On October 20 2012 05:23 Souma wrote: What do people here think of the Electoral College? And if you could reform it what would you do to it?
while i think the EC is a good thing that makes sure parts of the country that wouldnt matter get some love, i do wonder how many more people woud vote if it was a popular vote.
How many republicans in CA dont vote because it really does not matter if they do? how many dems in TX dont vote because of the same thing?
I would think there is more republicans in CA then all the swing states combined exuding Florida, I would bet the same for dem in TX. While i know it is not going to happen i would love to see the EC gone in favor of a popular vote. You already have the senate for those "less" loved parts of country to get there power.
On October 20 2012 04:26 xDaunt wrote: Let me make a prediction about these polls and where they'll eventually end up. Take the average of any set of polls for a battleground state (or nationally for that matter), add all of the "undecideds" to Romney's column, and then move another 2 points from Obama to Romney, and you'll have something fairly close to where I believe we'll be election day.
This prediction is subject to some major gaffe or other election-rocking event occurring over the next two weeks.
So basically you're saying we'll see a historically unprecedented shift in polling data that completely ignores both the RCP and 538 model (the latter of which is probably the most accurate one in the business) because...why?
Because Rasmussen is accurate? I hope not, because they're the least reliable poll aggregator in the business. Because one moderately accurate national tracking poll shows outlier numbers?
Just three weeks ago, democrats were saying that the election was in the bag for Obama because polls were showing that he had anywhere from 6-12 point leads in several key swing states. Back then, I posed the following question: Assuming Romney comes back and wins this election, does it mean that people's minds really changed or does it mean that the polls were wrong? I, of course, suggested the latter.
So what am I basing my prediction on? Three things. First, undecideds tend to break for the challenger. Second, I've noticed a 2-3 point bias against republicans in the polls since the 2010 election. Third, Romney clearly has all of the momentum.
Take it for what you will, but this my honest analysis.
But people's minds really did change. Or, at least, he reassured his base during the first debate.
How does Romney have all the momentum when he clearly lost the last debate? lol
pundits are saying he lost the debate, but thus far, i haven't seen much evidence that this is so. (polls of "who won the debate" mean nothing, IMO)
Romney's performance in the polls hasn't seemed to slow, he is still on a steady gain. (i know we have to wait a couple days to see the real effects, but still) I don't see how you can say someone won the debate when they failed to convince anyone of anything, but....
So pundits claim romney lost the debate, and he's shown to have lost the debate in polls of likely voters.
Nah that still isn't enough evidence of an Obama debate victory.
Except those same pundits and polling data show that the President won the debate mainly on expectations. He was so bad in the first it was going to be hard for him not to win the second.
Also, those polls showed Romney ahead in the three most important issues for this election, the economy, jobs, and deficits/debt. In addition, all three focus groups performed by the cable networks that night showed little movement in people actually changing their vote and a good portion of those that did moved towards Romeny.
"Won the debate" doesn't matter if it doesn't show up in the actual polling. For example, if a pollster had called xDaunt that night my suspicion from his scoring is that he would have said the President won the debate but that it wouldn't have changed his vote.
I don't know anything about "winning" presidential debates, but it sure wasn't bad for Obama's team when Romney took a stab at calling Obama an outright liar and accidentally made himself the outright liar.
Actually, it was bad for the Obama campaign mainly because a large portion of the discussion now happening (as long as you're not watching MSNBC) is now focused on how badly the administration messed up the attacks in Bengazi. The Obama campaign has been peddling everything else (War on Women, Binders, etc.) except Crowley correcting Romney. They want this story to go away and as badly as Romney screwed that up going for a cheap point it just drew more attention to it.
A new poll shows Republican Mitt Romney leading in Pennsylvania, a state that Republicans had all but written off just weeks ago but which is now listed as a toss up by the Real Clear Politics website.
Susquehanna Polling and Research provided The Washington Examiner with a poll it conducted for state party officials that shows Romney with a 49 percent to 45 percent lead over President Obama.
It's the first poll to show Romney leading among likely voters in the Keystone State.
"The polling is very clear that the race is certainly up for grabs and Republicans have a tendency to never believe it," Susquehanna President James Lee told The Examiner.
