Poll
Question:
Who gets your vote for President of the United States of America?
Option 1: I'm an American and I vote for Obama - just the man to turn American around after four miserable years
votes: 24
Option 2: I'm an American and I vote for Romney - his day one job: get ride of Obamacare and then strip America down and sell it for parts
votes: 14
Option 3: I'm not an American, but I would vote for Obama - a weak and apologetic America pleases me
votes: 30
Option 4: I'm not an American, but I would vote for Romney - a Mormon in the White House? That will be hilarious!
votes: 3
Option 5: I am American, and I waste my vote by voting for a third party
votes: 6
Option 6: I am not an American, but I would vote for Jaron
votes: 4
Well?
Why would he get a ride of Obamacare?
Quoteand then strip America down and sell it for parts
It's funny because it's true.
Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2012, 02:45:37 PM
Why would he get a ride of Obamacare?
Because he said last night, "The first thing that I will do is get rid of Obamacare."
...Sigh....
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 23, 2012, 02:55:14 PM
...Sigh....
Shut up. I'm at work and barely paying attention here. :blush:
Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2012, 02:45:37 PM
Why would he get a ride of Obamacare?
Nobody's perfect. :P
Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2012, 03:00:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 23, 2012, 02:55:14 PM
...Sigh....
Shut up. I'm at work and barely paying attention here. :blush:
To be fair though, still probably wouldn't necessarily mean that - as Romney has sure said a lot of contradictory things this election.
Romnesians FTW
Obama is just the man we need to right the ship of state after that idiot Obama completely wrecked it for the past four years.
Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2012, 03:18:51 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2012, 03:00:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 23, 2012, 02:55:14 PM
...Sigh....
Shut up. I'm at work and barely paying attention here. :blush:
To be fair though, still probably wouldn't necessarily mean that - as Romney has sure said a lot of contradictory things this election.
Just out of curiosity, are you still planning to vote for him?
I voted for Obama to replace an idiot of a sitting president once, and I'll do it again.
Jaron, with a lifetime mandate.
iLìder Maximo!
L.
Obama, because sitting still's better than going the wrong way.
Well I hope you American Languishites are representative of your entire population.
Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2012, 02:45:37 PM
Why would he get a ride of Obamacare?
Because a "ride" can be "stripped for parts"
it's funny because it is a non-sexual double entendre
The Daily Show would be funnier if Romney won.
Quote from: Josephus on October 23, 2012, 04:23:02 PM
Well I hope you American Languishites are representative of your entire population.
Your hopes are sure to be dashed :contract:
I mean Obama may well win but not but a Languish style margin.
I've given my non-vote some serious thought. :)
In every single past election it was automatic - I would have voted for Bush 41 twice, Dole, and Bush 43 twice. There was very little debate.
This time... Obama hasn't impressed me, but he hasn't outraged me either (Obamacare seems like a mess, but the system was hardly much better beforehand). Romney on the otherhand hasn't impressed me either, although he has the resume that he ought to make a good executive.
In the end my non-vote goes back to political instincts - Republican. But not without hesitation.
Quote from: Barrister on October 23, 2012, 04:47:18 PM
I've given my non-vote some serious thought. :)
In every single past election it was automatic - I would have voted for Bush 41 twice, Dole, and Bush 43 twice. There was very little debate.
This time... Obama hasn't impressed me, but he hasn't outraged me either (Obamacare seems like a mess, but the system was hardly much better beforehand). Romney on the otherhand hasn't impressed me either, although he has the resume that he ought to make a good executive.
In the end my non-vote goes back to political instincts - Republican. But not without hesitation.
Better than nothing. At least we have one Romney furrener vote in the totals.
Kinda surprised we have 6 US-Americans voting Romney. There's me and grabon. I haven't seen Hans or Siege here today, so I can't account for the other 4 :hmm:
If I harbored thoughts of supporting Romney, I certainly would keep that dark secret to myself.
furriners should be allowed to vote in American elections...after all everything you do effects us. Maybe it could weigh half a vote of an American.
Quote from: Josephus on October 23, 2012, 04:56:52 PM
furriners should be allowed to vote in American elections...after all everything you do effects us. Maybe it could weigh half a vote of an American.
And then we can pay half of the taxes that an American citizen would pay! :w00t:
Quote from: Josephus on October 23, 2012, 04:56:52 PM
furriners should be allowed to vote in American elections...after all everything you do effects us. Maybe it could weigh half a vote of an American.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2012, 04:50:43 PM
Kinda surprised we have 6 US-Americans voting Romney. There's me and grabon. I haven't seen Hans or Siege here today, so I can't account for the other 4 :hmm:
Me. I got vote for the 1%.
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2012, 04:50:43 PM
Kinda surprised we have 6 US-Americans voting Romney. There's me and grabon. I haven't seen Hans or Siege here today, so I can't account for the other 4 :hmm:
Kleves, Habby, Ed, Stonewall.
That's my guess.
Haven't seen Stoney in eons.
Phil's got a crush on Romney so he's a likely candidate.
Quote from: Barrister on October 23, 2012, 04:59:05 PM
Quote from: Josephus on October 23, 2012, 04:56:52 PM
furriners should be allowed to vote in American elections...after all everything you do effects us. Maybe it could weigh half a vote of an American.
And then we can pay half of the taxes that an American citizen would pay! :w00t:
This is interesting idea. Not the voting part, the part where you give us money. If we are going to be called "Imperialist" all the time, the least world could do is pay us tribute.
I have long advocated for the taxation of foreigners living abroad.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 23, 2012, 05:16:12 PM
If we are going to be called "Imperialist" all the time, the least world could do is pay us tribute.
Only new people are Imperialist, the old guard is Yi. :ph34r:
No "I hate politics and refuse to vote for any of the available crooks". :mad:
Quote from: Barrister on October 23, 2012, 04:59:05 PM
Quote from: Josephus on October 23, 2012, 04:56:52 PM
furriners should be allowed to vote in American elections...after all everything you do effects us. Maybe it could weigh half a vote of an American.
