• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 07:56
CEST 13:56
KST 20:56
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
2v2 & SC: Evo Complete: Weekend Double Feature0Team Liquid Map Contest #21 - Presented by Monster Energy8uThermal's 2v2 Tour: $15,000 Main Event17Serral wins EWC 202549Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 202510
Community News
Weekly Cups (Aug 4-10): MaxPax wins a triple6SC2's Safe House 2 - October 18 & 195Weekly Cups (Jul 28-Aug 3): herO doubles up6LiuLi Cup - August 2025 Tournaments7[BSL 2025] H2 - Team Wars, Weeklies & SB Ladder10
StarCraft 2
General
2v2 & SC: Evo Complete: Weekend Double Feature #1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Is there a way to see if 2 accounts=1 person? uThermal's 2v2 Tour: $15,000 Main Event RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread
Tourneys
RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series LiuLi Cup - August 2025 Tournaments SEL Masters #5 - Korea vs Russia (SC Evo) Enki Epic Series #5 - TaeJa vs Classic (SC Evo) Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament
Strategy
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 486 Watch the Skies Mutation # 485 Death from Below Mutation # 484 Magnetic Pull Mutation #239 Bad Weather
Brood War
General
BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ ASL 20 HYPE VIDEO! Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced BW AKA finder tool ASL20 Pre-season Tier List ranking!
Tourneys
Cosmonarchy Pro Showmatches KCM 2025 Season 3 [Megathread] Daily Proleagues Small VOD Thread 2.0
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Fighting Spirit mining rates [G] Mineral Boosting Muta micro map competition
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Total Annihilation Server - TAForever Beyond All Reason [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok)
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread The Games Industry And ATVI The year 2050
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Movie Discussion! Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 Formula 1 Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Gtx660 graphics card replacement Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
The Biochemical Cost of Gami…
TrAiDoS
[Girl blog} My fema…
artosisisthebest
Sharpening the Filtration…
frozenclaw
ASL S20 English Commentary…
namkraft
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 808 users

President Obama Re-Elected - Page 590

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 588 589 590 591 592 1504 Next
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
Mazer
Profile Joined April 2008
Canada1086 Posts
September 26 2012 14:33 GMT
#11781
On September 26 2012 11:55 kmillz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 26 2012 11:36 ticklishmusic wrote:
On September 26 2012 11:19 kmillz wrote:
I think what you (Defacer) said has some merit, but it seems Karl Rove isn't quite ready to give up on Romney:


Karl Rove

This Too Shall Pass, but What Follows Is Crucial
Romney has had a bad week, but he can recover—if he tells voters more clearly what he would do as president.

It's over. Gov. Mitt Romney's statements last week about the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, followed by the release this week of a video of Mr. Romney at a May fundraiser, have brought the 2012 election to an early end.

At least that is what you'd take away from some pundits. But this is a classic example of the commentariat investing moments with more meaning than they deserve.

Mr. Romney's comments about Americans who don't pay taxes were, as he admitted during a Monday press conference, "inelegant." But every campaign has its awkward moments that the media magnify. Mr. Obama had his after saying on July 13, "You didn't build that." For a while thereafter, Team Obama could do little right. Then it passed.

This moment, too, will pass for Mr. Romney. More important, the past week's events have not significantly altered the contours of the race. A month ago, Gallup had Mr. Obama at 45% and Mr. Romney at 47%. On Wednesday, Gallup reported 47% for Obama, 46% for Romney. A month ago Rasmussen said it was 45% for Mr. Obama, 43% for Mr. Romney. In its Wednesday poll, Rasmussen reported 46% for Obama, 47% for Romney.

Presidential races can look one way now but much differently on Election Day. In mid-September 1980, President Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan 44% to 40% in the Gallup poll. By late October, Reagan had slumped to 39% in Gallup, while Mr. Carter had risen to 47%. Reagan won by nine points.

As for the here-and-now, one key number to watch is Mr. Obama's vote share. In the past month, there have been 83 national polls and daily tracking surveys. Mr. Obama reached 50% in just nine and his average was 47%. That is bad news for an incumbent when attitudes about the No. 1 issue—the economy—are decidedly sour.

This isn't to suggest the Romney campaign doesn't have big challenges. But both camps do.

In the two weeks before the presidential debates begin, Mr. Romney must define more clearly what he would do as president. In spelling out his five-point plan for the middle class, he'll have to deepen awareness of how each element would help families in concrete, practical ways, and offer optimism for renewed prosperity.

Mr. Romney and his team (and supporters) must also steel themselves for more brutal attacks. The Florida fundraising video will not likely be the last surprise. The Romney campaign has largely refused to respond to attacks as a waste of time and resources. But in politics, sometimes the counter punch is stronger than the punch.

There's little tolerance among Republican donors, activists and talking heads for more statements by Mr. Romney that the media can depict as gaffes. But concerns about avoiding missteps must not cause Mr. Romney to favor cautious and bland. To win, he'll need to be bold and forceful as he offers a compelling agenda of conservative reform.

Mr. Obama's challenges may be more daunting. His strategy hasn't worked. Team Obama planned to use its big financial edge to bury Mr. Romney under negative ads over the summer. From April 15 to Labor Day, they spent an estimated $215 million on TV. But this was more than offset by conservative groups (principally American Crossroads, which I helped found). While Mr. Obama drained his coffers his own negatives climbed, and Mr. Romney partially repaired his image with voters.

Mr. Obama needs a different strategy, but his team seems stubbornly focused merely on disqualifying Mitt Romney by whatever argument or means necessary. Yet as Rahm Emanuel has repeated for most of the year, Mr. Obama must, as he put it on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sept. 2, "lay out an agenda and a clear vision of the next four years" or he'll lose.

The blunt fact is that Mr. Obama's economic policies are still not working. And in a tacit declaration that they won't, the Federal Reserve has announced a third round of quantitative easing. Team Obama realizes this is a serious indictment of its handling of the economy, so it is intensifying attacks on Mr. Romney as an economic royalist.

The campaign's next likely inflection point will be the debates, which start Oct. 3. Both candidates will be under intense pressure. Mr. Romney, a skilled debater, must reassure voters he's up to the job of being president. Fluid and agile, Mr. Obama will be expected to command each encounter. If he doesn't, polls may slowly shift against him.


I'm sorry, I can't take any article that cites "You didn't build that" as a gaffe seriously. It's pretty clearly a quotation out of context.

Anyways, can you post the link for this article?


http://www.rove.com/articles/419

It only cited the "You didn't build that" gaffe to say that, while Obama supporters may deny it, it was a small blow to Obama, similarly to how the "47%" gaffe is a small blow to Romney, both were not very tactful, and that Romney's 47% gaffe will pass over time (which is the whole point of the article) and not be game-ending, just as Obama's gaffe did not totally screw him over.


Calling the two incidents 'gaffes' as though they were somehow equivalent is complete bullshit. Anyone with a brain understood exactly what both people were talking about when they heard the full clips. Obama got taken out of context (which was then abused to the max for gain). Mitt showed his true colours and took a dump on half of Americans (it did not need to be spun in any way).

If the two 'gaffes' ultimately result in similar hits in the polls then it really is an indicator of how terrible American politics are.
Biff The Understudy
Profile Blog Joined February 2008
France7890 Posts
September 26 2012 14:39 GMT
#11782
On September 26 2012 23:33 Mazer wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 26 2012 11:55 kmillz wrote:
On September 26 2012 11:36 ticklishmusic wrote:
On September 26 2012 11:19 kmillz wrote:
I think what you (Defacer) said has some merit, but it seems Karl Rove isn't quite ready to give up on Romney:


Karl Rove

This Too Shall Pass, but What Follows Is Crucial
Romney has had a bad week, but he can recover—if he tells voters more clearly what he would do as president.

It's over. Gov. Mitt Romney's statements last week about the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, followed by the release this week of a video of Mr. Romney at a May fundraiser, have brought the 2012 election to an early end.

At least that is what you'd take away from some pundits. But this is a classic example of the commentariat investing moments with more meaning than they deserve.

Mr. Romney's comments about Americans who don't pay taxes were, as he admitted during a Monday press conference, "inelegant." But every campaign has its awkward moments that the media magnify. Mr. Obama had his after saying on July 13, "You didn't build that." For a while thereafter, Team Obama could do little right. Then it passed.

This moment, too, will pass for Mr. Romney. More important, the past week's events have not significantly altered the contours of the race. A month ago, Gallup had Mr. Obama at 45% and Mr. Romney at 47%. On Wednesday, Gallup reported 47% for Obama, 46% for Romney. A month ago Rasmussen said it was 45% for Mr. Obama, 43% for Mr. Romney. In its Wednesday poll, Rasmussen reported 46% for Obama, 47% for Romney.

Presidential races can look one way now but much differently on Election Day. In mid-September 1980, President Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan 44% to 40% in the Gallup poll. By late October, Reagan had slumped to 39% in Gallup, while Mr. Carter had risen to 47%. Reagan won by nine points.