The Examiner's editorial page is heavily conservative; it is headed by Mark Tapscott, with American Spectator senior editor Quin Hillyer serving as its associate editor. The paper's national political coverage, which also appears in Examiner papers in Baltimore and San Francisco, was previously headed by Bill Sammon, a former Washington Times reporter who has written several books praising George W. Bush. (Sammon is now the deputy managing editor for Fox News Channel's Washington bureau.[1]) Chris Stirewalt, who has been described as "a true conservative voice"[2], is the Examiner's political editor. Mary Katherine Ham, former managing editor of the conservative Townhall.com, briefly served as the Examiner's online editor for a few months in 2008 [3] before joining the Weekly Standard.[4] Matthew Sheffield, executive editor of the Media Research Center blog NewsBusters, is in charge of the Examiner's website.[5] Byron York, formerly of National Review, joined the paper in February 2009.[6]
Oh nos! A clearly conservative paper reports polls favoring Romney!
And right before the latest debate too!
You forgot to mention the part where even the poll that was sampled is highly biased. Susquehanna Polling & Research has been the Republican pollster of choice in Pennsylvania for many years now.
Not to mention the Washington Examiner is one of the most blatantly biased sources I've seen out there.
Kerry was a fine candidate I think, though Edwards did turn out to be a scumbag. Unfortunately, the Republicans (Karl Rove to be exact) decided to stoop to a new low in attack ads with swiftboat.
No joke. I was pretty much republican until 2004. It was awhile before I self labeled as "liberal" (was always socially liberal, fiscally not so) but seeing the swiftboat attacks was just fucking sickening.
This picture more than anything made me realize how vile many in the Republican base were and I never looked back.
Congratulations, here's your new base!
She's just fucking stupid, not fucking vile. Last time I checked "Obama Phone" isn't an official campaign strategy. The GOP was worshipping soldiers while ridiculing a veteran for his service to America. And this was from the fucking top and the base ate it up. Don't even try to compare the two.
well, technically, we were ridiculing a veteran for lying about his service to America.
You really are just a partisan hack aren't you. From Vice Admiral Ronald Route:
Our examination found that existing documentation regarding the Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals indicates the awards approval process was properly followed. In particular, the senior officers who awarded the medals were properly delegated authority to do so. In addition, we found that they correctly followed the procedures in place at the time for approving these awards
Conducting any additional review regarding events that took place over 30 years ago would not be productive. The passage of time would make reconstruction of the facts and circumstances unreliable, and would not allow the information gathered to be considered in the context of the time in which the events took place.
Our review also considered the fact that Senator Kerry's post-active duty activities were public and that military and civilian officials were aware of his actions at the time. For these reasons, I have determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved and will take no further action in this matter.
Or is a Vice Admiral part of a liberal conspiracy?
I'm partisan as hell, but that don't mean anything. most of the people on this thread are partisan. I won't say anything concerning the Vice Admiral, but I notice that he didn't say anything about what the swift-boat guys were claiming, which is that Kerry lied about what happened. he just said the correct procedures were followed and that they weren't going to investigate further.
either way, it's completely irrelevant now, I guess.
On October 20 2012 04:26 xDaunt wrote: Let me make a prediction about these polls and where they'll eventually end up. Take the average of any set of polls for a battleground state (or nationally for that matter), add all of the "undecideds" to Romney's column, and then move another 2 points from Obama to Romney, and you'll have something fairly close to where I believe we'll be election day.
This prediction is subject to some major gaffe or other election-rocking event occurring over the next two weeks.
So basically you're saying we'll see a historically unprecedented shift in polling data that completely ignores both the RCP and 538 model (the latter of which is probably the most accurate one in the business) because...why?
Because Rasmussen is accurate? I hope not, because they're the least reliable poll aggregator in the business. Because one moderately accurate national tracking poll shows outlier numbers?
Just three weeks ago, democrats were saying that the election was in the bag for Obama because polls were showing that he had anywhere from 6-12 point leads in several key swing states. Back then, I posed the following question: Assuming Romney comes back and wins this election, does it mean that people's minds really changed or does it mean that the polls were wrong? I, of course, suggested the latter.
So what am I basing my prediction on? Three things. First, undecideds tend to break for the challenger. Second, I've noticed a 2-3 point bias against republicans in the polls since the 2010 election. Third, Romney clearly has all of the momentum.
Take it for what you will, but this my honest analysis.
But people's minds really did change. Or, at least, he reassured his base during the first debate.