And then we can pay half of the taxes that an American citizen would pay! :w00t:
If Romney wins that would be nothing, right?
Quote from: PDH on October 23, 2012, 05:19:11 PM
I have long advocated for the taxation of foreigners living abroad.
I dont think you're saying what you mean.
Perhaps the best poll descriptions ever.
Well Done
For the record - Non American, would vote Obama.
People who pick the loser should lose their jobs. :homestar:
Foreigner. Would vote for Obama. Frankly I'd vote for Bachmann, Santorum, Cain or Gravel over Romney.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2012, 06:30:13 PM
Foreigner. Would vote for Obama. Frankly I'd vote for Bachmann, Santorum, Cain or Gravel over Romney.
What a coincidence, I would vote for gravel over Romney.
gravel is too inexperienced, vote dirt
Futures market is abandoning Obama. He is now only favored against Romney 55-45 on InTrade.
Gallup +5 Romney
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx)
Rasmussen +4 Romney
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 23, 2012, 05:42:34 PM
People who pick the loser should lose their jobs. :homestar:
Too late, RomneyNation already beat me to the punch. And I haven't even voted yet.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 23, 2012, 05:10:54 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2012, 04:50:43 PM
Kinda surprised we have 6 US-Americans voting Romney. There's me and grabon. I haven't seen Hans or Siege here today, so I can't account for the other 4 :hmm:
Kleves, Habby, Ed, Stonewall.
That's my guess.
:lol: Bad guess, then. I'm not voting for him.
I worked for the Obama campaign when I lived in NYC back in 2008... stupid on two counts as I was foreigner and it's not like NY was a tossup...
I'm trying to go back there in a couple years, so in this case I would vote Obama. If I'm not able to I'd vote Romney and watch the fireworks from the other side of the pond.
I was hoping for a poll on who should be elected President of Languish. :(
Quote from: celedhring on October 24, 2012, 08:56:35 AM
I'm trying to go back there in a couple years, so in this case I would vote Obama. If I'm not able to I'd vote Romney and watch the fireworks from the other side of the pond.
Because there will really be fireworks. :rolleyes:
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2012, 09:03:52 AM
Quote from: celedhring on October 24, 2012, 08:56:35 AM
I'm trying to go back there in a couple years, so in this case I would vote Obama. If I'm not able to I'd vote Romney and watch the fireworks from the other side of the pond.
Because there will really be fireworks. :rolleyes:
Figuratively speaking. I think a Romney presidency would be entertaining for a whole host of wrong reasons.
Anyway, in truth I want the less sucky option for the people in the US, which seems to be Obama this time around.
Obama of course. The Earth isn't great but its all we have, don't want it destroyed.
Perhaps a bit of hyperbole at play there....
Quote from: Phillip V on October 23, 2012, 11:35:25 PM
Futures market is abandoning Obama. He is now only favored against Romney 55-45 on InTrade.
Gallup +5 Romney
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx)
Rasmussen +4 Romney
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)
Latest Rasmussen has Ohio at a 48-48 tie. Maybe this one will go into overtime.
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2012, 09:03:52 AM
Quote from: celedhring on October 24, 2012, 08:56:35 AM
I'm trying to go back there in a couple years, so in this case I would vote Obama. If I'm not able to I'd vote Romney and watch the fireworks from the other side of the pond.
Because there will really be fireworks. :rolleyes:
I pledged on Facebook to become a homegrown terrorist if Romney wins, so there'll be fireworks in my part of town.
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2012, 10:10:55 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on October 23, 2012, 11:35:25 PM
Futures market is abandoning Obama. He is now only favored against Romney 55-45 on InTrade.
Gallup +5 Romney
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx)
Rasmussen +4 Romney
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)
Latest Rasmussen has Ohio at a 48-48 tie. Maybe this one will go into overtime.
Im pretty sure this election will go into overtime. Whoever loses is going to contest...it will be that close looks like. Start counting the pregnant chads.
Quote from: Josephus on October 24, 2012, 10:41:20 AM
Im pretty sure this election will go into overtime. Whoever loses is going to contest...it will be that close looks like. Start counting the pregnant chads.
Colorado 2012 = Florida 2000
That's the way it's going to be.
Quote from: Josephus on October 24, 2012, 10:41:20 AM
Im pretty sure this election will go into overtime. Whoever loses is going to contest...it will be that close looks like. Start counting the pregnant chads.
It looks like you might be right, but I really hope not. Right wingers don't accept Obama as legitimate now, could you imagine if he had a real hint of illegitimacy about him? Or if two elections in 12 years were handed to Republicans by the courts?
I said I was voting for Al Smith and I am sticking with that.
I'm going to write in Jaron. Also, there are a total of five women who plan to vote how I tell them, so maybe Marty is vindicated. :lol:
Quote from: celedhring on October 24, 2012, 09:14:10 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2012, 09:03:52 AM
Quote from: celedhring on October 24, 2012, 08:56:35 AM
I'm trying to go back there in a couple years, so in this case I would vote Obama. If I'm not able to I'd vote Romney and watch the fireworks from the other side of the pond.
Because there will really be fireworks. :rolleyes:
Figuratively speaking. I think a Romney presidency would be entertaining for a whole host of wrong reasons.
Anyway, in truth I want the less sucky option for the people in the US, which seems to be Obama this time around.
I understood what you are saying and it is ridiculous.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 24, 2012, 11:57:11 AM
I'm going to write in Jaron. Also, there are a total of five women who plan to vote how I tell them, so maybe Marty is vindicated. :lol:
:hmm: You have 4 more than me. How did you manage to do that?
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2012, 12:02:14 PM
I understood what you are saying and it is ridiculous.
I think there will be some short-term fireworks if Romney wins. Unless all the people on twitter threatening to riot are bullshitting (which is possible).