As for the here-and-now, one key number to watch is Mr. Obama's vote share. In the past month, there have been 83 national polls and daily tracking surveys. Mr. Obama reached 50% in just nine and his average was 47%. That is bad news for an incumbent when attitudes about the No. 1 issue—the economy—are decidedly sour.

This isn't to suggest the Romney campaign doesn't have big challenges. But both camps do.

In the two weeks before the presidential debates begin, Mr. Romney must define more clearly what he would do as president. In spelling out his five-point plan for the middle class, he'll have to deepen awareness of how each element would help families in concrete, practical ways, and offer optimism for renewed prosperity.

Mr. Romney and his team (and supporters) must also steel themselves for more brutal attacks. The Florida fundraising video will not likely be the last surprise. The Romney campaign has largely refused to respond to attacks as a waste of time and resources. But in politics, sometimes the counter punch is stronger than the punch.

There's little tolerance among Republican donors, activists and talking heads for more statements by Mr. Romney that the media can depict as gaffes. But concerns about avoiding missteps must not cause Mr. Romney to favor cautious and bland. To win, he'll need to be bold and forceful as he offers a compelling agenda of conservative reform.

Mr. Obama's challenges may be more daunting. His strategy hasn't worked. Team Obama planned to use its big financial edge to bury Mr. Romney under negative ads over the summer. From April 15 to Labor Day, they spent an estimated $215 million on TV. But this was more than offset by conservative groups (principally American Crossroads, which I helped found). While Mr. Obama drained his coffers his own negatives climbed, and Mr. Romney partially repaired his image with voters.

Mr. Obama needs a different strategy, but his team seems stubbornly focused merely on disqualifying Mitt Romney by whatever argument or means necessary. Yet as Rahm Emanuel has repeated for most of the year, Mr. Obama must, as he put it on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sept. 2, "lay out an agenda and a clear vision of the next four years" or he'll lose.

The blunt fact is that Mr. Obama's economic policies are still not working. And in a tacit declaration that they won't, the Federal Reserve has announced a third round of quantitative easing. Team Obama realizes this is a serious indictment of its handling of the economy, so it is intensifying attacks on Mr. Romney as an economic royalist.

The campaign's next likely inflection point will be the debates, which start Oct. 3. Both candidates will be under intense pressure. Mr. Romney, a skilled debater, must reassure voters he's up to the job of being president. Fluid and agile, Mr. Obama will be expected to command each encounter. If he doesn't, polls may slowly shift against him.


I'm sorry, I can't take any article that cites "You didn't build that" as a gaffe seriously. It's pretty clearly a quotation out of context.

Anyways, can you post the link for this article?


http://www.rove.com/articles/419

It only cited the "You didn't build that" gaffe to say that, while Obama supporters may deny it, it was a small blow to Obama, similarly to how the "47%" gaffe is a small blow to Romney, both were not very tactful, and that Romney's 47% gaffe will pass over time (which is the whole point of the article) and not be game-ending, just as Obama's gaffe did not totally screw him over.


Calling the two incidents 'gaffes' as though they were somehow equivalent is complete bullshit. Anyone with a brain understood exactly what both people were talking about when they heard the full clips. Obama got taken out of context (which was then abused to the max for gain). Mitt showed his true colours and took a dump on half of Americans (it did not need to be spun in any way).

If the two 'gaffes' ultimately result in similar hits in the polls then it really is an indicator of how terrible American politics are.

I don't understand why people try to defend Romney on this one. He said what he really thought. You can agree with him, or you can find it plain disgusting, but trying to minnimize it as a "gaffe" doesn't make sense.

It's funny, I remember Bush saying to a group of billionaire "people call you the elite, I call you my base". What is very surprising is that Republicans get more than 1 or 2% votes. That's what weight the interests they represent in the demographic.

The fellow who is out to burn things up is the counterpart of the fool who thinks he can save the world. The world needs neither to be burned up nor to be saved. The world is, we are. Transients, if we buck it; here to stay if we accept it. ~H.Miller
kmillz
Profile Joined August 2010
United States1548 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-09-26 16:06:21
September 26 2012 16:01 GMT
#11783
On September 26 2012 23:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 26 2012 23:33 Mazer wrote:
On September 26 2012 11:55 kmillz wrote:
On September 26 2012 11:36 ticklishmusic wrote:
On September 26 2012 11:19 kmillz wrote:
I think what you (Defacer) said has some merit, but it seems Karl Rove isn't quite ready to give up on Romney:


Karl Rove

This Too Shall Pass, but What Follows Is Crucial
Romney has had a bad week, but he can recover—if he tells voters more clearly what he would do as president.

It's over. Gov. Mitt Romney's statements last week about the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, followed by the release this week of a video of Mr. Romney at a May fundraiser, have brought the 2012 election to an early end.

At least that is what you'd take away from some pundits. But this is a classic example of the commentariat investing moments with more meaning than they deserve.

Mr. Romney's comments about Americans who don't pay taxes were, as he admitted during a Monday press conference, "inelegant." But every campaign has its awkward moments that the media magnify. Mr. Obama had his after saying on July 13, "You didn't build that." For a while thereafter, Team Obama could do little right. Then it passed.

This moment, too, will pass for Mr. Romney. More important, the past week's events have not significantly altered the contours of the race. A month ago, Gallup had Mr. Obama at 45% and Mr. Romney at 47%. On Wednesday, Gallup reported 47% for Obama, 46% for Romney. A month ago Rasmussen said it was 45% for Mr. Obama, 43% for Mr. Romney. In its Wednesday poll, Rasmussen reported 46% for Obama, 47% for Romney.

Presidential races can look one way now but much differently on Election Day. In mid-September 1980, President Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan 44% to 40% in the Gallup poll. By late October, Reagan had slumped to 39% in Gallup, while Mr. Carter had risen to 47%. Reagan won by nine points.

As for the here-and-now, one key number to watch is Mr. Obama's vote share. In the past month, there have been 83 national polls and daily tracking surveys. Mr. Obama reached 50% in just nine and his average was 47%. That is bad news for an incumbent when attitudes about the No. 1 issue—the economy—are decidedly sour.

This isn't to suggest the Romney campaign doesn't have big challenges. But both camps do.

In the two weeks before the presidential debates begin, Mr. Romney must define more clearly what he would do as president. In spelling out his five-point plan for the middle class, he'll have to deepen awareness of how each element would help families in concrete, practical ways, and offer optimism for renewed prosperity.

Mr. Romney and his team (and supporters) must also steel themselves for more brutal attacks. The Florida fundraising video will not likely be the last surprise. The Romney campaign has largely refused to respond to attacks as a waste of time and resources. But in politics, sometimes the counter punch is stronger than the punch.

There's little tolerance among Republican donors, activists and talking heads for more statements by Mr. Romney that the media can depict as gaffes. But concerns about avoiding missteps must not cause Mr. Romney to favor cautious and bland. To win, he'll need to be bold and forceful as he offers a compelling agenda of conservative reform.

Mr. Obama's challenges may be more daunting. His strategy hasn't worked. Team Obama planned to use its big financial edge to bury Mr. Romney under negative ads over the summer. From April 15 to Labor Day, they spent an estimated $215 million on TV. But this was more than offset by conservative groups (principally American Crossroads, which I helped found). While Mr. Obama drained his coffers his own negatives climbed, and Mr. Romney partially repaired his image with voters.

Mr. Obama needs a different strategy, but his team seems stubbornly focused merely on disqualifying Mitt Romney by whatever argument or means necessary. Yet as Rahm Emanuel has repeated for most of the year, Mr. Obama must, as he put it on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sept. 2, "lay out an agenda and a clear vision of the next four years" or he'll lose.

The blunt fact is that Mr. Obama's economic policies are still not working. And in a tacit declaration that they won't, the Federal Reserve has announced a third round of quantitative easing. Team Obama realizes this is a serious indictment of its handling of the economy, so it is intensifying attacks on Mr. Romney as an economic royalist.

The campaign's next likely inflection point will be the debates, which start Oct. 3. Both candidates will be under intense pressure. Mr. Romney, a skilled debater, must reassure voters he's up to the job of being president. Fluid and agile, Mr. Obama will be expected to command each encounter. If he doesn't, polls may slowly shift against him.


I'm sorry, I can't take any article that cites "You didn't build that" as a gaffe seriously. It's pretty clearly a quotation out of context.

Anyways, can you post the link for this article?


http://www.rove.com/articles/419

It only cited the "You didn't build that" gaffe to say that, while Obama supporters may deny it, it was a small blow to Obama, similarly to how the "47%" gaffe is a small blow to Romney, both were not very tactful, and that Romney's 47% gaffe will pass over time (which is the whole point of the article) and not be game-ending, just as Obama's gaffe did not totally screw him over.


Calling the two incidents 'gaffes' as though they were somehow equivalent is complete bullshit. Anyone with a brain understood exactly what both people were talking about when they heard the full clips. Obama got taken out of context (which was then abused to the max for gain). Mitt showed his true colours and took a dump on half of Americans (it did not need to be spun in any way).

