Question is, is this a permanent new trend or just a temporary bump...
I think the bump will decrease, but it will be a dead, dead heat.
2 more debates and I actually think that Obama will not pull out a win in either of them. He won't do as bad as he did in his first, but for all the good speeches he has done, he has never actually been a good debater and Romney has shown that he has honed his debate skills over the last few years.
If Mitt Romney wins, I think you will be able to credit the debates.
Cable news and the internet has irreversibly changed presidential politics. I don't know how the hell American politicians have time to actually govern in this day in age.
Lots and lots of delegating of responsibility. I agree though. I do feel sorry for any president (not just Obama) who is now forced to basically campaign with the majority of his time starting 1-2 years before his next election. That basically gives him 2 years to govern without having to campaign. That being said the excuse I've heard pundits give for Obama's poor performance that "Obama had a country to lead so he was too busy to prepare to debate" is a lame excuse because he is hardly the first president to have to deal with this AND the fact that he was President for 4 years gives him instant knowledge that the other person has to study to learn.
I do think that Obama had become somewhat overconfident before the debate. And possibly a little bit exhausted. She sure looked it.
Personally, I think there's merit to the exhaustion argument. His 60 minutes interview was the day after the Libyan ambassador got killed, and he looked pretty out of it.
You have to give some credit to Mitt Romney and his Super PACs for exhausting Obama. They are raising money hand over fist and putting a lot of pressure on Obama and his campaign. It really does remind me of the Knightfall story-arc from Batman.
On October 09 2012 06:48 jdseemoreglass wrote: In any case, regardless of whatever consequences we can extrapolate from such a policy, we cannot escape the obvious fact that MANDATED participation in either the military or some other civic service is in fact requiring work from someone under threat of the law. I hate to use the word slavery because I think it cheapens the term, but using coercion or force to get work out of people against their will is not moral imo under any circumstance.
You may want to think about what you're saying. You are basically delegitimizing the whole concept of a draft, which I think is an essential power of the state in prosecuting industrial scale warfare.
Here is a contradiction I don't understand: Republicans hate big government. Wtf is more big government than a draft? You'll be damned if you have to pay for food stamps, but you're totally OK with 18 year olds being shipped off to fight and kill against their will?
this idea that republicans hate big government is a huge lie. Both sides love big government, we just love different parts of the government to be big
What? I thought a large part of Romney's position was reducing the size of government?
Pew's polls in the past have tended to favor Obama just as Rasmussen's tend to favor Romney because of their respective methodologies.
New Pew Poll done after the debate shows Romney making huge gains in almost every category, but dominating among independents and also strong on the Economy, Jobs, being the Candidate of New Ideas, and on the Deficit. Obama still ahead on foreign policy.
Some images:
Question is, is this a permanent new trend or just a temporary bump...
my guess is on a bump, ive been looking at RCP almost every day and checking on different state races. Xdaunt had a good point of tossing out all polls before the debate because the race changed after, but i would also toss out all polls in the 10-4 10-12 range. I think you need to wait a week before the bump goes away and we see where the polls really stand
One of my in-laws, a Christian who voted for Bush twice, is probably going to vote for Obama this year, just because he think Obama genuinely cares about people, while Romney is just faking it to win.
It really makes you wonder if people like the Oparowski were paid actors...
On October 09 2012 06:48 jdseemoreglass wrote: In any case, regardless of whatever consequences we can extrapolate from such a policy, we cannot escape the obvious fact that MANDATED participation in either the military or some other civic service is in fact requiring work from someone under threat of the law. I hate to use the word slavery because I think it cheapens the term, but using coercion or force to get work out of people against their will is not moral imo under any circumstance.
You may want to think about what you're saying. You are basically delegitimizing the whole concept of a draft, which I think is an essential power of the state in prosecuting industrial scale warfare.
Here is a contradiction I don't understand: Republicans hate big government. Wtf is more big government than a draft? You'll be damned if you have to pay for food stamps, but you're totally OK with 18 year olds being shipped off to fight and kill against their will?
this idea that republicans hate big government is a huge lie. Both sides love big government, we just love different parts of the government to be big
What? I thought a large part of Romney's position was reducing the size of government?
yeah, reducing some parts of the government while growing others. Like i said, we all want a big government, we just want different parts to be big
Pew's polls in the past have tended to favor Obama just as Rasmussen's tend to favor Romney because of their respective methodologies.
New Pew Poll done after the debate shows Romney making huge gains in almost every category, but dominating among independents and also strong on the Economy, Jobs, being the Candidate of New Ideas, and on the Deficit. Obama still ahead on foreign policy.
