all the time. I can't speak about the reliability of the article, but 500K is pocket change to a major media company. Notice at the end thery mention GWB doing a similar thing. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On October 30 2012 03:51 ticklishmusic wrote: Hey, that's a gross generalization. I admit when I'm wrong about things all the time. I can't speak about the reliability of the article, but 500K is pocket change to a major media company. Notice at the end thery mention GWB doing a similar thing. They also have those neat-o prison shows that Olbermann liked so much. MSNBC isn't even a full time "news" channel, and of course I use the term "news" liberally. | ||
| ||