How does Romney have all the momentum when he clearly lost the last debate? lol
pundits are saying he lost the debate, but thus far, i haven't seen much evidence that this is so. (polls of "who won the debate" mean nothing, IMO)
Romney's performance in the polls hasn't seemed to slow, he is still on a steady gain. (i know we have to wait a couple days to see the real effects, but still) I don't see how you can say someone won the debate when they failed to convince anyone of anything, but....
So pundits claim romney lost the debate, and he's shown to have lost the debate in polls of likely voters.
Nah that still isn't enough evidence of an Obama debate victory.
Except those same pundits and polling data show that the President won the debate mainly on expectations. He was so bad in the first it was going to be hard for him not to win the second.
Also, those polls showed Romney ahead in the three most important issues for this election, the economy, jobs, and deficits/debt. In addition, all three focus groups performed by the cable networks that night showed little movement in people actually changing their vote and a good portion of those that did moved towards Romeny.
"Won the debate" doesn't matter if it doesn't show up in the actual polling. For example, if a pollster had called xDaunt that night my suspicion from his scoring is that he would have said the President won the debate but that it wouldn't have changed his vote.
I don't know anything about "winning" presidential debates, but it sure wasn't bad for Obama's team when Romney took a stab at calling Obama an outright liar and accidentally made himself the outright liar.
Actually, it was bad for the Obama campaign mainly because a large portion of the discussion now happening (as long as you're not watching MSNBC) is now focused on how badly the administration messed up the attacks in Bengazi. The Obama campaign has been peddling everything else (War on Women, Binders, etc.) except Crowley correcting Romney. They want this story to go away and as badly as Romney screwed that up going for a cheap point it just drew more attention to it.
How did you go about aggregating media coverage into the "large portion" needed for your argument? Because not many of the major networks have been harping on the Benghazi attacks more than any other election topic.
On October 20 2012 05:05 armada[sb] wrote: It's beyond me how Romney can win while alienating senior citizens, women, blacks and latinos.
Well, senoir citizens tend to vote Republican (and he hasn't alienated them in any way I'm aware of). Women, Romney hasn't really done much to push them away. He's not a darling of them, but it's not like he's proposing to ban birth control. Blacks vote 95% democrat already. Latinos, Romney is actually more liberal than most republicans. The sway of late to Democrats is troubling, but I don't think it's HIM that is the reason.
On October 20 2012 04:26 xDaunt wrote: Let me make a prediction about these polls and where they'll eventually end up. Take the average of any set of polls for a battleground state (or nationally for that matter), add all of the "undecideds" to Romney's column, and then move another 2 points from Obama to Romney, and you'll have something fairly close to where I believe we'll be election day.
This prediction is subject to some major gaffe or other election-rocking event occurring over the next two weeks.
So basically you're saying we'll see a historically unprecedented shift in polling data that completely ignores both the RCP and 538 model (the latter of which is probably the most accurate one in the business) because...why?
Because Rasmussen is accurate? I hope not, because they're the least reliable poll aggregator in the business. Because one moderately accurate national tracking poll shows outlier numbers?
Just three weeks ago, democrats were saying that the election was in the bag for Obama because polls were showing that he had anywhere from 6-12 point leads in several key swing states. Back then, I posed the following question: Assuming Romney comes back and wins this election, does it mean that people's minds really changed or does it mean that the polls were wrong? I, of course, suggested the latter.
So what am I basing my prediction on? Three things. First, undecideds tend to break for the challenger. Second, I've noticed a 2-3 point bias against republicans in the polls since the 2010 election. Third, Romney clearly has all of the momentum.
Take it for what you will, but this my honest analysis.
But people's minds really did change. Or, at least, he reassured his base during the first debate.
How does Romney have all the momentum when he clearly lost the last debate? lol
pundits are saying he lost the debate, but thus far, i haven't seen much evidence that this is so. (polls of "who won the debate" mean nothing, IMO)
Romney's performance in the polls hasn't seemed to slow, he is still on a steady gain. (i know we have to wait a couple days to see the real effects, but still) I don't see how you can say someone won the debate when they failed to convince anyone of anything, but....
So pundits claim romney lost the debate, and he's shown to have lost the debate in polls of likely voters.
Nah that still isn't enough evidence of an Obama debate victory.
Except those same pundits and polling data show that the President won the debate mainly on expectations. He was so bad in the first it was going to be hard for him not to win the second.