If the two 'gaffes' ultimately result in similar hits in the polls then it really is an indicator of how terrible American politics are.

I don't understand why people try to defend Romney on this one. He said what he really thought. You can agree with him, or you can find it plain disgusting, but trying to minnimize it as a "gaffe" doesn't make sense.

It's funny, I remember Bush saying to a group of billionaire "people call you the elite, I call you my base". What is very surprising is that Republicans get more than 1 or 2% votes. That's what weight the interests they represent in the demographic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn4daYJzyls


I don't understand why people trying to defend Obama on his "you didn't build that" quote. He said what he really thought. You can agree with him, or you can find it plain disgusting, but trying to minimize it as a "gaffe" doesn't make sense.

See how easy that was?

No, I don't think either person meant what they said. It is one-sided distortion of comments taken out of context in BOTH cases. You are completely ignorant if you actually don't realize that Romney was actually saying he doesn't care about trying to convince those people to vote for him. You hear what you want to hear, and what you want to hear is that Romney simply doesn't care about those people AT ALL.

This has already been hashed out and both sides in these forums have agreed that there is a spin on both comments.
ticklishmusic
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
United States15977 Posts
September 26 2012 16:03 GMT
#11784
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/09/26/poll-obama-grows-leads-in-oh-fl-va/70001158/1

Ohio going toward Obama now, apparently Florida as well. Barring any ridiculous slip-ups by Obama or things that could be considered acts of God, I think the election is pretty much at a close.

Yes, you can call me mean things for saying the election is over like other so-called qualified pundits, but this week looks like the one where Romney's campaign went from merely trailing to falling behind without any real prospect of a comeback.
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
JinDesu
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States3990 Posts
September 26 2012 16:07 GMT
#11785
Those are some big leads in Ohio and Florida. In PA, it's also a big lead, but the voter ID ruling is still up in the air..
Yargh
kmillz
Profile Joined August 2010
United States1548 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-09-26 16:12:09
September 26 2012 16:08 GMT
#11786
On September 27 2012 01:07 JinDesu wrote:
Those are some big leads in Ohio and Florida. In PA, it's also a big lead, but the voter ID ruling is still up in the air..


The voter ID ruling has already passed in 23 states, I will have to re-check my sources, but I am pretty sure I read about that yesterday.

Edit: Pennsylvania Strict Voter ID Requirement

http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx
paralleluniverse
Profile Joined July 2010
4065 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-09-26 16:16:57
September 26 2012 16:11 GMT
#11787
On September 27 2012 01:01 kmillz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 26 2012 23:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 26 2012 23:33 Mazer wrote:
On September 26 2012 11:55 kmillz wrote:
On September 26 2012 11:36 ticklishmusic wrote:
On September 26 2012 11:19 kmillz wrote:
I think what you (Defacer) said has some merit, but it seems Karl Rove isn't quite ready to give up on Romney:


Karl Rove

This Too Shall Pass, but What Follows Is Crucial
Romney has had a bad week, but he can recover—if he tells voters more clearly what he would do as president.

It's over. Gov. Mitt Romney's statements last week about the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, followed by the release this week of a video of Mr. Romney at a May fundraiser, have brought the 2012 election to an early end.

At least that is what you'd take away from some pundits. But this is a classic example of the commentariat investing moments with more meaning than they deserve.

Mr. Romney's comments about Americans who don't pay taxes were, as he admitted during a Monday press conference, "inelegant." But every campaign has its awkward moments that the media magnify. Mr. Obama had his after saying on July 13, "You didn't build that." For a while thereafter, Team Obama could do little right. Then it passed.

This moment, too, will pass for Mr. Romney. More important, the past week's events have not significantly altered the contours of the race. A month ago, Gallup had Mr. Obama at 45% and Mr. Romney at 47%. On Wednesday, Gallup reported 47% for Obama, 46% for Romney. A month ago Rasmussen said it was 45% for Mr. Obama, 43% for Mr. Romney. In its Wednesday poll, Rasmussen reported 46% for Obama, 47% for Romney.

Presidential races can look one way now but much differently on Election Day. In mid-September 1980, President Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan 44% to 40% in the Gallup poll. By late October, Reagan had slumped to 39% in Gallup, while Mr. Carter had risen to 47%. Reagan won by nine points.

As for the here-and-now, one key number to watch is Mr. Obama's vote share. In the past month, there have been 83 national polls and daily tracking surveys. Mr. Obama reached 50% in just nine and his average was 47%. That is bad news for an incumbent when attitudes about the No. 1 issue—the economy—are decidedly sour.

This isn't to suggest the Romney campaign doesn't have big challenges. But both camps do.

In the two weeks before the presidential debates begin, Mr. Romney must define more clearly what he would do as president. In spelling out his five-point plan for the middle class, he'll have to deepen awareness of how each element would help families in concrete, practical ways, and offer optimism for renewed prosperity.

Mr. Romney and his team (and supporters) must also steel themselves for more brutal attacks. The Florida fundraising video will not likely be the last surprise. The Romney campaign has largely refused to respond to attacks as a waste of time and resources. But in politics, sometimes the counter punch is stronger than the punch.

There's little tolerance among Republican donors, activists and talking heads for more statements by Mr. Romney that the media can depict as gaffes. But concerns about avoiding missteps must not cause Mr. Romney to favor cautious and bland. To win, he'll need to be bold and forceful as he offers a compelling agenda of conservative reform.

Mr. Obama's challenges may be more daunting. His strategy hasn't worked. Team Obama planned to use its big financial edge to bury Mr. Romney under negative ads over the summer. From April 15 to Labor Day, they spent an estimated $215 million on TV. But this was more than offset by conservative groups (principally American Crossroads, which I helped found). While Mr. Obama drained his coffers his own negatives climbed, and Mr. Romney partially repaired his image with voters.

Mr. Obama needs a different strategy, but his team seems stubbornly focused merely on disqualifying Mitt Romney by whatever argument or means necessary. Yet as Rahm Emanuel has repeated for most of the year, Mr. Obama must, as he put it on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sept. 2, "lay out an agenda and a clear vision of the next four years" or he'll lose.

The blunt fact is that Mr. Obama's economic policies are still not working. And in a tacit declaration that they won't, the Federal Reserve has announced a third round of quantitative easing. Team Obama realizes this is a serious indictment of its handling of the economy, so it is intensifying attacks on Mr. Romney as an economic royalist.

The campaign's next likely inflection point will be the debates, which start Oct. 3. Both candidates will be under intense pressure. Mr. Romney, a skilled debater, must reassure voters he's up to the job of being president. Fluid and agile, Mr. Obama will be expected to command each encounter. If he doesn't, polls may slowly shift against him.


I'm sorry, I can't take any article that cites "You didn't build that" as a gaffe seriously. It's pretty clearly a quotation out of context.

Anyways, can you post the link for this article?


http://www.rove.com/articles/419

It only cited the "You didn't build that" gaffe to say that, while Obama supporters may deny it, it was a small blow to Obama, similarly to how the "47%" gaffe is a small blow to Romney, both were not very tactful, and that Romney's 47% gaffe will pass over time (which is the whole point of the article) and not be game-ending, just as Obama's gaffe did not totally screw him over.


Calling the two incidents 'gaffes' as though they were somehow equivalent is complete bullshit. Anyone with a brain understood exactly what both people were talking about when they heard the full clips. Obama got taken out of context (which was then abused to the max for gain). Mitt showed his true colours and took a dump on half of Americans (it did not need to be spun in any way).

If the two 'gaffes' ultimately result in similar hits in the polls then it really is an indicator of how terrible American politics are.

I don't understand why people try to defend Romney on this one. He said what he really thought. You can agree with him, or you can find it plain disgusting, but trying to minnimize it as a "gaffe" doesn't make sense.

It's funny, I remember Bush saying to a group of billionaire "people call you the elite, I call you my base". What is very surprising is that Republicans get more than 1 or 2% votes. That's what weight the interests they represent in the demographic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn4daYJzyls


I don't understand why people trying to defend Obama on his "you didn't build that" quote. He said what he really thought. You can agree with him, or you can find it plain disgusting, but trying to minimize it as a "gaffe" doesn't make sense.

See how easy that was?

No, I don't think either person meant what they said. It is one-sided distortion of comments taken out of context in BOTH cases. You are completely ignorant if you actually don't realize that Romney was actually saying he doesn't care about trying to convince those people to vote for him. You hear what you want to hear, and what you want to hear is that Romney simply doesn't care about those people AT ALL.

This has already been hashed out and both sides in these forums have agreed that there is a spin on both comments.

What Obama said doesn't need defending. It's a self-evident truth.

If you own a business you didn't build the roads and bridges. Do you disagree with this obvious statement?

