|
|
With all this talk about polls and polsters and what the numbers mean its probably worth looking at what people who have money in the game think, not people trying to hype the election so that people watch the news.
http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election/winner
Obama is still the odds on favorite at roughly 1/2 where as mitt is at the opposite side at roughly 2/1. this seems to agree with the figures nate silver is pushing about the electoral college where he predicts a roughly 2/3rds chance of obama winning.
i also took the time to look back over the years and look for correlation between the popular vote and the electoral college, and.... there is none
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/historical.html
by all accounts popular vote can give you a clue as to who is favorite to win, but close votes have led to landslides in the EC and vice versa. dumb ass system. :D
On October 21 2012 00:49 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 00:20 Doublemint wrote:On October 21 2012 00:08 Leporello wrote:From wiki, this is Dick Morris Morris went on to become campaign manager of Bill Clinton's successful 1996 bid for re-election to the office of President. His tenure on that campaign was cut short two months before the election, when it was revealed that he had allowed a prostitute to listen in on conversations with the President. Morris then turned his focus to media commentary Why would anyone listen to what this guy has to say? There is no political commentator out there with a more clear chip in his shoulder and an axe to grind. He hates the DNC with every fiber of his being. It's all he knows. Well, doesn't that make him like the perfect guy for his current job? :D Also the partisan bickering in here is getting more intense, seems to be a good indicator of the election not being all that far away anymore  Partisan bickering has been there from the get go (and xDaunt is also part of that, sorry), only now more republican voters are willing to stand up since Romney has raised some real issues and hasn't looked completely retarded in the debates. It would seem that the debates have pushed Romney foreward, mostly among doubters and it has broken a lot of the horrible image the democrats tried to build around him. Now foreign policy seems to be up on monday and that is likely not gonna be a good topic for Romney in any way, shape or form. Let us see how it looks by then.
i dont think foreign policy will matter anywhere near as much as i would hope it does...
i think global image is something that obama is stronger on, but its only important to obamas supporters. and i think loud rhetoric is something romney is strong on, but its only important to his own base. i can for see a lot of shouting, both sides claiming victory and no one changing their mind.
|
On October 21 2012 01:14 turdburgler wrote:With all this talk about polls and polsters and what the numbers mean its probably worth looking at what people who have money in the game think, not people trying to hype the election so that people watch the news. http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election/winnerObama is still the odds on favorite at roughly 1/2 where as mitt is at the opposite side at roughly 2/1. this seems to agree with the figures nate silver is pushing about the electoral college where he predicts a roughly 2/3rds chance of obama winning. i also took the time to look back over the years and look for correlation between the popular vote and the electoral college, and.... there is none http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/historical.htmlby all accounts popular vote can give you a clue as to who is favorite to win, but close votes have led to landslides in the EC and vice versa. dumb ass system. :D Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 00:49 radiatoren wrote:On October 21 2012 00:20 Doublemint wrote:On October 21 2012 00:08 Leporello wrote:From wiki, this is Dick Morris Morris went on to become campaign manager of Bill Clinton's successful 1996 bid for re-election to the office of President. His tenure on that campaign was cut short two months before the election, when it was revealed that he had allowed a prostitute to listen in on conversations with the President. Morris then turned his focus to media commentary Why would anyone listen to what this guy has to say? There is no political commentator out there with a more clear chip in his shoulder and an axe to grind. He hates the DNC with every fiber of his being. It's all he knows. Well, doesn't that make him like the perfect guy for his current job? :D Also the partisan bickering in here is getting more intense, seems to be a good indicator of the election not being all that far away anymore Partisan bickering has been there from the get go (and xDaunt is also part of that, sorry), only now more republican voters are willing to stand up since Romney has raised some real issues and hasn't looked completely retarded in the debates. It would seem that the debates have pushed Romney foreward, mostly among doubters and it has broken a lot of the horrible image the democrats tried to build around him. Now foreign policy seems to be up on monday and that is likely not gonna be a good topic for Romney in any way, shape or form. Let us see how it looks by then. i dont think foreign policy will matter anywhere near as much as i would hope it does... i think global image is something that obama is stronger on, but its only important to obamas supporters. and i think loud rhetoric is something romney is strong on, but its only important to his own base. i can for see a lot of shouting, both sides claiming victory and no one changing their mind.
