EPTPresident Obama Re-Elected - Page 1203
| 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 | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
| ||
|
Maxyim
430 Posts
On November 06 2012 07:40 Adreme wrote: Of course they are going to be "leaking" internal polls that show them winning, they arent going to suddenly the night before the election say "yes you guys are right we are pretty much doomed". You are right; in that case they would simply withhold the info and pray to their gods. Much like the Obama campaign is doing right now, I would think.  | ||
KwarK
United States43263 Posts
On November 06 2012 07:39 Maxyim wrote: Sure, if you completely discount that modern-day "external" pollsters have their own political agenda. In this case; I would assume that Mitt's internal polling does not needlessly oversample democrats. An ad-hominem attack on a source of info is a rather poor argument against said info, don't you think? The implication is that if it is printed exclusively in media with a low threshold of journalism then there is something wrong with the info itself. The argument makes sense. People don't check every rumour themselves, it's simply not possible to fact check everything, instead you have a system of media outlets of varying integrity which you employ to present the news to you. If only the garbage ones pick up what you'd think would be a big story then that tells you a lot. | ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
| ||
|
Maxyim
430 Posts
On November 06 2012 07:44 KwarK wrote: The implication is that if it is printed exclusively in media with a low threshold of journalism then there is something wrong with the info itself. The argument makes sense. People don't check every rumour themselves, it's simply not possible to fact check everything, instead you have a system of media outlets of varying integrity which you employ to present the news to you. If only the garbage ones pick up what you'd think would be a big story then that tells you a lot. Normally I would agree, but this rationale sadly does not work with respect to politics as the mainstream media (the implied "high threshold of journalism" party) has an agenda to reelect Democrats. In this case, the truth of things becomes less clear-cut, and it is as or more likely than not that "fringe" news providers are carrying legitimate info. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the only way for romney to win would be incredible turnout from whites and lower than expected turnout of minorities. given that romney hugely fucked up ohio by his auto industry comments i'm seeing a hard case for this. | ||
p4NDemik
United States13896 Posts
On November 06 2012 07:46 Praetorial wrote: So, how large are the bets you guys have on this election? I suppose my vote is the only thing of value I'm putting on the line. I live in Kentucky though, so its worth like one one-millionth of what a vote across the river is worth. If someone gave me 10:1 odds I might think about betting money on Romney though. If I was a betting man, and I'm not. | ||
|
AsnSensation
Germany24009 Posts
| ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
On November 06 2012 07:48 Maxyim wrote: Normally I would agree, but this rationale sadly does not work with respect to politics as the mainstream media (the implied "high threshold of journalism" party) has an agenda to reelect Democrats. In this case, the truth of things becomes less clear-cut, and it is as or more likely than not that "fringe" news providers are carrying legitimate info. It definitely does surprise me when people like this come out of the woodwork. I always assume that they're more or less fictional boogeymen, and/or ones that do appear are usually trolls. This dude sounds sincere. But he might be trolling. Either way, it's kinda funny. What reason could there possbily be for media outlets to collude together and conspire in back rooms to elect democrats? Why? Why would they do that? | ||
|
p4NDemik
United States13896 Posts
On November 06 2012 07:55 AsnSensation wrote: as an ignorant european, how does the hurrican affect the elections and who's the favourite? Obama is a heavy favorite according to most polls and statisticians that dissect them. The mainstream media is telling everyone it is very close because it benefits them to do so and it avoids depressing turnout nationwide. President Obama's handling of Hurricane Sandy has been speculated as being a minor advantage or a non-factor depending on which article you are reading. Karl Rove is saying it's a major factor, "the October Surprise," so-to-say, but the truth of the matter is President Obama had a solid hold of the electoral race even before the storm made landfall. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On November 06 2012 07:46 Praetorial wrote: So, how large are the bets you guys have on this election? 10 shares of Obama stock on etrade. | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
1) 3rd party president (non republic, non democratic, ones that dont get attention) 2) open non-christian president (muslim, atheist, hindu, etc.) i wonder because i'd vote for ron paul if i was voting after studying his plans and views more clearly. however i dont bother voting(studying) because if i wasn't voting for republican or democrat, my vote probably wouldnt matter 98% - 99.99% of the time. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