Side-note: A lot of the above-mentioned twitter users call him "Nick Romney" :huh:
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2012, 12:08:20 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 24, 2012, 11:57:11 AM
I'm going to write in Jaron. Also, there are a total of five women who plan to vote how I tell them, so maybe Marty is vindicated. :lol:
:hmm: You have 4 more than me. How did you manage to do that?
Big family. Mom, sisters, etc.
Trump's bombshell was just wild!
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2012, 12:02:14 PM
Quote from: celedhring on October 24, 2012, 09:14:10 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2012, 09:03:52 AM
Quote from: celedhring on October 24, 2012, 08:56:35 AM
I'm trying to go back there in a couple years, so in this case I would vote Obama. If I'm not able to I'd vote Romney and watch the fireworks from the other side of the pond.
Because there will really be fireworks. :rolleyes:
Figuratively speaking. I think a Romney presidency would be entertaining for a whole host of wrong reasons.
Anyway, in truth I want the less sucky option for the people in the US, which seems to be Obama this time around.
I understood what you are saying and it is ridiculous.
The way he - whom I still regard as a moderate at heart - has bowed to the extremist side of the Republican party doesn't instill me with confidence of seeing him in a position of power and having to deal with a Tea Party that will feel entitled by the victory. Personally I'd prefer this second coming of the Culture Wars to finish quickly, and a Republican win on this kind of platform wouldn't really help and set the country in a wild ride. Obama is quite moderate, frankly, he's really done little to upset the apple cart, apart from the Health Care Reform, which I still find too moderate (but I'm an Euro).
Quote from: celedhring on October 24, 2012, 12:34:55 PM
The way he - whom I still regard as a moderate at heart - has bowed to the extremist side of the Republican party doesn't instill me with confidence of seeing him in a position of power and having to deal with a Tea Party that will feel entitled by the victory. Personally I'd prefer this second coming of the Culture Wars to finish quickly, and a Republican win on this kind of platform wouldn't really help and set the country in a wild ride. Obama is quite moderate, frankly, he's really done little to upset the apple cart, apart from the Health Care Reform, which I still find too moderate (but I'm an Euro).
And Romney did little to upset the apple cart while governor of Massachusetts and in the last few weeks has shifted far away from the right of the Republican party.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 23, 2012, 05:10:54 PM
Kleves...
That's my guess.
Good guess. I did vote for Romney in the poll, and I probably will IRL. I am not too enamored with either candidate, but at least Romney seems to be flip-flopping in the right direction and would be answerable to the electorate after four years. Fortunately, my decision is made easier because my vote will not matter (Washington is voting for Obama).
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2012, 12:02:14 PM
Quote from: celedhring on October 24, 2012, 09:14:10 AM
Anyway, in truth I want the less sucky option for the people in the US, which seems to be Obama this time around.
I understood what you are saying and it is ridiculous.
I want the less sucky option for the people of the US, too. Which is Obama, whether you like it or not.
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2012, 12:22:32 PM
Trump's bombshell was just wild!
What was it? They covered it on the radio here for some reason, but it wasn't out before deadline.
That he is an incredible douche.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 24, 2012, 01:27:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2012, 12:02:14 PM
Quote from: celedhring on October 24, 2012, 09:14:10 AM
Anyway, in truth I want the less sucky option for the people in the US, which seems to be Obama this time around.
I understood what you are saying and it is ridiculous.
I want the less sucky option for the people of the US, too. Which is Obama, whether you like it or not.
I don't see evidence of that.
Quote from: Liep on October 24, 2012, 01:39:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2012, 12:22:32 PM
Trump's bombshell was just wild!
What was it? They covered it on the radio here for some reason, but it wasn't out before deadline.
http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/tv/tv-zone-1.811968/donald-trump-s-announcement-one-big-fffftttttzzzzzz-1.4147851
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 24, 2012, 01:27:01 PM
I want the less sucky option for the people of the US, too. Which is Obama, whether you like it or not.
Please, don't play that line. You love Obama. You worship him.
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2012, 01:46:22 PM
http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/tv/tv-zone-1.811968/donald-trump-s-announcement-one-big-fffftttttzzzzzz-1.4147851
My only guess is that he didn't end up getting the dirt he thought he'd get (Obama divorce papers?), so he fell back on this as his backup plan.
I wasn't expecting much.
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2012, 02:14:03 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 24, 2012, 01:27:01 PM
I want the less sucky option for the people of the US, too. Which is Obama, whether you like it or not.
Please, don't play that line. You love Obama. You worship him.
That's like saying you're a rabid Stalin fanboi rooting for the Reds against the Nazis on the Eastern Front. That would be incorrect.
Only in relation to the state of today's GOP would it be considered love and worship.
GOP: sucking fat fundie Christian cock since 1988.
88? When they picked an old school moderate from Connecticut?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 24, 2012, 05:04:26 PM
88? When they picked an old school moderate from Connecticut?
And ran him out of town when his lips proved to be lying.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 24, 2012, 03:43:43 PM
That's like saying you're a rabid Stalin fanboi rooting for the Reds against the Nazis on the Eastern Front. That would be incorrect.
Well now if the person in question was known for never saying anything remotely critical of Stalin, the suspicion might be legit.
So are you saying you don't particularly like President Obama? Then what is it you don't like about him?
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2012, 06:32:53 PM
So are you saying you don't particularly like President Obama? Then what is it you don't like about him?
He's not sticking it to The Man hard enough.
I intend to waste my vote. :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 24, 2012, 06:36:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2012, 06:32:53 PM
So are you saying you don't particularly like President Obama? Then what is it you don't like about him?
He's not sticking it to The Man hard enough.
There we go.
Quote from: Caliga on October 24, 2012, 06:40:41 PM
I intend to waste my vote. :)
Ah, the luxuries of living in a non-battleground state.
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2012, 06:41:59 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 24, 2012, 06:36:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2012, 06:32:53 PM
So are you saying you don't particularly like President Obama? Then what is it you don't like about him?