most people gambling on this are complete degenerates.
|
On October 21 2012 01:27 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 01:14 turdburgler wrote:With all this talk about polls and polsters and what the numbers mean its probably worth looking at what people who have money in the game think, not people trying to hype the election so that people watch the news. http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election/winnerObama is still the odds on favorite at roughly 1/2 where as mitt is at the opposite side at roughly 2/1. this seems to agree with the figures nate silver is pushing about the electoral college where he predicts a roughly 2/3rds chance of obama winning. i also took the time to look back over the years and look for correlation between the popular vote and the electoral college, and.... there is none http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/historical.htmlby all accounts popular vote can give you a clue as to who is favorite to win, but close votes have led to landslides in the EC and vice versa. dumb ass system. :D On October 21 2012 00:49 radiatoren wrote:On October 21 2012 00:20 Doublemint wrote:On October 21 2012 00:08 Leporello wrote:From wiki, this is Dick Morris Morris went on to become campaign manager of Bill Clinton's successful 1996 bid for re-election to the office of President. His tenure on that campaign was cut short two months before the election, when it was revealed that he had allowed a prostitute to listen in on conversations with the President. Morris then turned his focus to media commentary Why would anyone listen to what this guy has to say? There is no political commentator out there with a more clear chip in his shoulder and an axe to grind. He hates the DNC with every fiber of his being. It's all he knows. Well, doesn't that make him like the perfect guy for his current job? :D Also the partisan bickering in here is getting more intense, seems to be a good indicator of the election not being all that far away anymore Partisan bickering has been there from the get go (and xDaunt is also part of that, sorry), only now more republican voters are willing to stand up since Romney has raised some real issues and hasn't looked completely retarded in the debates. It would seem that the debates have pushed Romney foreward, mostly among doubters and it has broken a lot of the horrible image the democrats tried to build around him. Now foreign policy seems to be up on monday and that is likely not gonna be a good topic for Romney in any way, shape or form. Let us see how it looks by then. i dont think foreign policy will matter anywhere near as much as i would hope it does... i think global image is something that obama is stronger on, but its only important to obamas supporters. and i think loud rhetoric is something romney is strong on, but its only important to his own base. i can for see a lot of shouting, both sides claiming victory and no one changing their mind. most people gambling on this are complete degenerates.
yes but the gamblers arent the ones choosing the odds.
|
On October 20 2012 19:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 17:21 sam!zdat wrote:
Somebody who thinks you can fix the economy please tell me, what sort of jobs do you envisage being created? I'd start with the American energy sector. There are easily over a million jobs that could be created merely by cutting the administrative red tape that the federal government has placed over the sector.
By "administrative red tape" you mean any and all environmental regulation, right?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
traditional energy is doing fantastic. you don't need the governemnt to help out on more of that.
oil shale and other newfangled things i've not looked at so i dunno if the regulations are bad, but when you are dealing with fracking, claims of no impact are suspect because of the low knowledge we have of the geology.
but really, when the problem facing america is a transitioning economy with loads of technological displacement, you come up with more drilling as the biggest problem? rofl
|
On October 20 2012 19:11 Poorlilrich wrote:
I heard political analyst Dick Morris say something about polling data that maybe someone from America can clarify because I'm Aussie and we don't have as much polling.
Basically he says that the polling data is skewed in favour of democrats because when they do a phone survey, they get a lot of old people who are at home, and a low amount of minorities (black people, hispanics etc). So then what they do is take the minority votes and try to predict the real minority vote percentage based off the 2008 election data, which supposedly had record minority turnout. Morris believes the minority votes swung the election for Obama in '08 (or at least played a big a factor) and will not participate as much this time. Thus he believes Romney is winning in most of the polls, despite the figures. He backs this up by saying that polling data based off the 2004 election model is more accurate, and these have Romney up by several points.