What Romney said was that 47% of people feel entitled to government handouts, and that he can't convince them to take personal responsibility. The Obama quote was taken out of context and even deceptively edited in the Republican convention to change it's meaning. Ironically, it was even plastered on the walls of the convention center, built with mostly government money. The Romney quote wasn't taken out of context, the context is in the video.
kmillz
Profile Joined August 2010
United States1548 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-09-26 16:20:28
September 26 2012 16:16 GMT
#11788
On September 27 2012 01:11 paralleluniverse wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 27 2012 01:01 kmillz wrote:
On September 26 2012 23:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 26 2012 23:33 Mazer wrote:
On September 26 2012 11:55 kmillz wrote:
On September 26 2012 11:36 ticklishmusic wrote:
On September 26 2012 11:19 kmillz wrote:
I think what you (Defacer) said has some merit, but it seems Karl Rove isn't quite ready to give up on Romney:


Karl Rove

This Too Shall Pass, but What Follows Is Crucial
Romney has had a bad week, but he can recover—if he tells voters more clearly what he would do as president.

It's over. Gov. Mitt Romney's statements last week about the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, followed by the release this week of a video of Mr. Romney at a May fundraiser, have brought the 2012 election to an early end.

At least that is what you'd take away from some pundits. But this is a classic example of the commentariat investing moments with more meaning than they deserve.

Mr. Romney's comments about Americans who don't pay taxes were, as he admitted during a Monday press conference, "inelegant." But every campaign has its awkward moments that the media magnify. Mr. Obama had his after saying on July 13, "You didn't build that." For a while thereafter, Team Obama could do little right. Then it passed.

This moment, too, will pass for Mr. Romney. More important, the past week's events have not significantly altered the contours of the race. A month ago, Gallup had Mr. Obama at 45% and Mr. Romney at 47%. On Wednesday, Gallup reported 47% for Obama, 46% for Romney. A month ago Rasmussen said it was 45% for Mr. Obama, 43% for Mr. Romney. In its Wednesday poll, Rasmussen reported 46% for Obama, 47% for Romney.

Presidential races can look one way now but much differently on Election Day. In mid-September 1980, President Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan 44% to 40% in the Gallup poll. By late October, Reagan had slumped to 39% in Gallup, while Mr. Carter had risen to 47%. Reagan won by nine points.

As for the here-and-now, one key number to watch is Mr. Obama's vote share. In the past month, there have been 83 national polls and daily tracking surveys. Mr. Obama reached 50% in just nine and his average was 47%. That is bad news for an incumbent when attitudes about the No. 1 issue—the economy—are decidedly sour.

This isn't to suggest the Romney campaign doesn't have big challenges. But both camps do.

In the two weeks before the presidential debates begin, Mr. Romney must define more clearly what he would do as president. In spelling out his five-point plan for the middle class, he'll have to deepen awareness of how each element would help families in concrete, practical ways, and offer optimism for renewed prosperity.

Mr. Romney and his team (and supporters) must also steel themselves for more brutal attacks. The Florida fundraising video will not likely be the last surprise. The Romney campaign has largely refused to respond to attacks as a waste of time and resources. But in politics, sometimes the counter punch is stronger than the punch.

There's little tolerance among Republican donors, activists and talking heads for more statements by Mr. Romney that the media can depict as gaffes. But concerns about avoiding missteps must not cause Mr. Romney to favor cautious and bland. To win, he'll need to be bold and forceful as he offers a compelling agenda of conservative reform.

Mr. Obama's challenges may be more daunting. His strategy hasn't worked. Team Obama planned to use its big financial edge to bury Mr. Romney under negative ads over the summer. From April 15 to Labor Day, they spent an estimated $215 million on TV. But this was more than offset by conservative groups (principally American Crossroads, which I helped found). While Mr. Obama drained his coffers his own negatives climbed, and Mr. Romney partially repaired his image with voters.

Mr. Obama needs a different strategy, but his team seems stubbornly focused merely on disqualifying Mitt Romney by whatever argument or means necessary. Yet as Rahm Emanuel has repeated for most of the year, Mr. Obama must, as he put it on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sept. 2, "lay out an agenda and a clear vision of the next four years" or he'll lose.

The blunt fact is that Mr. Obama's economic policies are still not working. And in a tacit declaration that they won't, the Federal Reserve has announced a third round of quantitative easing. Team Obama realizes this is a serious indictment of its handling of the economy, so it is intensifying attacks on Mr. Romney as an economic royalist.

The campaign's next likely inflection point will be the debates, which start Oct. 3. Both candidates will be under intense pressure. Mr. Romney, a skilled debater, must reassure voters he's up to the job of being president. Fluid and agile, Mr. Obama will be expected to command each encounter. If he doesn't, polls may slowly shift against him.


I'm sorry, I can't take any article that cites "You didn't build that" as a gaffe seriously. It's pretty clearly a quotation out of context.

Anyways, can you post the link for this article?


http://www.rove.com/articles/419

It only cited the "You didn't build that" gaffe to say that, while Obama supporters may deny it, it was a small blow to Obama, similarly to how the "47%" gaffe is a small blow to Romney, both were not very tactful, and that Romney's 47% gaffe will pass over time (which is the whole point of the article) and not be game-ending, just as Obama's gaffe did not totally screw him over.


Calling the two incidents 'gaffes' as though they were somehow equivalent is complete bullshit. Anyone with a brain understood exactly what both people were talking about when they heard the full clips. Obama got taken out of context (which was then abused to the max for gain). Mitt showed his true colours and took a dump on half of Americans (it did not need to be spun in any way).

If the two 'gaffes' ultimately result in similar hits in the polls then it really is an indicator of how terrible American politics are.

I don't understand why people try to defend Romney on this one. He said what he really thought. You can agree with him, or you can find it plain disgusting, but trying to minnimize it as a "gaffe" doesn't make sense.

It's funny, I remember Bush saying to a group of billionaire "people call you the elite, I call you my base". What is very surprising is that Republicans get more than 1 or 2% votes. That's what weight the interests they represent in the demographic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn4daYJzyls


I don't understand why people trying to defend Obama on his "you didn't build that" quote. He said what he really thought. You can agree with him, or you can find it plain disgusting, but trying to minimize it as a "gaffe" doesn't make sense.

See how easy that was?

No, I don't think either person meant what they said. It is one-sided distortion of comments taken out of context in BOTH cases. You are completely ignorant if you actually don't realize that Romney was actually saying he doesn't care about trying to convince those people to vote for him. You hear what you want to hear, and what you want to hear is that Romney simply doesn't care about those people AT ALL.

This has already been hashed out and both sides in these forums have agreed that there is a spin on both comments.

What Obama said doesn't need defending. It's a self-evident truth.

If you own a business you didn't build the roads and bridges. Do you disagree with this obvious statement?


Actual statement: If you own a business, you didn't build that
Actual meaning: If you own a business, you didn't build the roads, bridges, etc..
Actual statement: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. My job is not to worry about those people.
Actual meaning: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. My job is not to worry about getting those peoples votes

Neither statement needs defending.

Since you edited your post, I'll edit mine:

What Romney said was that 47% of people feel entitled to government handouts, and that he can't convince them to take personal responsibility. The Obama quote was taken out of context and even deceptively edited in the Republican convention to change it's meaning. Ironically, it was even plastered on the walls of the convention center, built with mostly government money. The Romney quote wasn't taken out of context, the context is in the video.


This is an actual fact, 47% of people actually pay no income tax.

True or false? Much of Romney's statement relies on assumptions about one demographic: The 47 percent of Americans who he says "pay no income tax." So is it true that 47 percent of Americans don't pay income tax? Essentially, yes, according to the the Tax Policy Center, which provides data showing that in 2011, 46.4 percent of American households paid no federal income tax. The same data shows, however, that nearly two-thirds of households that paid no income tax did pay payroll taxes. And most people also pay some combination of state, local, sales, gas and property taxes.

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57515033-503544/fact-checking-romneys-47-percent-comment/
JinDesu
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States3990 Posts
September 26 2012 16:16 GMT
#11789
On September 27 2012 01:08 kmillz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 27 2012 01:07 JinDesu wrote:
Those are some big leads in Ohio and Florida. In PA, it's also a big lead, but the voter ID ruling is still up in the air..


The voter ID ruling has already passed in 23 states, I will have to re-check my sources, but I am pretty sure I read about that yesterday.

Edit: Pennsylvania Strict Voter ID Requirement

http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/pennsylvania-voter-id-effort-to-get-a-closer-look.html?_r=0

At this time, the State Supreme Court has upheld the Voter ID law, but gave a caveat: The state judge must determine, in two weeks, if the state has done enough to provide state IDs to residents that lack those IDs. If there was not enough done, the State Supreme Court will bar that law from taking effect.

I believe there are testimonies going on at this time to give evidence for/against voter disenfranchisement. So until the two weeks are up, the issue is still up in the air.
Yargh
radiatoren
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
Denmark1907 Posts
September 26 2012 16:34 GMT
#11790
On September 27 2012 01:03 ticklishmusic wrote:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/09/26/poll-obama-grows-leads-in-oh-fl-va/70001158/1

Ohio going toward Obama now, apparently Florida as well. Barring any ridiculous slip-ups by Obama or things that could be considered acts of God, I think the election is pretty much at a close.