He's not sticking it to The Man hard enough.
There we go.
My career must be avenged.
:yes: I don't know what it's like to live in battleground state. :(
Quote from: Caliga on October 24, 2012, 06:44:44 PM
:yes: I don't know what it's like to live in battleground state. :(
IT SUCKS.
Pennsylvania used to be a battleground state, so I guess I could ask my dad about it too.
It's kind of a waste of money to even bother to have a Presidential election here, especially when the Democrat is a black 'foreign' guy. :) Just give our electoral votes to the GOP and be done with it.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 24, 2012, 06:56:46 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 24, 2012, 06:50:25 PM
Quote from: Caliga on October 24, 2012, 06:44:44 PM
:yes: I don't know what it's like to live in battleground state. :(
IT SUCKS.
Concur.
Cincinnati is only getting Romney ads. I'm guessing Obama is (smartly) focusing on other parts of the state, knowing that he's got the urbanite vote here and that's about as much as he's gonna get. Romney is trying to keep his base energized, I guess. He has a rally in Cincy tomorrow morning and I might go for shits & giggles.
I may put a political sign in my yard for the first time evah. Everyone else on my street has apparently decided to make their political views known. I might do so as well.
I've got a sign in my yard for the County Clerk. I like her because her opponent looks like a witch. :mad:
That witch that ran in Delaware was kinda hot.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 24, 2012, 07:12:21 PM
That witch that ran in Delaware was kinda hot.
This witch looks like a real witch. :(
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 24, 2012, 07:12:21 PM
That witch that ran in Delaware was kinda hot.
Chubby little freak. For all her fundie talk, you know she loves to take it up the ass, DP style.
You just know.
I live next to a battleground state (and the one where all the network TV comes from). Jesus christ on a fucking popsicle stick, all I have learned is that not only are both guys running for president incompetent and yet evil and the local dude who is running for senate supports child molesters.
Quote from: PDH on October 24, 2012, 07:37:07 PM
I live next to a battleground state (and the one where all the network TV comes from). Jesus christ on a fucking popsicle stick, all I have learned is that not only are both guys running for president incompetent and yet evil and the local dude who is running for senate supports child molesters.
Plus you get PEYTON MANNING.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 24, 2012, 07:43:48 PM
Quote from: PDH on October 24, 2012, 07:37:07 PM
I live next to a battleground state (and the one where all the network TV comes from). Jesus christ on a fucking popsicle stick, all I have learned is that not only are both guys running for president incompetent and yet evil and the local dude who is running for senate supports child molesters.
Plus you get PEYTON MANNING.
Fuck you
His forehead shines like a beacon.
They showed a bit of the US news on TV yesterday and they gave it slightly to Romney with a higher decimal of 48%. Blimey.
I wonder; if its a close run thing in terms of voter percentage who is that most likely to pay off for? - the Republicans I guess since their core territory has nobody living there?
Quote from: Tyr on October 24, 2012, 08:49:15 PM
the Republicans I guess since their core territory has nobody living there?
Lolwut
Clearly Katmai, PDH and Jaron are using their massive (electoral) weight to get Romney elected.
Wouldn't it make more sense to write-in Elizabeth II?
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2012, 07:06:49 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 24, 2012, 06:56:46 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 24, 2012, 06:50:25 PM
Quote from: Caliga on October 24, 2012, 06:44:44 PM
:yes: I don't know what it's like to live in battleground state. :(
IT SUCKS.
Concur.
I may put a political sign in my yard for the first time evah. Everyone else on my street has apparently decided to make their political views known. I might do so as well.
There is a newish BBQ place here in town, I was thinking of trying it out then I saw that they had put up a Romney/Ryan sign in the last couple of weeks. I'm not going there now, maybe after the election but maybe not. :mad:
I'd order BBQ from hitler himself if it was any good, politics notwithstanding.
Good BBQ transcends morality.
Mmmmmmm, juden brisket.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 24, 2012, 09:30:21 PM
I'd order BBQ from hitler himself if it was any good, politics notwithstanding.
Me too, but I don't know if it is good because I haven't been there. I have lived my whole life without eating at Bubba's BBQ and I assume I can make it the rest of the way without.
Quote from: Caliga on October 24, 2012, 07:31:34 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 24, 2012, 07:12:21 PM
That witch that ran in Delaware was kinda hot.
This witch looks like a real witch. :(
The chick running for senate here has really unfortunate looks too. I feel bad for her because you know it hurts her chances even though it shouldn't. She also a super-heavy NY Jewish lady accent and a smoker gravel voice. The combination is not flattering.
Raz's favorite guy catches Dem operative giving advice on how to perpetrate voter fraud.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/patrick-moran-son-of-va-rep-jim-moran-resigns-from-campaign-after-okeefe-video-released/2012/10/24/7d61fc84-1e39-11e2-8817-41b9a7aaabc7_story.html
LOL what a moran.
LA Times article seems to cover that best.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 24, 2012, 08:53:21 PM
Quote from: Tyr on October 24, 2012, 08:49:15 PM
the Republicans I guess since their core territory has nobody living there?
Lolwut
Jos has been drinking again. Go easy.
I hope Obama wins for Americans' sake.
But for Canada, a Romney win would be awesome, entertainment wise. His policies and Ryan's are so retarded, I pray they implement them. You guys would become like Russia. A nice bunch of rich people on top, a huge majority dirt poor.
I hope we can embed some CBC journalists when the riots start. :lol:
Socialists :lol:
Quote from: Habbaku on October 24, 2012, 11:45:35 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 24, 2012, 08:53:21 PM
Quote from: Tyr on October 24, 2012, 08:49:15 PM
the Republicans I guess since their core territory has nobody living there?
Lolwut
Jos has been drinking again. Go easy.