He's lying, Dick Morris is only an analyst if you include "worthless jowly hacks". Republicans this year decided that pollls are biased (like most real journalists) The majority of polls are done with reasonable methodology and these blanket accusations of bias are just retarded.
Then again, maybe the pollsters are having trouble taking in the effect of Republican voter suppression (they call it voter ID laws) into account.
@Oneofthem: My state, Michigan, has had no problems from fracking and we've been doing it for decades and decades. Some states have practically no regulatory regime and they are the ones where you seem to be getting the contamination. "Cutting red tape" on fracking is a dangerous game, it needs some more red tape in most states.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
yea i'd think it depends on the underlying geology. you really should be careful with stuff that cna contaminate groundwater and have a high standard of certainty before doing it.
|
you want to know why romney is doing so good right now just look at the money. if you have $50 million more than your opponent of course you are going to be winning
|
On October 21 2012 02:47 oneofthem wrote:
yea i'd think it depends on the underlying geology. you really should be careful with stuff that cna contaminate groundwater and have a high standard of certainty before doing it.
We actually know a lot about this shit already, we just need regulations reflecting the regional differences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antrim_Shale (Shale with no radioactivity)
http://www.museumoftheearth.org/files/marcellus/Marcellus_issue4.pdf (Pamphlet on Marcellus shale's radioactive components)
The Marcellus formation contains fun things like fairly high levels of naturally occurring radioactivity in addition to gas. The Antrim Shale does not but still Michigan requires grouting around one casing and cementing around a second casing so the well has a total of at least 3 casing, 2 of which are fail safes. Some states around the Marcellus shale do not have such strong regulations. Penn. in particular needs to get their shit together on this.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
part of me want to see what romney would do with all the public pensions and social security. going by the bain strategy it'll probably be:
find a heavily debted company
pay creditors first
since pensioners are not creditors, they are lower on the pecking order of who's getting the money even though the deferred pay and pensions are like loans
when you kick out the retired workers, whoa, company looks good again
i dunno, sell the place for profit?
|
On October 21 2012 03:00 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
you want to know why romney is doing so good right now just look at the money. if you have $50 million more than your opponent of course you are going to be winning
That's why Obama camp spent $640.8 million dollars and Romney camp spent $577.4 million dollars....
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
|
On October 20 2012 09:06 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 08:51 SayGen wrote:
Loving how the 'Binder full of women' is backfiring on the Obama camp.
Almost funny how the more they say it the more women voters switch to Romney after they look into what he said and realize he has done more for equality than Obama has.
Best part is, Liberals act like they are the defenders of minorities when facts are Republicans are the ones who have done the most good in our country--after all which party freed the slaves.
Want equality, vote Romney
Want more sexism and social injustice, vote Obama you do know that the name republican and democrat have basically reversed meaning since then?
no they haven't. this is a myth.
|
so... if Obama is a warrior because he "stuck up" for Hilary, what about Charlene Lamb? he's done a pretty good job of throwing her under the bus, huh? I wonder how long before she starts rolling on the administration.
|
On October 21 2012 03:10 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 03:00 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
you want to know why romney is doing so good right now just look at the money. if you have $50 million more than your opponent of course you are going to be winning That's why Obama camp spent $640.8 million dollars and Romney camp spent $577.4 million dollars.... http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
So speaking of campaign money, my girlfriend is working at the Bentley archives in Ann Arbor, they have a shitton of Romney stuff (mostly George but a bunch of Mitt's stuff too) and someone from a campaign called up and wanted rushed scans of about 20 pages of notes from George before his meeting with Nixon back in the day. The way the pricing works photocopies are cheap, like 50 cents a page or something but digital copies cost 10$ per page. (I don't know why, that pricing structure confuses me) Rushed doubles the cost. Instead of having them photocopied and overnighted for about $50 they decided to spend $840 having them scanned and sent immediately, super rush mode.