Some images:
Question is, is this a permanent new trend or just a temporary bump...
That poll has a +5 advantage to republicans in the sample size, which I believe is in line with Rasmussen's voter composition numbers. Goes to show that the samples matter (duh).
So, let me ask the obvious: are we really going to believe that much has changed over the past couple weeks or is it more likely that the previous polls with large democrat samples were bullshit?
The issue about why Rasmussen favors Romney is that it uses an average of voter turnout from 2008 and 2004 elections to estimate what the likely turnout will be this year (% Hispanics, women, minorities, etc) while most polling agencies just use the results of 2008. Rasmussen says their methodology is more precise because there is no way we will have a mirrored turnout to 2008 when record numbers of minorities and young people voted.
Pew does not use Rasmussen's methodology. Their methodology is weighted toward Obama (or has been in this election cycle). Which makes this poll pretty damning for Obama.
On October 09 2012 06:48 jdseemoreglass wrote: In any case, regardless of whatever consequences we can extrapolate from such a policy, we cannot escape the obvious fact that MANDATED participation in either the military or some other civic service is in fact requiring work from someone under threat of the law. I hate to use the word slavery because I think it cheapens the term, but using coercion or force to get work out of people against their will is not moral imo under any circumstance.
You may want to think about what you're saying. You are basically delegitimizing the whole concept of a draft, which I think is an essential power of the state in prosecuting industrial scale warfare.
Here is a contradiction I don't understand: Republicans hate big government. Wtf is more big government than a draft? You'll be damned if you have to pay for food stamps, but you're totally OK with 18 year olds being shipped off to fight and kill against their will?
this idea that republicans hate big government is a huge lie. Both sides love big government, we just love different parts of the government to be big
What? I thought a large part of Romney's position was reducing the size of government?
Federal government, for the most part.
Republicans love to give more monotony/power to the STATE governments. The classic 10th Amendment vs. The Elastic Clause at work, I believe.
Pew's polls in the past have tended to favor Obama just as Rasmussen's tend to favor Romney because of their respective methodologies.
New Pew Poll done after the debate shows Romney making huge gains in almost every category, but dominating among independents and also strong on the Economy, Jobs, being the Candidate of New Ideas, and on the Deficit. Obama still ahead on foreign policy.
Some images:
Question is, is this a permanent new trend or just a temporary bump...
That poll has a +5 advantage to republicans in the sample size, which I believe is in line with Rasmussen's voter composition numbers. Goes to show that the samples matter (duh).
So, let me ask the obvious: are we really going to believe that much has changed over the past couple weeks or is it more likely that the previous polls with large democrat samples were bullshit?
Hmmmm ... I remember a Tomasky blog post on the Daily Beast were he demonstrates nothing has really changed about Pew's polling methodology over the past twenty years. And that it was always biased towards larger Democratic samples, even during the Bush elections. You could interpret it as the US becoming more left leaning in general, or polls being biased ... but they were no more or less biased than before.
Fuck it. You convinced me a long time ago not to stare too much at polls for obvious reasons. People that base their predictions on polls are lazy, there's about a zillion other factors and variables to consider.
On October 09 2012 08:50 Savio wrote: If Mitt Romney wins, I think you will be able to credit the debates.
No argument here. I think the Obama campaign really underestimated the importance of the first debate, in this era, where public opinion can be changed over night by social and 24-h news media.
I think the Obama campaign really underestimated the importance of a good economic record and overestimated the power of insulting a good man who, unlike John McCain, won't sit back and take it. I mean, Romney doesn't even have a mustache to twirl and I've never seen him wear a top hat and monocle.
To bkrow - I am still banned from sending PMs but your message is received. Show more respect to everyone so I can then tell them "Fuck you" at will. Doesn't really make sense to me, but when in Rome and all that.
On October 09 2012 08:50 Savio wrote: If Mitt Romney wins, I think you will be able to credit the debates.
No argument here. I think the Obama campaign really underestimated the importance of the first debate, in this era, where public opinion can be changed over night by social and 24-h news media.
I think the Obama campaign really underestimated the importance of a good economic record and overestimated the power of insulting a good man who, unlike John McCain, won't sit back and take it. I mean, Romney doesn't even have a mustache to twirl and I've never seen him wear a top hat and monocle.
Just out of curiosity what sort of economic record would you like to see after the GFC? Not being American, I want to know where Obama has gone wrong economically when the GFC has allowed very, very few countries to be proud of anything economically.
I like how your response to the guy explaining the context and details of Romney's positions is to simply repeat your attack. For example, Romney wants to cut tax rates but limit deductions and exemptions to get a fairer, simpler, more honest, more competitive tax code and everyone on the left just continues chanting "tax cuts for millionaires".