:rolleyes:
Its called an exaggeration
No you're right. Katmai's 3 electoral votes are gonna give Romney the edge. :D
Quote from: Tyr on October 24, 2012, 08:49:15 PM
They showed a bit of the US news on TV yesterday and they gave it slightly to Romney with a higher decimal of 48%. Blimey.
I wonder; if its a close run thing in terms of voter percentage who is that most likely to pay off for? - the Republicans I guess since their core territory has nobody living there?
I think people are overexcited, though it'll be close in the popular vote. I think Romney needs another 1-2% swing to look like he'd win and a slew of consistent good polling somewhere like Iowa or Ohio.
Liberals are weak and love handwringing and the Romney campaign has an interest in projecting that they're going to win. From 2008 Romney's almost certainly won back Indiana and North Carolina. He's in the lead in Florida and tied in Virginia and Colorado (and possibly New Hampshire). Even if they all go Romney's way he'd still lose and my own view is that they probably won't only go for Romney. The remaining states he'd need to win, like Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa are states which Romney has never led.
This stage of the campaign reminds me of 2004.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 25, 2012, 04:51:02 AM
The remaining states he'd need to win, like Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa are states which Romney has never led.
If he can't carry Ohio, and the numbers look like he won't, he needs Wisconsin and Nevada. Nevada's definitely not happening. You don't win Nevada with on 20% of the Latino vote.
QuoteThis stage of the campaign reminds me of 2004.
The day after Election Day, it will remind you more of 2000. Colorado will be the new Florida.
Apparently Obama can lose ohio if he wins colorado.
I'm already tossing Colorado into the Romney pile. Too much twitchy voter registration and voter purging shenanigans going on over there.
Ohio has settled into a consistent Obama lead outside the margin of error. The Buckeye State belongs to The Black Man That Saved The Auto Industry, whether the fruity anti-choice megachurches like it or not.
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 05:37:27 AM
Apparently Obama can lose ohio if he wins colorado.
Yeah, I think Obama's a few routes. My point is that Romney needs to win every state he's currently tied in and some states he's not leading and has never led in. In my view he'd need another big-ish swing.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 25, 2012, 05:35:55 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 25, 2012, 04:51:02 AM
The remaining states he'd need to win, like Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa are states which Romney has never led.
If he can't carry Ohio, and the numbers look like he won't, he needs Wisconsin and Nevada. Nevada's definitely not happening. You don't win Nevada with on 20% of the Latino vote.
Eh? Obama's lead in Ohio (+2.1) is slimmer than Nevada (+2.7) and Wisconsin (+2.7).
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html
Time: 49% to 44% this morning
PPP over the weekend: 51% to 46%
Last week's CNN: Obama + 4 points
Last week's Wall Street Journal/NBC/Marist: Obama +5 points
I'm going with those numbers; there's a settled margin now in Ohio.
Real Clear keeps muddying the waters with Rasmussen nonsense.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 25, 2012, 06:19:24 AM
Time: 49% to 44% this morning
PPP over the weekend: 51% to 46%
Last week's CNN: Obama + 4 points
Last week's Wall Street Journal/NBC/Marist: Obama +5 points
I'm going with those numbers; there's a settled margin now in Ohio.
Real Clear keeps muddying the waters with Rasmussen nonsense.
You just muddied your own poll numbers. :wacko:
PPP has Obama up by only
1 point as of this past weekend: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/10/romney-pulls-within-1-in-ohio.html (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/10/romney-pulls-within-1-in-ohio.html)
Last CNN poll in Ohio you cite was from
3 weeks ago: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/10/09/topgenstate4.pdf (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/10/09/topgenstate4.pdf)
Last Wall Street Journal/NBC/Marist poll in Ohio you cite was also from almost
3 weeks ago: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/10/09/topgenstate4.pdf (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/10/09/topgenstate4.pdf)
Whatever. It's too fucking early for math anyway., so go fuck yourself with a Toledo mud hen, Phil. I'm going back to sleep.
Phil has taken an extreme interest in polling data lately.
It's just a poll but yahoo was featuring that AP-GfK results now show Obama and Romney tied on female voters. :huh:
One of the leading political badge makers, a guy called Mort, was interviewed on the Beeb, and he was calling Ohio for the Dems, based on the clear lead in orders for democratic over republican badges he's been receiving from the state.
edit:
bbc interview video here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20012530 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20012530)
Quote from: mongers on October 25, 2012, 07:34:18 AM
One of the leading political badge makers, a guy called Mort, was interviewed on the Beeb, and he was calling Ohio for the Dems, based on the clear lead in orders for democratic over republican badges he's been receiving from the state.
edit:
bbc interview video here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20012530 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20012530)
Odd because the blurb under the vid has him stating that he always has more Dems buying pins from him.
Heard on the radio that state officials estimate that 15% of Ohio voters have already voted. Yet according to polls 23% of respondents say they already voted.
Quote from: derspiess on October 25, 2012, 02:09:09 PM
Heard on the radio that state officials estimate that 15% of Ohio voters have already voted. Yet according to polls 23% of respondents say they already voted.
Seems to make sense if the poll targets likely voters.
Can you vote for Haig?
Quote from: The Brain on October 25, 2012, 02:14:29 PM
Can you vote for Haig?
I always do. Silently. Reverently. With a sense of opportunities lost, history unmade.
I'm assuming the push for early voters is in hopes of not losing those voters if something ugly comes out in the last couple of weeks?
Quote from: merithyn on October 25, 2012, 02:21:20 PM
I'm assuming the push for early voters is in hopes of not losing those voters if something ugly comes out in the last couple of weeks?
:D
You mean like one of Romney's sons? /martinus
Quote from: merithyn on October 25, 2012, 02:21:20 PM
I'm assuming the push for early voters is in hopes of not losing those voters if something ugly comes out in the last couple of weeks?
That's probably a minor factor.
Fundamentally, early voting lets the campaign spread out logistics over a larger span. Every voter you can get to the polls in early voting is 1) a voter you don't have to get to the polls on Election Day 2) means that Election Day crowds are slightly lighter and 3) if you have good records, you don't have to call that voter and remind them to vote, meaning you can reach more potential voters.