Sadly which campaign desperately needed these notecards with 5-10 words on each of them will never be known.
|
On October 21 2012 03:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 09:06 turdburgler wrote:On October 20 2012 08:51 SayGen wrote:
Loving how the 'Binder full of women' is backfiring on the Obama camp.
Almost funny how the more they say it the more women voters switch to Romney after they look into what he said and realize he has done more for equality than Obama has.
Best part is, Liberals act like they are the defenders of minorities when facts are Republicans are the ones who have done the most good in our country--after all which party freed the slaves.
Want equality, vote Romney
Want more sexism and social injustice, vote Obama you do know that the name republican and democrat have basically reversed meaning since then? no they haven't. this is a myth.
??????????
are you serious? Of course they did. It almost entirely had to do with the Civil Rights act and the south. Get over yourself (the party that free'd the slaves). Please.
Republicans were fairly progressive back then. Now they have decided to align themselves with the ignorance and the bible belt because it is an easy way to get elected......(republicans are far better at politics than democrats (not that that is a good/moral thing btw))
|
On October 20 2012 19:11 Poorlilrich wrote:
I heard political analyst Dick Morris say something about polling data that maybe someone from America can clarify because I'm Aussie and we don't have as much polling.
Basically he says that the polling data is skewed in favour of democrats because when they do a phone survey, they get a lot of old people who are at home, and a low amount of minorities (black people, hispanics etc). So then what they do is take the minority votes and try to predict the real minority vote percentage based off the 2008 election data, which supposedly had record minority turnout. Morris believes the minority votes swung the election for Obama in '08 (or at least played a big a factor) and will not participate as much this time. Thus he believes Romney is winning in most of the polls, despite the figures. He backs this up by saying that polling data based off the 2004 election model is more accurate, and these have Romney up by several points.
there is good reason to believe that this might be true. the enthusiasm on the Obama side is pretty low, which doesn't bode well for the kind of high turnout that he enjoyed in 2008. obviously we can't know, and it is possible that minorities will vote in record numbers again, but the likelihood of that is pretty low.
polling centers do have to "manipulate" their numbers in order to get a more accurate score, but that does lead to some questions about exactly what manipulations they are engaging in. now, they do have to sell these polls, so (ideally) they do have some interest in keeping them as accurate as possible, but that doesn't mean that they aren't fudging the numbers without necessarily meaning to.
oh, and Dick Morris is a boss. used to work for the Clinton admin. very sharp political analyst.
|
I watched an episode of the daily show this week where John Oliver did a bit where he interviewed debate analysts to parody the CNN/MSNBC/FOX channels just spew useless knowledge 24/7. The final joke was that an ohio voter is the only one whose vote really matters. As a Canadian, I have heard a bit of stuff during this election that only 2-3 states actually matter in this upcoming debate because of the political system in the States winning thier entire state even with 51% of the vote. Does anyone have a good link to an essay or explanation on this subject ? just curious
|
On October 21 2012 03:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 09:06 turdburgler wrote:On October 20 2012 08:51 SayGen wrote:
Loving how the 'Binder full of women' is backfiring on the Obama camp.
Almost funny how the more they say it the more women voters switch to Romney after they look into what he said and realize he has done more for equality than Obama has.
Best part is, Liberals act like they are the defenders of minorities when facts are Republicans are the ones who have done the most good in our country--after all which party freed the slaves.
Want equality, vote Romney
Want more sexism and social injustice, vote Obama you do know that the name republican and democrat have basically reversed meaning since then? no they haven't. this is a myth.
http://cprr.org/Museum/Ephemera/Republican_Platform_1860.html
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dem1860.asp
Look up their 2012 platforms yourself.
Then you can decide for yourself! Republicans don't mention God in that platform though, who were they yelling at this year for doing the same thing?
They are just different parties today than they were then. What the Republicans did during the Civil War has no bearing on who you should vote for today, that should be obvious.