Editor's note: David Frum, a CNN contributor, is a contributing editor at Newsweek and The Daily Beast. He is the author of seven books, including a new novel, "Patriots," and was a special assistant to President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2002. Washington (CNN) -- When the polls close in most other democracies, the results are known almost instantly. Ballots are usually counted accurately and rapidly, and nobody disputes the result. Complaints of voter fraud are rare; complaints of voter suppression are rarer still. The kind of battle we are seeing in Florida -- where Democrats and Republicans will go to court over whether early voting should span 14 days or eight -- simply does not happen in Germany, Canada, Britain or France. The ballot uncertainty that convulsed the nation after Florida's vote in 2000 could not happen in Mexico or Brazil. Almost everywhere else, elections are run by impartial voting agencies. In France, elections are the responsibility of the Ministry of the Interior, which establishes places and hours of voting, prints ballots (France still uses paper) and counts the votes. In Germany, an independent federal returning officer oversees a complex state and federal voting system. In Canada, federal elections are managed by a specialized agency, Elections Canada. Mexico, emerging from a sad history of electoral manipulation, created in the 1990s a respected independent agency, the Federal Electoral Institute. Brazil has nationwide electronic voting, producing instantaneous, uncontested results. No voting system is perfect. Britain has faced allegations of chronic fraud in absentee balloting. As I write, Lithuanian politics are convulsed by allegations of vote buying by one of its political parties. Mod edit: Don't copypasta entire articles. Observe fair use. Rest of the article can be seen on CNN.com Shit, sorry. | ||
|
NeMeSiS3
Canada2972 Posts
Let's hope my faith pays off. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
Am tempted a bit to close it now and take the profit, you never know what happens. It all comes down to ohio, i give florida and virginia to romney atm and ohio to obama but an upset could still happen. | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
Things need to go back to 1800, when insults were at their peak. Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." In return, Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father." along with being a weakling atheist libertine coward. http://articles.cnn.com/2008-08-22/living/mf.campaign.slurs.slogans_1_jefferson-family-sally-hemings-vice-president-jefferson?_s=PM:LIVING | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
| ||
|
EtherealDeath
United States8366 Posts
On November 06 2012 08:20 DannyJ wrote: Thank god this boring election campaign will end. Things need to go back to 1800, when insults were at their peak. Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." In return, Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father." along with being a weakling atheist libertine coward. http://articles.cnn.com/2008-08-22/living/mf.campaign.slurs.slogans_1_jefferson-family-sally-hemings-vice-president-jefferson?_s=PM:LIVING Hahaha that's some good shit. | ||
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
On November 06 2012 07:55 AsnSensation wrote: I think most people would say it benefited Obama more. He got to ignore campaigning for several days while dealing with disaster relief, demonstrating his crisis management, care for the victims, and other presidential duties. He had actual things to be doing while Romney was twiddling his thumbs and just trying to show support. Governor Christie (NJ) who is republican and a frequent critic of Obama has praised Obama's handling, basically suggesting that he believes Obama will win and is looking towards the future, wanting to look good in the future for having come together to work with the opposite side in a time of trouble. Mayor Bloomberg (NYC) has done much the same. Bottom line, reinforced Obama's lead and front-runner status.as an ignorant european, how does the hurrican affect the elections and who's the favourite? | ||
|
whatevername
471 Posts
On November 06 2012 08:00 p4NDemik wrote: The poll methodology is open to the public, and we have this thing called the internet-- so theres no excuse for anyone here having not opened up the polls and checking out who they asked, relative to who they polled in 2008, and 2008's actual turnout rate. Virtually all the polls ask more democrats as a percent of the population than they did in 2008, despite a decline in the democrats percentage of the country. In some cases they ask more democrats than Obama even had in support in that area before. Theres plenty of biased statistics out there, which is precisely the reason the Romney camp is fairly sure there going to win and the Obama camp is equally sure Obama will win. They have there own internal polling and it differs from the constructed polls of various pollsters.Obama is a heavy favorite according to most polls and statisticians that dissect them. The mainstream media is telling everyone it is very close because it benefits them to do so and it avoids depressing turnout nationwide. President Obama's handling of Hurricane Sandy has been speculated as being a minor advantage or a non-factor depending on which article you are reading. Karl Rove is saying it's a major factor, "the October Surprise," so-to-say, but the truth of the matter is President Obama had a solid hold of the electoral race even before the storm made landfall. | ||
| ||