Quote from: DGuller on October 25, 2012, 02:10:28 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 25, 2012, 02:09:09 PM
Heard on the radio that state officials estimate that 15% of Ohio voters have already voted. Yet according to polls 23% of respondents say they already voted.
Seems to make sense if the poll targets likely voters.
From what I heard that was just a raw figure-- not distilled from likely voters.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 25, 2012, 02:24:39 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 25, 2012, 02:21:20 PM
I'm assuming the push for early voters is in hopes of not losing those voters if something ugly comes out in the last couple of weeks?
:D
You mean like one of Romney's sons? /martinus
that would be so awesome
Quote from: Josephus on October 25, 2012, 02:34:56 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 25, 2012, 02:24:39 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 25, 2012, 02:21:20 PM
I'm assuming the push for early voters is in hopes of not losing those voters if something ugly comes out in the last couple of weeks?
:D
You mean like one of Romney's sons? /martinus
that would be so awesome
:whistle:
QuoteStudy Links Male Gays, Birth of Older Brothers (http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jun/27/science/sci-brothers27)
A mother's antibodies may change with each boy, raising chances the next will be homosexual.
Having one or more older brothers boosts the likelihood of a boy growing up to be gay -- an effect due not to social factors, but biological events that occur in their mother's womb, according to a study published today.
http://news.yahoo.com/ann-romney-shares-her-137-50-costco-list-155652726--abc-news-politics.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen_us%2FNews%2Fus.news.abcnews.otus%2Fht_ann_romney_rachael_ray_ll_121025_wmain.jpg&hash=b5b1a184560302bfb79286bb97b238516e9740f4)
QuoteRomney Shares Her $137.50 Costco List
When Ann Romney cooks for the Romney clan, she goes big.
"I always start at Costco," Romney said on the "Rachel Ray Show" today as the audience watched pre-taped video of her pushing an over-sized grocery cart at the bulk-goods store.
Zooming around the store that she' didn't name by location, Romney grabbed large bags of spinach, several containers of frozen cream puffs and pre-cooked rotisserie chicken.
"The great thing about frozen desserts, they're always ready to go," Romney gushed.
For roughly $4.50 per person - a $137.50 tab - Romney can feed all five sons and their families, a total of 30 people, she said.
Incidentally, Costco founder James Sinegal endorsed President Barack Obama earlier this year.
In addition to preparing a Gov. Mitt Romney favorite dish, meatloaf cakes, Ann Romney dished on a few secrets about her husband.
"Mitt is not a picky eater," she said. "He will eat anything you put in front of him."
Her husband also cuts to the front of the line during their family's buffet-style meals, she added.
Several members of the family Romney were in the audience, including the Romney's son Tagg.
The mother of five boys also revealed what she would have named a daughter: Patience Darling Romney, after a great-great-grandmother.
Romney, 63, also talked at length about how she coped with raising a family while suffering from multiple sclerosis, a neurological disease that can cause weakness, numbness and vision loss. She's also a breast-cancer survivor.
She noted that Costco rotisserie chicken was a staple in the Romney household during her illness.
"When I was first diagnosed with MS and my husband was taking care of me, he discovered rotisserie chicken," Romney said.
Her husband told her then, "I don't care if we eat cereal and toast the rest of my life, as long as we're together," she said.
On the campaign trail, Romney says, she eats healthy (more healthy than her husband), exercises, and takes time off to recover from the stress and the grueling schedule.
"MS has been my greatest teacher, it's been the toughest teacher and breast cancer as well," Romney said. "But you have to know that the sun always will come up, that there will be a better day."
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2012, 02:58:20 PM
The mother of five boys also revealed what she would have named a daughter: Patience Darling Romney, after a great-great-grandmother.
I can imagine her growing up to be a nag and her husband always going "Patience, darling." :D
"Mitt is not a picky eater," she said. "He will eat anything you put in front of him."
HOTT?
Kitty Dukakis had worse problems. Not impressed.
Also, today I walked by one of the million people that hand out fliers near my office and one of them was wearing a Romney button.
Why do people keep voting against their own interests?!!! Curse those kingmakers!!
Costco? :hmm: Sure, I am so buying it. Reminds me of that story John Edwards told about celebrating his 30th marriage anniversary by going out for a couple of burgers with his wife.
Quote from: DGuller on October 25, 2012, 03:18:33 PM
Costco? :hmm: Sure, I am so buying it. Reminds me of that story John Edwards told about celebrating his 30th marriage anniversary by going out for a couple of burgers with his wife.
Sometimes it's fun to go out amongst the plebs. It makes a nice change from champagne and caviar.
You don't go to a burger place with a $400 haircut.
Quote from: merithyn on October 25, 2012, 03:22:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 25, 2012, 03:18:33 PM
Costco? :hmm: Sure, I am so buying it. Reminds me of that story John Edwards told about celebrating his 30th marriage anniversary by going out for a couple of burgers with his wife.
Sometimes it's fun to go out amongst the plebs. It makes a nice change from champagne and caviar.
Or maybe she was shopping
for a Costco.
Quote from: DGuller on October 25, 2012, 03:18:33 PM
Costco? :hmm: Sure, I am so buying it. Reminds me of that story John Edwards told about celebrating his 30th marriage anniversary by going out for a couple of burgers with his wife.
From what I hear, Mitt is one of those rich dude cheapskates.
Quote from: merithyn on October 25, 2012, 03:22:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 25, 2012, 03:18:33 PM
Costco? :hmm: Sure, I am so buying it. Reminds me of that story John Edwards told about celebrating his 30th marriage anniversary by going out for a couple of burgers with his wife.
Sometimes it's fun to go out amongst the plebs. It makes a nice change from champagne and caviar.