Also, those polls showed Romney ahead in the three most important issues for this election, the economy, jobs, and deficits/debt. In addition, all three focus groups performed by the cable networks that night showed little movement in people actually changing their vote and a good portion of those that did moved towards Romeny.
"Won the debate" doesn't matter if it doesn't show up in the actual polling. For example, if a pollster had called xDaunt that night my suspicion from his scoring is that he would have said the President won the debate but that it wouldn't have changed his vote.
I don't know anything about "winning" presidential debates, but it sure wasn't bad for Obama's team when Romney took a stab at calling Obama an outright liar and accidentally made himself the outright liar.
Actually, it was bad for the Obama campaign mainly because a large portion of the discussion now happening (as long as you're not watching MSNBC) is now focused on how badly the administration messed up the attacks in Bengazi. The Obama campaign has been peddling everything else (War on Women, Binders, etc.) except Crowley correcting Romney. They want this story to go away and as badly as Romney screwed that up going for a cheap point it just drew more attention to it.
No, Romney's campaign has halted the Libya discussion because debate polls indicated that he appeared stronger on the economy and jobs. One of his own campaign advisors attested to this and it's not something they are ashamed to say. Licking his wound would appear weak, but he can still gain ground with his background in business.
And don't give credit to Obama for the binders memes. That's squarely on the internet.
Your posts are bias'd to your own side sc2superfan101 . I don't know how you can't see that interfering with how others receive and evaluate your opinions. Let's take an example of myself. If I were to say (all of this is true):
"I am a registered independent. I always have been and I always will be. However, the day I vote for a Republican candidate in these days of neocon bullshit is the day I want to sign over my freedom and inalienable rights."
Now how do you think people are going to view that? That's what I think, it's true. But I don't present myself that way. Why? Because.. well no shit on this one but I have respect for others opinions. By that I mean I believe I am not always right and I should listen to dissent. Having an obnoxiously staunch and 'partisan' opinion is like sticking your fingers in your ears when someone says they like butter pecan ice cream and screaming CHOCOLATE! until they leave.
Have some common sense, I've got plenty laying around you can borrow.
On October 20 2012 06:24 oneofthem wrote: if it's going to be a popular count the big cities are even more dominant and we'll see a distinct leftward shift.
Never been a fan of this argument. Why should a person from Brooklyn and a person from Queens receive different weighting a than a person from Broomfield and a person from Manassas? Assuming they don't currently (which is true, but I'm not sure if it's by that much), then it's the current system that is skewing things.
9 million people in NYC should count more than 8 million people spread out over a thousand different towns.
I'm not sure how big of a skew there is currently. The bigger deal, for me, is the possibility that the common perception that your vote doesn't matter unless you live in one of four or five states, contributes to lower participation in our elections.
On October 20 2012 05:23 Souma wrote: What do people here think of the Electoral College? And if you could reform it what would you do to it?
while i think the EC is a good thing that makes sure parts of the country that wouldnt matter get some love, i do wonder how many more people woud vote if it was a popular vote.
How many republicans in CA dont vote because it really does not matter if they do? how many dems in TX dont vote because of the same thing?
this is exactly the problem with EC though, you arbitrarilly define small groups, then demand small groups get equal say. its nonsensical. not only is the point of a democracy that everyone is equal, which EC clearly doesnt support but you define peoples value purely on geography.
2 farmers on a state line will have similar needs, hopes, fears, dreams whatever, and yet 1s vote will be worth more than the other. and yet a person from the city who has nothing in common with the farmer will have an equal say.
the only thing EC supports is states rights, and states rights havent been an issue for 150 years. the only people still talking about individualism for the states at the backwater crazies still threatening to leave the union.
On October 20 2012 05:23 Souma wrote: What do people here think of the Electoral College? And if you could reform it what would you do to it?
The electoral college is terrible and outdated. A popular vote would be an obviously much more fair way to decide the winner.
But god, does the electoral college make for good entertainment.
I disagree. I don't want NY, TX, and CA deciding my president. I like having our say.
So Ohio deciding is better?
meh. popular elections of president is a stupid idea no matter how you slice it
edit: before the "samizdat hates freedom" comments start coming in, you should realize there's nothing in your holy constitution says you get to have a popular election for president
On October 20 2012 06:24 oneofthem wrote: if it's going to be a popular count the big cities are even more dominant and we'll see a distinct leftward shift.