Yes, you can call me mean things for saying the election is over like other so-called qualified pundits, but this week looks like the one where Romney's campaign went from merely trailing to falling behind without any real prospect of a comeback.

Taking a few Obama-positive polls as the article does is a little bit misleading. 8% or 10% +-3% seems a bit to the high end. Another poll at the same time gave Obama a lead of 1% +-4.3%! Since the MoEs do not cross there is something going on! A better view is through a bigger selection of polls. It is actually correct that there seems to be an advantage for Obama, but 8 and 10% are far more than what seems to be the concensus:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html
The Florida-poll of 9% advantage is a clear outlier. 4 other polls in the same period are showing 3 to a 5 point lead for Obama...
Intentional or not, it seems like the journalist has chosen the most biased numbers to push the topic. In reality the numbers seem to support the headline, but the numbers used in the article are not representative for how close it actually seems to be,
Repeat before me
kmillz
Profile Joined August 2010
United States1548 Posts
September 26 2012 16:35 GMT
#11791
On September 27 2012 01:16 JinDesu wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 27 2012 01:08 kmillz wrote:
On September 27 2012 01:07 JinDesu wrote:
Those are some big leads in Ohio and Florida. In PA, it's also a big lead, but the voter ID ruling is still up in the air..


The voter ID ruling has already passed in 23 states, I will have to re-check my sources, but I am pretty sure I read about that yesterday.

Edit: Pennsylvania Strict Voter ID Requirement

http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/pennsylvania-voter-id-effort-to-get-a-closer-look.html?_r=0

At this time, the State Supreme Court has upheld the Voter ID law, but gave a caveat: The state judge must determine, in two weeks, if the state has done enough to provide state IDs to residents that lack those IDs. If there was not enough done, the State Supreme Court will bar that law from taking effect.

I believe there are testimonies going on at this time to give evidence for/against voter disenfranchisement. So until the two weeks are up, the issue is still up in the air.


Ok yeah, just read another article confirming the same thing, as well as the one you gave. Guess we will have to wait to Oct. 2 to find out.
Saryph
Profile Joined April 2010
United States1955 Posts
September 26 2012 16:39 GMT
#11792
When looking at poll averages and electoral predictors I use this webpage.

It uses everything from Fox News and Rasmussen polls to PPP. To be honest, it does look quite troubling for Romney at this point, the last month has not treated him well in Florida, Ohio, etc. (the places that matter).
GT350
Profile Joined May 2012
United States270 Posts
September 26 2012 16:46 GMT
#11793
Easy win now for Obama. It's all over but the voting.
kwizach
Profile Joined June 2011
3658 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-09-26 17:01:58
September 26 2012 17:01 GMT
#11794
On September 27 2012 01:16 kmillz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 27 2012 01:11 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 27 2012 01:01 kmillz wrote:
On September 26 2012 23:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 26 2012 23:33 Mazer wrote:
On September 26 2012 11:55 kmillz wrote:
On September 26 2012 11:36 ticklishmusic wrote:
On September 26 2012 11:19 kmillz wrote:
I think what you (Defacer) said has some merit, but it seems Karl Rove isn't quite ready to give up on Romney:


Karl Rove

This Too Shall Pass, but What Follows Is Crucial
Romney has had a bad week, but he can recover—if he tells voters more clearly what he would do as president.

It's over. Gov. Mitt Romney's statements last week about the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, followed by the release this week of a video of Mr. Romney at a May fundraiser, have brought the 2012 election to an early end.

At least that is what you'd take away from some pundits. But this is a classic example of the commentariat investing moments with more meaning than they deserve.

Mr. Romney's comments about Americans who don't pay taxes were, as he admitted during a Monday press conference, "inelegant." But every campaign has its awkward moments that the media magnify. Mr. Obama had his after saying on July 13, "You didn't build that." For a while thereafter, Team Obama could do little right. Then it passed.

This moment, too, will pass for Mr. Romney. More important, the past week's events have not significantly altered the contours of the race. A month ago, Gallup had Mr. Obama at 45% and Mr. Romney at 47%. On Wednesday, Gallup reported 47% for Obama, 46% for Romney. A month ago Rasmussen said it was 45% for Mr. Obama, 43% for Mr. Romney. In its Wednesday poll, Rasmussen reported 46% for Obama, 47% for Romney.

Presidential races can look one way now but much differently on Election Day. In mid-September 1980, President Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan 44% to 40% in the Gallup poll. By late October, Reagan had slumped to 39% in Gallup, while Mr. Carter had risen to 47%. Reagan won by nine points.

As for the here-and-now, one key number to watch is Mr. Obama's vote share. In the past month, there have been 83 national polls and daily tracking surveys. Mr. Obama reached 50% in just nine and his average was 47%. That is bad news for an incumbent when attitudes about the No. 1 issue—the economy—are decidedly sour.

This isn't to suggest the Romney campaign doesn't have big challenges. But both camps do.

In the two weeks before the presidential debates begin, Mr. Romney must define more clearly what he would do as president. In spelling out his five-point plan for the middle class, he'll have to deepen awareness of how each element would help families in concrete, practical ways, and offer optimism for renewed prosperity.

Mr. Romney and his team (and supporters) must also steel themselves for more brutal attacks. The Florida fundraising video will not likely be the last surprise. The Romney campaign has largely refused to respond to attacks as a waste of time and resources. But in politics, sometimes the counter punch is stronger than the punch.

There's little tolerance among Republican donors, activists and talking heads for more statements by Mr. Romney that the media can depict as gaffes. But concerns about avoiding missteps must not cause Mr. Romney to favor cautious and bland. To win, he'll need to be bold and forceful as he offers a compelling agenda of conservative reform.

Mr. Obama's challenges may be more daunting. His strategy hasn't worked. Team Obama planned to use its big financial edge to bury Mr. Romney under negative ads over the summer. From April 15 to Labor Day, they spent an estimated $215 million on TV. But this was more than offset by conservative groups (principally American Crossroads, which I helped found). While Mr. Obama drained his coffers his own negatives climbed, and Mr. Romney partially repaired his image with voters.

Mr. Obama needs a different strategy, but his team seems stubbornly focused merely on disqualifying Mitt Romney by whatever argument or means necessary. Yet as Rahm Emanuel has repeated for most of the year, Mr. Obama must, as he put it on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sept. 2, "lay out an agenda and a clear vision of the next four years" or he'll lose.

The blunt fact is that Mr. Obama's economic policies are still not working. And in a tacit declaration that they won't, the Federal Reserve has announced a third round of quantitative easing. Team Obama realizes this is a serious indictment of its handling of the economy, so it is intensifying attacks on Mr. Romney as an economic royalist.

The campaign's next likely inflection point will be the debates, which start Oct. 3. Both candidates will be under intense pressure. Mr. Romney, a skilled debater, must reassure voters he's up to the job of being president. Fluid and agile, Mr. Obama will be expected to command each encounter. If he doesn't, polls may slowly shift against him.


I'm sorry, I can't take any article that cites "You didn't build that" as a gaffe seriously. It's pretty clearly a quotation out of context.

Anyways, can you post the link for this article?


http://www.rove.com/articles/419

It only cited the "You didn't build that" gaffe to say that, while Obama supporters may deny it, it was a small blow to Obama, similarly to how the "47%" gaffe is a small blow to Romney, both were not very tactful, and that Romney's 47% gaffe will pass over time (which is the whole point of the article) and not be game-ending, just as Obama's gaffe did not totally screw him over.


Calling the two incidents 'gaffes' as though they were somehow equivalent is complete bullshit. Anyone with a brain understood exactly what both people were talking about when they heard the full clips. Obama got taken out of context (which was then abused to the max for gain). Mitt showed his true colours and took a dump on half of Americans (it did not need to be spun in any way).

If the two 'gaffes' ultimately result in similar hits in the polls then it really is an indicator of how terrible American politics are.

I don't understand why people try to defend Romney on this one. He said what he really thought. You can agree with him, or you can find it plain disgusting, but trying to minnimize it as a "gaffe" doesn't make sense.

It's funny, I remember Bush saying to a group of billionaire "people call you the elite, I call you my base". What is very surprising is that Republicans get more than 1 or 2% votes. That's what weight the interests they represent in the demographic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn4daYJzyls


I don't understand why people trying to defend Obama on his "you didn't build that" quote. He said what he really thought. You can agree with him, or you can find it plain disgusting, but trying to minimize it as a "gaffe" doesn't make sense.

See how easy that was?

No, I don't think either person meant what they said. It is one-sided distortion of comments taken out of context in BOTH cases. You are completely ignorant if you actually don't realize that Romney was actually saying he doesn't care about trying to convince those people to vote for him. You hear what you want to hear, and what you want to hear is that Romney simply doesn't care about those people AT ALL.