Are there nice people who don't drink champagne regularly? And that's champagne in a normal sense not the Joan/CC sense. :D
There are nice people who don't drink alcohol at all.
Hitler was nice.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 25, 2012, 03:39:25 PM
There are nice people who don't drink alcohol at all.
:yes: Like Mormons.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 25, 2012, 03:39:25 PM
There are nice people who don't drink alcohol at all.
:hmm:
Interesting article on Romney's economic model. It's from the NY Times, so I'm suspicious of it, but it's still an interesting read.
Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/opinion/kristof-romneys-economic-plan.html?_r=0)
QuoteRomney's Economic Model
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Mitt Romney's best argument on the campaign trail has been simple: Under President Obama, the American economy has remained excruciatingly weak, far underperforming the White House's own projections.
That's a fair criticism.
But Obama's best response could be this: If you want to see how Romney's economic policies would work out, take a look at Europe. And weep.
In the last few years, Germany and Britain, in particular, have implemented precisely the policies that Romney favors, and they have been richly praised by Republicans here as a result. Yet these days those economies seem, to use a German technical term, kaput.
Is Europe a fair comparison? Well, Republicans seem to think so, because they came up with it. In the last few years, they've repeatedly cited Republican-style austerity in places like Germany and Britain as a model for America.
Let's dial back the time machine and listen up:
"Europe is already setting an example for the U.S.," Representative Kenny Marchant, a Texas Republican, said in 2010. (You know things are bad when a Texas Republican is calling for Americans to study at the feet of those socialist Europeans.)
The same year, Karl Rove praised European austerity as a model for America and approvingly quoted the leader of the European Central Bank as saying: "The idea that austerity measures could trigger stagnation is incorrect."
Representative Steve King of Iowa, another Republican, praised Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany for preaching austerity and said: "It ought to hit home to our president of the United States. It ought to hit all of us here in this country."
"The president should learn a lesson from the 'German Miracle,' " Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina, a Republican, urged on the House floor in July 2011.
Also in 2011, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, denounced Obama's economic management and said: "We need a budget with a bold vision — like those unveiled in Britain and New Jersey."
O.K. Let's see how that's working out.
New Jersey isn't overseas, but since Sessions and many other Republicans have hailed it as a shining model of austerity, let's start there. New Jersey ranked 47th in economic growth last year. When Gov. Chris Christie took office in 2010 and began to impose austerity measures, New Jersey ranked 35th in its unemployment rate; now it ranks 48th.
Senator Sessions, do we really aspire for the same in America as a whole?
Something similar has happened internationally. The International Monetary Fund this month downgraded its estimates for global economic growth, with only one major bright spot in the West. That would be the United States, expected to grow a bit more than 2 percent this year and next.
In contrast, Europe's economy is expected to shrink this year and have negligible growth next year. The I.M.F. projects that Germany will grow less than 1 percent this year and next, while Britain's economy is contracting this year.
Karl Rove, that sounds a lot like stagnation to me.
All this is exactly what economic textbooks predicted. Since Keynes, it's been understood that, in a downturn, governments should go into deficit to stimulate demand; that's how we got out of the Great Depression. And recent European data and I.M.F. analyses underscore that austerity in the middle of a downturn not only doesn't help but leads to even higher ratios of debt to economic output.
So, yes, Republicans have a legitimate point about the long-term need to curb deficits and entitlement growth. But, no, it isn't reasonable for Republicans to advocate austerity in the middle of a downturn. On that, they're empirically wrong.
If there were still doubt about this, we've had a lovely natural experiment in the last few years, as the Republicans in previous years were happy to point out. All industrialized countries experienced similar slowdowns, and the United States under Obama chose a massive stimulus while Germany and Britain chose Republican-endorsed austerity.
Neither approach worked brilliantly. Obama's initial economic stimulus created at least 1.4 million jobs, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. But that wasn't enough, and it was partly negated by austerity in state and local governments.
Still, America's economy is now the fastest growing among major countries in the West, and Britain's is shrinking. Which would you prefer?
I'm not suggesting Obama distribute bumper stickers saying: "It Could Be Worse." He might want to stick with: "Osama's Dead and G.M. Is Alive."
Yes, there are differences between Europe and America. But Republicans were right to call attention to this empirical experiment.
The results are in. And, as Representative King suggested, the lessons "ought to hit all of us here in this country."
Sweden seems to be doing fine.
Quote from: The Brain on October 25, 2012, 04:17:51 PM
Sweden seems to be doing fine.
Swedes in america seem to be doing fine as well.
God Bless Texas :punk:
http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/un-treaties/264121-texas-sparks-international-row-with-election-observers
Quote from: derspiess on October 25, 2012, 04:20:57 PM
God Bless Texas :punk:
http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/un-treaties/264121-texas-sparks-international-row-with-election-observers
:mellow:
Furringers out
Quote from: DGuller on October 25, 2012, 03:26:01 PM
Or maybe she was shopping for a Costco.
see thats what I'm thinking too.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 25, 2012, 04:41:44 PM
Furringers out
Yeah, just harass them instead..
QuoteA Tea Party spinoff group training poll-watchers to either monitor or intimidate voters -- depending on whom you believe -- is now explicitly expanding its reach into Latino communities.
True the Vote, a Houston-based group that says it is training thousands of poll-watchers across the country, recently announced a new "Voto Honesto" initiative.
"People need to know it's a crime if you try to vote when you're not a citizen," said Adryana Boyne, a conservative activist and Latina spokesperson for the Republican Party of Texas. Boyne is leading Voto Honesto -- which means Honest Vote.
"Certainly the Latino community has to be informed that there is voter fraud, too," she said.
Boyne said Voto Honesto will include voter education -- encouraging Latinos to vote -- as well as training poll-watchers to detect voter fraud. "We're not keeping people from voting, we're keeping people from cheating, which is different. And I think that is absolutely right to do," she said.
Boyne was also insistent that the buying and selling of votes -- in exchange for money or other things of value -- is a major problem in certain places. She said this activity "is happening more in the minority community."