Never been a fan of this argument. Why should a person from Brooklyn and a person from Queens receive different weighting a than a person from Broomfield and a person from Manassas? Assuming they don't currently (which is true, but I'm not sure if it's by that much), then it's the current system that is skewing things.
9 million people in NYC should count more than 8 million people spread out over a thousand different towns.
I'm not sure how big of a skew there is currently. The bigger deal, for me, is the possibility that the common perception that your vote doesn't matter unless you live in one of four or five states, contributes to lower participation in our elections.
knowing me you should know that i am for this. mobilizing historically marginalized inner city groups to have their issue on the national stage = pretty revolutionary
On October 20 2012 06:24 oneofthem wrote: if it's going to be a popular count the big cities are even more dominant and we'll see a distinct leftward shift.
Never been a fan of this argument. Why should a person from Brooklyn and a person from Queens receive different weighting a than a person from Broomfield and a person from Manassas? Assuming they don't currently (which is true, but I'm not sure if it's by that much), then it's the current system that is skewing things.
9 million people in NYC should count more than 8 million people spread out over a thousand different towns.
I'm not sure how big of a skew there is currently. The bigger deal, for me, is the possibility that the common perception that your vote doesn't matter unless you live in one of four or five states, contributes to lower participation in our elections.
It all comes down to how important statehood is. Is Wyoming as a parallel governing entity on equal ground with California? If not, popular vote away. If yes, you can't do a straight popular vote.
On October 20 2012 06:24 oneofthem wrote: if it's going to be a popular count the big cities are even more dominant and we'll see a distinct leftward shift.
Never been a fan of this argument. Why should a person from Brooklyn and a person from Queens receive different weighting a than a person from Broomfield and a person from Manassas? Assuming they don't currently (which is true, but I'm not sure if it's by that much), then it's the current system that is skewing things.
9 million people in NYC should count more than 8 million people spread out over a thousand different towns.
I'm not sure how big of a skew there is currently. The bigger deal, for me, is the possibility that the common perception that your vote doesn't matter unless you live in one of four or five states, contributes to lower participation in our elections.
knowing me you should know that i am for this. mobilizing historically marginalized inner city groups to have their issue on the national stage = pretty revolutionary
Haha, yeah I didn't even consider poster context. Usually I see that argument as a defense of the EC, as if people in rural states have the special right to have their votes be weighted more heavily than others'.
On October 20 2012 05:23 Souma wrote: What do people here think of the Electoral College? And if you could reform it what would you do to it?
The electoral college is terrible and outdated. A popular vote would be an obviously much more fair way to decide the winner.
But god, does the electoral college make for good entertainment.
I disagree. I don't want NY, TX, and CA deciding my president. I like having our say.
Assuming you live in a small state i understand why you like the power that the EC gives you but it is not fair. I can understand if you are going to argue logistics as switching to popular vote would be a massive undertaking to make sure it gets done right. But states like TX and CA should be the deciders in the president cause that is where a huge majority of the population is.
On October 20 2012 06:24 oneofthem wrote: if it's going to be a popular count the big cities are even more dominant and we'll see a distinct leftward shift.
Never been a fan of this argument. Why should a person from Brooklyn and a person from Queens receive different weighting a than a person from Broomfield and a person from Manassas? Assuming they don't currently (which is true, but I'm not sure if it's by that much), then it's the current system that is skewing things.
9 million people in NYC should count more than 8 million people spread out over a thousand different towns.
I'm not sure how big of a skew there is currently. The bigger deal, for me, is the possibility that the common perception that your vote doesn't matter unless you live in one of four or five states, contributes to lower participation in our elections.
knowing me you should know that i am for this. mobilizing historically marginalized inner city groups to have their issue on the national stage = pretty revolutionary
Haha, yeah I didn't even consider poster context. Usually I see that argument as a defense of the EC, as if people in rural states have the special right to have their votes be weighted more heavily than others'.
there's something to this, though. don't necessarily want urban areas dominating rural areas because urban areas have a higher population.
Really the problem is you have a single government trying to govern a highly ideologically heterogenous territory, not sure that's really feasible at all. USA is "too big to fail"
EPT![[image loading]](http://bp1.blogger.com/_QTMkWfqFyfk/SHGY4lb05MI/AAAAAAAAA0s/OHXT63QtXVg/s400/purple_heart_bandaid.jpg)