@Crispy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)
|
On October 21 2012 03:18 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 03:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 20 2012 09:06 turdburgler wrote:On October 20 2012 08:51 SayGen wrote:
Loving how the 'Binder full of women' is backfiring on the Obama camp.
Almost funny how the more they say it the more women voters switch to Romney after they look into what he said and realize he has done more for equality than Obama has.
Best part is, Liberals act like they are the defenders of minorities when facts are Republicans are the ones who have done the most good in our country--after all which party freed the slaves.
Want equality, vote Romney
Want more sexism and social injustice, vote Obama you do know that the name republican and democrat have basically reversed meaning since then? no they haven't. this is a myth. ?????????? are you serious? Of course they did. It almost entirely had to do with the Civil Rights act and the south. Get over yourself (the party that free'd the slaves). Please. Republicans were fairly progressive back then. Now they have decided to align themselves with the ignorance and the bible belt because it is an easy way to get elected......(republicans are far better at politics than democrats (not that that is a good/moral thing btw))
I am perfectly serious. the very same Democrat party of FDR is the very same Democrat party that voted against the Civil Rights bills. or are we suggesting that FDR's policies are somehow Republican? did the switch happen before FDR then?
people like to point at Goldwater as if the reason he was nominated wasn't his positions on Communism. they take his voting against the 1964 Civil Rights Act as if that is proof of his "racism", despite his championing both the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts. furthermore, they refuse to accept the obvious fact that LBJ was as much a Democrat progressive as FDR and Woodrow Wilson. his social policies are largely the same (except drop the explicit racism of the former two) and his foreign policy, again, is largely the same.
they also ignore the fact that George Wallace, a segregationist, was running in the Democrat primaries, and even ran pretty close to LBJ in some key states. they ignore the fact that there was no massive shift in politicians from one party to another, that those Republicans who voted for the Civil Rights bills stayed Republicans (except, perhaps, for a few exceptions). and those Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights bills largely stayed Democrat.
it's a myth with no basis in reality.
|
On October 21 2012 03:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 03:18 Sadist wrote:On October 21 2012 03:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 20 2012 09:06 turdburgler wrote:On October 20 2012 08:51 SayGen wrote:
Loving how the 'Binder full of women' is backfiring on the Obama camp.
Almost funny how the more they say it the more women voters switch to Romney after they look into what he said and realize he has done more for equality than Obama has.
Best part is, Liberals act like they are the defenders of minorities when facts are Republicans are the ones who have done the most good in our country--after all which party freed the slaves.
Want equality, vote Romney
Want more sexism and social injustice, vote Obama you do know that the name republican and democrat have basically reversed meaning since then? no they haven't. this is a myth. ?????????? are you serious? Of course they did. It almost entirely had to do with the Civil Rights act and the south. Get over yourself (the party that free'd the slaves). Please. Republicans were fairly progressive back then. Now they have decided to align themselves with the ignorance and the bible belt because it is an easy way to get elected......(republicans are far better at politics than democrats (not that that is a good/moral thing btw)) I am perfectly serious. the very same Democrat party of FDR is the very same Democrat party that voted against the Civil Rights bills. or are we suggesting that FDR's policies are somehow Republican? did the switch happen before FDR then? people like to point at Goldwater as if the reason he was nominated wasn't his positions on Communism. they take his voting against the 1964 Civil Rights Act as if that is proof of his "racism", despite his championing both the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts. furthermore, they refuse to accept the obvious fact that LBJ was as much a Democrat progressive as FDR and Woodrow Wilson. his social policies are largely the same (except drop the explicit racism of the former two) and his foreign policy, again, is largely the same. they also ignore the fact that George Wallace, a segregationist, was running in the Democrat primaries, and even ran pretty close to LBJ in some key states. they ignore the fact that there was no massive shift in politicians from one party to another, that those Republicans who voted for the Civil Rights bills stayed Republicans (except, perhaps, for a few exceptions). and those Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights bills largely stayed Democrat. it's a myth with no basis in reality.
Then Nixon happened and the Republican party adopted what is known as the "southern strategy".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Really man, your history is very cherry picked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