This has already been hashed out and both sides in these forums have agreed that there is a spin on both comments.

What Obama said doesn't need defending. It's a self-evident truth.

If you own a business you didn't build the roads and bridges. Do you disagree with this obvious statement?


Actual statement: If you own a business, you didn't build that

No, actual statement: "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that."

On September 27 2012 01:16 kmillz wrote:
Actual meaning: If you own a business, you didn't build the roads, bridges, etc..

Yes.

On September 27 2012 01:16 kmillz wrote:
Actual statement: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. My job is not to worry about those people.
Actual meaning: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. My job is not to worry about getting those peoples votes

That's not the only thing he said. Let me refresh your memory:

“Well, there are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right? There are 47% who are with him. Who are dependent upon government, who believe that– that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they’re entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it. [...] I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for for their lives.

This is not something that is taken out of context. This is Romney saying that 47% of Americans don't have any personal responsibility and don't care for their lives, and that it's the 47% who vote for Obama. If you don't see anything wrong with that, you're hopeless.
"Oedipus ruined a great sex life by asking too many questions." -- Stephen Colbert
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
September 26 2012 17:12 GMT
#11795
On September 27 2012 01:11 paralleluniverse wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 27 2012 01:01 kmillz wrote:
On September 26 2012 23:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 26 2012 23:33 Mazer wrote:
On September 26 2012 11:55 kmillz wrote:
On September 26 2012 11:36 ticklishmusic wrote:
On September 26 2012 11:19 kmillz wrote:
I think what you (Defacer) said has some merit, but it seems Karl Rove isn't quite ready to give up on Romney:


Karl Rove

This Too Shall Pass, but What Follows Is Crucial
Romney has had a bad week, but he can recover—if he tells voters more clearly what he would do as president.

It's over. Gov. Mitt Romney's statements last week about the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, followed by the release this week of a video of Mr. Romney at a May fundraiser, have brought the 2012 election to an early end.

At least that is what you'd take away from some pundits. But this is a classic example of the commentariat investing moments with more meaning than they deserve.

Mr. Romney's comments about Americans who don't pay taxes were, as he admitted during a Monday press conference, "inelegant." But every campaign has its awkward moments that the media magnify. Mr. Obama had his after saying on July 13, "You didn't build that." For a while thereafter, Team Obama could do little right. Then it passed.

This moment, too, will pass for Mr. Romney. More important, the past week's events have not significantly altered the contours of the race. A month ago, Gallup had Mr. Obama at 45% and Mr. Romney at 47%. On Wednesday, Gallup reported 47% for Obama, 46% for Romney. A month ago Rasmussen said it was 45% for Mr. Obama, 43% for Mr. Romney. In its Wednesday poll, Rasmussen reported 46% for Obama, 47% for Romney.

Presidential races can look one way now but much differently on Election Day. In mid-September 1980, President Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan 44% to 40% in the Gallup poll. By late October, Reagan had slumped to 39% in Gallup, while Mr. Carter had risen to 47%. Reagan won by nine points.

As for the here-and-now, one key number to watch is Mr. Obama's vote share. In the past month, there have been 83 national polls and daily tracking surveys. Mr. Obama reached 50% in just nine and his average was 47%. That is bad news for an incumbent when attitudes about the No. 1 issue—the economy—are decidedly sour.

This isn't to suggest the Romney campaign doesn't have big challenges. But both camps do.

In the two weeks before the presidential debates begin, Mr. Romney must define more clearly what he would do as president. In spelling out his five-point plan for the middle class, he'll have to deepen awareness of how each element would help families in concrete, practical ways, and offer optimism for renewed prosperity.

Mr. Romney and his team (and supporters) must also steel themselves for more brutal attacks. The Florida fundraising video will not likely be the last surprise. The Romney campaign has largely refused to respond to attacks as a waste of time and resources. But in politics, sometimes the counter punch is stronger than the punch.

There's little tolerance among Republican donors, activists and talking heads for more statements by Mr. Romney that the media can depict as gaffes. But concerns about avoiding missteps must not cause Mr. Romney to favor cautious and bland. To win, he'll need to be bold and forceful as he offers a compelling agenda of conservative reform.

Mr. Obama's challenges may be more daunting. His strategy hasn't worked. Team Obama planned to use its big financial edge to bury Mr. Romney under negative ads over the summer. From April 15 to Labor Day, they spent an estimated $215 million on TV. But this was more than offset by conservative groups (principally American Crossroads, which I helped found). While Mr. Obama drained his coffers his own negatives climbed, and Mr. Romney partially repaired his image with voters.

Mr. Obama needs a different strategy, but his team seems stubbornly focused merely on disqualifying Mitt Romney by whatever argument or means necessary. Yet as Rahm Emanuel has repeated for most of the year, Mr. Obama must, as he put it on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sept. 2, "lay out an agenda and a clear vision of the next four years" or he'll lose.

The blunt fact is that Mr. Obama's economic policies are still not working. And in a tacit declaration that they won't, the Federal Reserve has announced a third round of quantitative easing. Team Obama realizes this is a serious indictment of its handling of the economy, so it is intensifying attacks on Mr. Romney as an economic royalist.

The campaign's next likely inflection point will be the debates, which start Oct. 3. Both candidates will be under intense pressure. Mr. Romney, a skilled debater, must reassure voters he's up to the job of being president. Fluid and agile, Mr. Obama will be expected to command each encounter. If he doesn't, polls may slowly shift against him.


I'm sorry, I can't take any article that cites "You didn't build that" as a gaffe seriously. It's pretty clearly a quotation out of context.

Anyways, can you post the link for this article?


http://www.rove.com/articles/419

It only cited the "You didn't build that" gaffe to say that, while Obama supporters may deny it, it was a small blow to Obama, similarly to how the "47%" gaffe is a small blow to Romney, both were not very tactful, and that Romney's 47% gaffe will pass over time (which is the whole point of the article) and not be game-ending, just as Obama's gaffe did not totally screw him over.


Calling the two incidents 'gaffes' as though they were somehow equivalent is complete bullshit. Anyone with a brain understood exactly what both people were talking about when they heard the full clips. Obama got taken out of context (which was then abused to the max for gain). Mitt showed his true colours and took a dump on half of Americans (it did not need to be spun in any way).

If the two 'gaffes' ultimately result in similar hits in the polls then it really is an indicator of how terrible American politics are.

I don't understand why people try to defend Romney on this one. He said what he really thought. You can agree with him, or you can find it plain disgusting, but trying to minnimize it as a "gaffe" doesn't make sense.

It's funny, I remember Bush saying to a group of billionaire "people call you the elite, I call you my base". What is very surprising is that Republicans get more than 1 or 2% votes. That's what weight the interests they represent in the demographic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn4daYJzyls


I don't understand why people trying to defend Obama on his "you didn't build that" quote. He said what he really thought. You can agree with him, or you can find it plain disgusting, but trying to minimize it as a "gaffe" doesn't make sense.

See how easy that was?

No, I don't think either person meant what they said. It is one-sided distortion of comments taken out of context in BOTH cases. You are completely ignorant if you actually don't realize that Romney was actually saying he doesn't care about trying to convince those people to vote for him. You hear what you want to hear, and what you want to hear is that Romney simply doesn't care about those people AT ALL.

This has already been hashed out and both sides in these forums have agreed that there is a spin on both comments.

What Obama said doesn't need defending. It's a self-evident truth.

If you own a business you didn't build the roads and bridges. Do you disagree with this obvious statement?

What Romney said was that 47% of people feel entitled to government handouts, and that he can't convince them to take personal responsibility. The Obama quote was taken out of context and even deceptively edited in the Republican convention to change it's meaning. Ironically, it was even plastered on the walls of the convention center, built with mostly government money. The Romney quote wasn't taken out of context, the context is in the video.

It is an obvious and pointless statement. We all pay the government to build those roads and bridges so we should all be allowed to use them freely.
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
September 26 2012 17:17 GMT
#11796
Before y'all start popping champagne corks, you may want to have a closer look at the samples of these new polls.
Minus`
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States174 Posts
September 26 2012 17:17 GMT
#11797
On September 27 2012 02:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 27 2012 01:11 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 27 2012 01:01 kmillz wrote:
On September 26 2012 23:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 26 2012 23:33 Mazer wrote:
On September 26 2012 11:55 kmillz wrote:
On September 26 2012 11:36 ticklishmusic wrote:
On September 26 2012 11:19 kmillz wrote:
I think what you (Defacer) said has some merit, but it seems Karl Rove isn't quite ready to give up on Romney:


Karl Rove

This Too Shall Pass, but What Follows Is Crucial
Romney has had a bad week, but he can recover—if he tells voters more clearly what he would do as president.

It's over. Gov. Mitt Romney's statements last week about the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, followed by the release this week of a video of Mr. Romney at a May fundraiser, have brought the 2012 election to an early end.

At least that is what you'd take away from some pundits. But this is a classic example of the commentariat investing moments with more meaning than they deserve.