Yeah, except, no. While you can attempt to spin your way out of the tax cut flip-flop, there's no breaking out of the other blatant flip-flops.
Teachers - the difference is between more and better teachers in a better education system (a la Romney) compared to simply spending more money on what we have now (a la Wisconsin and Chicago's failed teacher union gambits)
The health care issue as I understand it and explained earlier, he supports being able to change insurance with pre-existing conditions.
1. Lol at that graph proving anything.
Are you disputing the giant rise in education spending in the United States? Do you believe American students are far and away better at reading, riting, and rithmetic than ever before? Enlighten us!
I like how your response to the guy explaining the context and details of Romney's positions is to simply repeat your attack. For example, Romney wants to cut tax rates but limit deductions and exemptions to get a fairer, simpler, more honest, more competitive tax code and everyone on the left just continues chanting "tax cuts for millionaires".
Yeah, except, no. While you can attempt to spin your way out of the tax cut flip-flop, there's no breaking out of the other blatant flip-flops.
Teachers - the difference is between more and better teachers in a better education system (a la Romney) compared to simply spending more money on what we have now (a la Wisconsin and Chicago's failed teacher union gambits)
The health care issue as I understand it and explained earlier, he supports being able to change insurance with pre-existing conditions.
1. Lol at that graph proving anything.
Are you disputing the giant rise in education spending in the United States? Do you believe American students are far and away better at reading, riting, and rithmetic than ever before? Enlighten us!
You posted that graph as a response to the Romney video which clearly shows him being on both sides of the issues at different times. The graph did nothing to dispute his obvious flip flopping.
I like how your response to the guy explaining the context and details of Romney's positions is to simply repeat your attack. For example, Romney wants to cut tax rates but limit deductions and exemptions to get a fairer, simpler, more honest, more competitive tax code and everyone on the left just continues chanting "tax cuts for millionaires".
Yeah, except, no. While you can attempt to spin your way out of the tax cut flip-flop, there's no breaking out of the other blatant flip-flops.
Teachers - the difference is between more and better teachers in a better education system (a la Romney) compared to simply spending more money on what we have now (a la Wisconsin and Chicago's failed teacher union gambits)
The health care issue as I understand it and explained earlier, he supports being able to change insurance with pre-existing conditions.
1. Lol at that graph proving anything.
Are you disputing the giant rise in education spending in the United States? Do you believe American students are far and away better at reading, riting, and rithmetic than ever before? Enlighten us!
Irrelevant. Romney said he wouldn't cut teachers when he actually said we did need to cut back on teachers. It's the undeniable truth.
Once again you can try to spin stuff with your strawman arguments and red herrings but I'm not so easily distracted.
On October 09 2012 08:50 Savio wrote: If Mitt Romney wins, I think you will be able to credit the debates.
No argument here. I think the Obama campaign really underestimated the importance of the first debate, in this era, where public opinion can be changed over night by social and 24-h news media.
I think the Obama campaign really underestimated the importance of a good economic record and overestimated the power of insulting a good man who, unlike John McCain, won't sit back and take it. I mean, Romney doesn't even have a mustache to twirl and I've never seen him wear a top hat and monocle.
There you go again ...
You do realize there is a video where Romney is a room full of billionaires that paid $50,000 a piece to hear him say that 47% of the country are all moochers whose minds he can't change and he's not going to bother worrying about.
That's not quite wearing a top hat and a monocle. That's actually worse.
On October 09 2012 09:06 Defacer wrote: Personally, I think there's merit to the exhaustion argument. His 60 minutes interview was the day after the Libyan ambassador got killed, and he looked pretty out of it.
That's really weird since Obama went went right to bed barely an hour after the attacks began.
You have to give some credit to Mitt Romney and his Super PACs for exhausting Obama. They are raising money hand over fist and putting a lot of pressure on Obama and his campaign.
But cmon. Besides golf, fundraising is clearly what Obama likes best about being President.
Note: This is not to diminish in anyway how stressful it must be raising money from people like JayZ and Beyonce.
btw, isn't it funny how evil Republicans "buy" elections from "special interests" and force good innocent liberals to struggle to raise good honest money?
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.people-press.org/files/2012/10/10-8-12-1.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.people-press.org/files/2012/10/10-8-12-2.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.people-press.org/files/2012/10/10-8-12-8.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.people-press.org/files/2012/10/10-8-12-horserace.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.economicnoise.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/education-cato.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.ijreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/article-2205541-1517E3ED000005DC-132_634x505.jpeg)