Mr. Romney's comments about Americans who don't pay taxes were, as he admitted during a Monday press conference, "inelegant." But every campaign has its awkward moments that the media magnify. Mr. Obama had his after saying on July 13, "You didn't build that." For a while thereafter, Team Obama could do little right. Then it passed.

This moment, too, will pass for Mr. Romney. More important, the past week's events have not significantly altered the contours of the race. A month ago, Gallup had Mr. Obama at 45% and Mr. Romney at 47%. On Wednesday, Gallup reported 47% for Obama, 46% for Romney. A month ago Rasmussen said it was 45% for Mr. Obama, 43% for Mr. Romney. In its Wednesday poll, Rasmussen reported 46% for Obama, 47% for Romney.

Presidential races can look one way now but much differently on Election Day. In mid-September 1980, President Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan 44% to 40% in the Gallup poll. By late October, Reagan had slumped to 39% in Gallup, while Mr. Carter had risen to 47%. Reagan won by nine points.

As for the here-and-now, one key number to watch is Mr. Obama's vote share. In the past month, there have been 83 national polls and daily tracking surveys. Mr. Obama reached 50% in just nine and his average was 47%. That is bad news for an incumbent when attitudes about the No. 1 issue—the economy—are decidedly sour.

This isn't to suggest the Romney campaign doesn't have big challenges. But both camps do.

In the two weeks before the presidential debates begin, Mr. Romney must define more clearly what he would do as president. In spelling out his five-point plan for the middle class, he'll have to deepen awareness of how each element would help families in concrete, practical ways, and offer optimism for renewed prosperity.

Mr. Romney and his team (and supporters) must also steel themselves for more brutal attacks. The Florida fundraising video will not likely be the last surprise. The Romney campaign has largely refused to respond to attacks as a waste of time and resources. But in politics, sometimes the counter punch is stronger than the punch.

There's little tolerance among Republican donors, activists and talking heads for more statements by Mr. Romney that the media can depict as gaffes. But concerns about avoiding missteps must not cause Mr. Romney to favor cautious and bland. To win, he'll need to be bold and forceful as he offers a compelling agenda of conservative reform.

Mr. Obama's challenges may be more daunting. His strategy hasn't worked. Team Obama planned to use its big financial edge to bury Mr. Romney under negative ads over the summer. From April 15 to Labor Day, they spent an estimated $215 million on TV. But this was more than offset by conservative groups (principally American Crossroads, which I helped found). While Mr. Obama drained his coffers his own negatives climbed, and Mr. Romney partially repaired his image with voters.

Mr. Obama needs a different strategy, but his team seems stubbornly focused merely on disqualifying Mitt Romney by whatever argument or means necessary. Yet as Rahm Emanuel has repeated for most of the year, Mr. Obama must, as he put it on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sept. 2, "lay out an agenda and a clear vision of the next four years" or he'll lose.

The blunt fact is that Mr. Obama's economic policies are still not working. And in a tacit declaration that they won't, the Federal Reserve has announced a third round of quantitative easing. Team Obama realizes this is a serious indictment of its handling of the economy, so it is intensifying attacks on Mr. Romney as an economic royalist.

The campaign's next likely inflection point will be the debates, which start Oct. 3. Both candidates will be under intense pressure. Mr. Romney, a skilled debater, must reassure voters he's up to the job of being president. Fluid and agile, Mr. Obama will be expected to command each encounter. If he doesn't, polls may slowly shift against him.


I'm sorry, I can't take any article that cites "You didn't build that" as a gaffe seriously. It's pretty clearly a quotation out of context.

Anyways, can you post the link for this article?


http://www.rove.com/articles/419

It only cited the "You didn't build that" gaffe to say that, while Obama supporters may deny it, it was a small blow to Obama, similarly to how the "47%" gaffe is a small blow to Romney, both were not very tactful, and that Romney's 47% gaffe will pass over time (which is the whole point of the article) and not be game-ending, just as Obama's gaffe did not totally screw him over.


Calling the two incidents 'gaffes' as though they were somehow equivalent is complete bullshit. Anyone with a brain understood exactly what both people were talking about when they heard the full clips. Obama got taken out of context (which was then abused to the max for gain). Mitt showed his true colours and took a dump on half of Americans (it did not need to be spun in any way).

If the two 'gaffes' ultimately result in similar hits in the polls then it really is an indicator of how terrible American politics are.

I don't understand why people try to defend Romney on this one. He said what he really thought. You can agree with him, or you can find it plain disgusting, but trying to minnimize it as a "gaffe" doesn't make sense.

It's funny, I remember Bush saying to a group of billionaire "people call you the elite, I call you my base". What is very surprising is that Republicans get more than 1 or 2% votes. That's what weight the interests they represent in the demographic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn4daYJzyls


I don't understand why people trying to defend Obama on his "you didn't build that" quote. He said what he really thought. You can agree with him, or you can find it plain disgusting, but trying to minimize it as a "gaffe" doesn't make sense.

See how easy that was?

No, I don't think either person meant what they said. It is one-sided distortion of comments taken out of context in BOTH cases. You are completely ignorant if you actually don't realize that Romney was actually saying he doesn't care about trying to convince those people to vote for him. You hear what you want to hear, and what you want to hear is that Romney simply doesn't care about those people AT ALL.

This has already been hashed out and both sides in these forums have agreed that there is a spin on both comments.

What Obama said doesn't need defending. It's a self-evident truth.

If you own a business you didn't build the roads and bridges. Do you disagree with this obvious statement?

What Romney said was that 47% of people feel entitled to government handouts, and that he can't convince them to take personal responsibility. The Obama quote was taken out of context and even deceptively edited in the Republican convention to change it's meaning. Ironically, it was even plastered on the walls of the convention center, built with mostly government money. The Romney quote wasn't taken out of context, the context is in the video.

It is an obvious and pointless statement. We all pay the government to build those roads and bridges so we should all be allowed to use them freely.

The world actually existed before you started paying taxes, you know.

Just for fun, do the Romney statement next, JonnyBNoHo. I want to see if you're as delusional as kmillz or not.
[11:02:30 PM] <gryzor> calling coh an rts is like calling an sheep a car
Mazer
Profile Joined April 2008
Canada1086 Posts
September 26 2012 17:18 GMT
#11798
On September 27 2012 01:16 kmillz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 27 2012 01:11 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 27 2012 01:01 kmillz wrote:
On September 26 2012 23:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 26 2012 23:33 Mazer wrote:
On September 26 2012 11:55 kmillz wrote:
On September 26 2012 11:36 ticklishmusic wrote:
On September 26 2012 11:19 kmillz wrote:
I think what you (Defacer) said has some merit, but it seems Karl Rove isn't quite ready to give up on Romney:


Karl Rove

This Too Shall Pass, but What Follows Is Crucial
Romney has had a bad week, but he can recover—if he tells voters more clearly what he would do as president.

It's over. Gov. Mitt Romney's statements last week about the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, followed by the release this week of a video of Mr. Romney at a May fundraiser, have brought the 2012 election to an early end.

At least that is what you'd take away from some pundits. But this is a classic example of the commentariat investing moments with more meaning than they deserve.

Mr. Romney's comments about Americans who don't pay taxes were, as he admitted during a Monday press conference, "inelegant." But every campaign has its awkward moments that the media magnify. Mr. Obama had his after saying on July 13, "You didn't build that." For a while thereafter, Team Obama could do little right. Then it passed.

This moment, too, will pass for Mr. Romney. More important, the past week's events have not significantly altered the contours of the race. A month ago, Gallup had Mr. Obama at 45% and Mr. Romney at 47%. On Wednesday, Gallup reported 47% for Obama, 46% for Romney. A month ago Rasmussen said it was 45% for Mr. Obama, 43% for Mr. Romney. In its Wednesday poll, Rasmussen reported 46% for Obama, 47% for Romney.

Presidential races can look one way now but much differently on Election Day. In mid-September 1980, President Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan 44% to 40% in the Gallup poll. By late October, Reagan had slumped to 39% in Gallup, while Mr. Carter had risen to 47%. Reagan won by nine points.

As for the here-and-now, one key number to watch is Mr. Obama's vote share. In the past month, there have been 83 national polls and daily tracking surveys. Mr. Obama reached 50% in just nine and his average was 47%. That is bad news for an incumbent when attitudes about the No. 1 issue—the economy—are decidedly sour.

This isn't to suggest the Romney campaign doesn't have big challenges. But both camps do.

In the two weeks before the presidential debates begin, Mr. Romney must define more clearly what he would do as president. In spelling out his five-point plan for the middle class, he'll have to deepen awareness of how each element would help families in concrete, practical ways, and offer optimism for renewed prosperity.

Mr. Romney and his team (and supporters) must also steel themselves for more brutal attacks. The Florida fundraising video will not likely be the last surprise. The Romney campaign has largely refused to respond to attacks as a waste of time and resources. But in politics, sometimes the counter punch is stronger than the punch.

There's little tolerance among Republican donors, activists and talking heads for more statements by Mr. Romney that the media can depict as gaffes. But concerns about avoiding missteps must not cause Mr. Romney to favor cautious and bland. To win, he'll need to be bold and forceful as he offers a compelling agenda of conservative reform.

Mr. Obama's challenges may be more daunting. His strategy hasn't worked. Team Obama planned to use its big financial edge to bury Mr. Romney under negative ads over the summer. From April 15 to Labor Day, they spent an estimated $215 million on TV. But this was more than offset by conservative groups (principally American Crossroads, which I helped found). While Mr. Obama drained his coffers his own negatives climbed, and Mr. Romney partially repaired his image with voters.

Mr. Obama needs a different strategy, but his team seems stubbornly focused merely on disqualifying Mitt Romney by whatever argument or means necessary. Yet as Rahm Emanuel has repeated for most of the year, Mr. Obama must, as he put it on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sept. 2, "lay out an agenda and a clear vision of the next four years" or he'll lose.

The blunt fact is that Mr. Obama's economic policies are still not working. And in a tacit declaration that they won't, the Federal Reserve has announced a third round of quantitative easing. Team Obama realizes this is a serious indictment of its handling of the economy, so it is intensifying attacks on Mr. Romney as an economic royalist.

The campaign's next likely inflection point will be the debates, which start Oct. 3. Both candidates will be under intense pressure. Mr. Romney, a skilled debater, must reassure voters he's up to the job of being president. Fluid and agile, Mr. Obama will be expected to command each encounter. If he doesn't, polls may slowly shift against him.


I'm sorry, I can't take any article that cites "You didn't build that" as a gaffe seriously. It's pretty clearly a quotation out of context.

Anyways, can you post the link for this article?


http://www.rove.com/articles/419

It only cited the "You didn't build that" gaffe to say that, while Obama supporters may deny it, it was a small blow to Obama, similarly to how the "47%" gaffe is a small blow to Romney, both were not very tactful, and that Romney's 47% gaffe will pass over time (which is the whole point of the article) and not be game-ending, just as Obama's gaffe did not totally screw him over.


Calling the two incidents 'gaffes' as though they were somehow equivalent is complete bullshit. Anyone with a brain understood exactly what both people were talking about when they heard the full clips. Obama got taken out of context (which was then abused to the max for gain). Mitt showed his true colours and took a dump on half of Americans (it did not need to be spun in any way).

If the two 'gaffes' ultimately result in similar hits in the polls then it really is an indicator of how terrible American politics are.

I don't understand why people try to defend Romney on this one. He said what he really thought. You can agree with him, or you can find it plain disgusting, but trying to minnimize it as a "gaffe" doesn't make sense.

It's funny, I remember Bush saying to a group of billionaire "people call you the elite, I call you my base". What is very surprising is that Republicans get more than 1 or 2% votes. That's what weight the interests they represent in the demographic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn4daYJzyls


I don't understand why people trying to defend Obama on his "you didn't build that" quote. He said what he really thought. You can agree with him, or you can find it plain disgusting, but trying to minimize it as a "gaffe" doesn't make sense.

See how easy that was?

No, I don't think either person meant what they said. It is one-sided distortion of comments taken out of context in BOTH cases. You are completely ignorant if you actually don't realize that Romney was actually saying he doesn't care about trying to convince those people to vote for him. You hear what you want to hear, and what you want to hear is that Romney simply doesn't care about those people AT ALL.

This has already been hashed out and both sides in these forums have agreed that there is a spin on both comments.

What Obama said doesn't need defending. It's a self-evident truth.

If you own a business you didn't build the roads and bridges. Do you disagree with this obvious statement?


Actual statement: If you own a business, you didn't build that
Actual meaning: If you own a business, you didn't build the roads, bridges, etc..
Actual statement: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. My job is not to worry about those people.
Actual meaning: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. My job is not to worry about getting those peoples votes

Neither statement needs defending.

Since you edited your post, I'll edit mine:

Show nested quote +
What Romney said was that 47% of people feel entitled to government handouts, and that he can't convince them to take personal responsibility. The Obama quote was taken out of context and even deceptively edited in the Republican convention to change it's meaning. Ironically, it was even plastered on the walls of the convention center, built with mostly government money. The Romney quote wasn't taken out of context, the context is in the video.


This is an actual fact, 47% of people actually pay no income tax.

Show nested quote +
True or false? Much of Romney's statement relies on assumptions about one demographic: The 47 percent of Americans who he says "pay no income tax." So is it true that 47 percent of Americans don't pay income tax? Essentially, yes, according to the the Tax Policy Center, which provides data showing that in 2011, 46.4 percent of American households paid no federal income tax. The same data shows, however, that nearly two-thirds of households that paid no income tax did pay payroll taxes. And most people also pay some combination of state, local, sales, gas and property taxes.

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57515033-503544/fact-checking-romneys-47-percent-comment/


You're just lying to yourself over this one and it's kinda disgusting.

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”


He summed up exactly what he was talking about if it wasn't clear enough.
ticklishmusic
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
United States15977 Posts
September 26 2012 17:26 GMT
#11799
Given the polls in the article are rather Democrat-favored, it stands that Obama's consistent narrow lead seems to be widening in a way that doesn't suggest it will narrow again except for some unforeseen circumstances.
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
Signet
Profile Joined March 2007
United States1718 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-09-26 17:29:09
September 26 2012 17:27 GMT
#11800
On September 27 2012 02:17 xDaunt wrote:
Before y'all start popping champagne corks, you may want to have a closer look at the samples of these new polls.

The same results are happening in polls that don't weight by party ID.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/are-polls-skewed-too-heavily-against-republicans/262834/

Party ID is kinda a weird variable. Its trends don't always line up with actual party registration numbers. Many people call themselves "independent" even though they vote for the same party every time, or 90% of the time. We know that only about 6% of the electorate is in play this time around; everyone else made up their minds long ago.

In 2010, which was a route, equal numbers of voters in the exit polls self-identified as Democrats and Republicans. Remember, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to call themselves "Independent" (the opposite trend holds for partisans calling themselves "moderate").

The only time I think party ID is worth paying attention to is if they include leaners in with the self-labeled partisans. In that case, each party should have between 45-48% of likely voters with only a small number of true independents.
Prev 1 588 589 590 591 592 1504 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Online Event
11:00
PSC2L August 2025
CranKy Ducklings168
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 280
Lowko253
Codebar 13
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 36024
Sea 2737
Rain 2126
Barracks 593
ggaemo 367
Larva 366
EffOrt 328
Zeus 268
Last 218
Hyun 121
[ Show more ]
Mong 112
ToSsGirL 72
sSak 50
JulyZerg 43
Movie 37
yabsab 32
[sc1f]eonzerg 32
Shine 12
IntoTheRainbow 5
Hm[arnc] 4
Dota 2
Dendi1214
XcaliburYe595
XaKoH 502
KheZu279
Fuzer 223
Counter-Strike
ScreaM1106
zeus185
Super Smash Bros
Mew2King42
Westballz27
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor106
Other Games
singsing2176
B2W.Neo1491
DeMusliM376
mouzStarbuck312
Hui .132
SortOf55
rGuardiaN43
Trikslyr28
Organizations
StarCraft: Brood War
CasterMuse 31
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• StrangeGG 43
• musti20045 39
• iHatsuTV 9
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 2300
League of Legends
• Stunt489
Upcoming Events
SC Evo League
4m
OSC
1h 4m
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
3h 4m
CSO Contender
5h 4m
[BSL 2025] Weekly
6h 4m
Sparkling Tuna Cup
22h 4m
WardiTV Summer Champion…
23h 4m
SC Evo League
1d
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
1d 3h
BSL Team Wars
1d 7h
Team Dewalt vs Team Bonyth
[ Show More ]
Afreeca Starleague
1d 22h
Sharp vs Ample
Larva vs Stork
Wardi Open
1d 23h
RotterdaM Event
2 days
Replay Cast
2 days
Replay Cast
2 days
Afreeca Starleague
2 days
JyJ vs TY
Bisu vs Speed
WardiTV Summer Champion…
2 days
PiGosaur Monday
3 days
Afreeca Starleague
3 days
Mini vs TBD
Soma vs sSak
WardiTV Summer Champion…
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
The PondCast
4 days
WardiTV Summer Champion…
4 days
Replay Cast
5 days
LiuLi Cup
5 days
BSL Team Wars
6 days
Team Hawk vs Team Dewalt
Korean StarCraft League
6 days
CranKy Ducklings
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-08-13
FEL Cracow 2025
CC Div. A S7

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL 20 Team Wars
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 3
BSL 21 Qualifiers
CSL Season 18: Qualifier 1
SEL Season 2 Championship
WardiTV Summer 2025
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
HCC Europe
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025

Upcoming

ASL Season 20
CSLAN 3
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
LASL Season 20
BSL Season 21
BSL 21 Team A
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters Fall
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
Roobet Cup 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.