As a result, Boyne said she is particularly motivated to remind Latinos that it is a federal crime to accept anything in exchange for a vote.
True the Vote's outreach to the Latino community comes as right-wing groups have come under fire for unsupported rhetoric about voter fraud -- with an emphasis on noncitizens -- to support campaigns for Voter ID and other tactics that some have characterized as voter suppression.
"When you tie it all together, it's all about the illegal alien vote," Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said at a recent panel discussion. Fitton has also accused the Obama administration of trying to mobilize "the food stamp army."
At the same panel, True the Vote President Catherine Engelbrecht bristled at charges of racism. "The race card doesn't work anymore. It's not true. There's no there there," she said.
But the fact remains that the suspicions of voter fraud activists tend to focus on two groups: residents of "urban areas" and "illegal aliens."
Critics say those are euphemisms for blacks and Latinos generally, and suspect that poll-watchers from groups like True the Vote will be sent not to white, suburban precincts, but to predominately black and Latino ones, in an effort to intimidate Democratic-leaning voters.
Indeed, in Harris County, Texas, the birthplace of True the Vote and its parent group the King Street Patriots, anecdotal evidence suggests that the group's modus operandi in 2010 was basically to send white poll-watchers to black precincts.
Camila Gallardo, a spokeswoman for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights group, said she thinks Boyne's concerns about vote-buying in the Latino community are unfounded -- and odd.
"I don't know what to say, because honestly I've never heard of that happening," she said.
"What we're more concerned about are tactics that are being used in the guise of voter fraud to keep Latino voters from the polls," she said.
Gallardo also said no one is vying for the non-citizen vote. "Nobody benefits from having folks who are not eligible to vote vote," she said. "Eventually these things come out."
"When you blow these things out of proportion, indirectly what you're doing is you're turning people off from voting," Gallardo said.
Judith Browne Dianis, co-director of the Advancement Project, a multiracial civil rights group, accused True the Vote of "upping the ante on their program of voter suppression" with the new Latino outreach.
"We're concerned that True the Vote is not about election integrity but instead is about intimidation, and instead of empowering voters, they will be attempting to scare voters," she said. "We don't need citizen vigilantes at the polls."
Polling places could become battlegrounds on election day, as labor unions, civil rights groups, the Justice Department and other groups protecting the right to vote will be amply represented as well.
"Another citizen challenging your right to vote is just on the face of it intimidating," Dianis said. "It's intimidating to have someone that you don't know coming up to you and saying that either you're not who you are, or that you have moved."
The fear of noncitizens voting is unfounded, Dianis said. "There are laws against people who are not citizens voting. It could result in fines and deportation. People who are not citizens live in the shadows of our country. They are fearful of deportation every day. So to make up a story about them wanting to vote is ridiculous."
Dianis said the situation recalls another voter issue from the past. Groups of white people telling people of color they are not eligible to vote, she said, "brings us back four decades."
:wub:
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 25, 2012, 07:50:54 PM
:wub:
One day Ed, your plantation slaves will revolt, and hang you from your ivy-covered antebellum pillars, your white colonel's suit drenched with the blood from your disembowelment.
Obama escalates character attack strategy and calls Romney a "bullshitter".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/25/obama-romney-bullshitter_n_2018079.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/25/obama-romney-bullshitter_n_2018079.html)
Quote from: Phillip V on October 25, 2012, 08:12:54 PM
Obama escalates character attack strategy and calls Romney a "bullshitter".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/25/obama-romney-bullshitter_n_2018079.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/25/obama-romney-bullshitter_n_2018079.html)
And people say they want a politician who is honest. :rolleyes:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 25, 2012, 07:57:37 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 25, 2012, 07:50:54 PM
:wub:
One day Ed, your plantation slaves will revolt, and hang you from your ivy-covered antebellum pillars, your white colonel's suit drenched with the blood from your disembowelment.
:lol:
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 25, 2012, 04:41:44 PM
Furringers out
Yeah, I don't see why one shouldn't harass those Europeans just looking for another negative thing to say about America. I mean - they went to Texas. :lol:
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 25, 2012, 08:27:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 25, 2012, 07:57:37 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 25, 2012, 07:50:54 PM
:wub:
One day Ed, your plantation slaves will revolt, and hang you from your ivy-covered antebellum pillars, your white colonel's suit drenched with the blood from your disembowelment.
:lol:
Don't worry, I'll intercede on your behalf. :hug:
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2012, 08:41:40 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 25, 2012, 08:27:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 25, 2012, 07:57:37 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 25, 2012, 07:50:54 PM
:wub:
One day Ed, your plantation slaves will revolt, and hang you from your ivy-covered antebellum pillars, your white colonel's suit drenched with the blood from your disembowelment.
:lol:
Don't worry, I'll intercede on your behalf. :hug:
:hug:
Garbon knows the salvage value of that titanium in Ed's leg. Ain't fooling anybody.
:lol:
Quote from: Phillip V on October 25, 2012, 08:12:54 PM
Obama escalates character attack strategy and calls Romney a "bullshitter".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/25/obama-romney-bullshitter_n_2018079.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/25/obama-romney-bullshitter_n_2018079.html)
:( I think that a president, especially one who is a father to little children, should know better. Children are pretty terrible at detecting bullshitters.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 25, 2012, 08:44:55 PM
Garbon knows the salvage value of that titanium in Ed's leg. Ain't fooling anybody.
I'm a need it when I call on favors from my 3 strike cousins to help him out.
Quote from: Barrister on October 23, 2012, 04:59:05 PM
Quote from: Josephus on October 23, 2012, 04:56:52 PM
furriners should be allowed to vote in American elections...after all everything you do effects us. Maybe it could weigh half a vote of an American.
And then we can pay half of the taxes that an American citizen would pay! :w00t:
Dude, you can do that now. If you give me half of what I'm going to pay in taxes this year, I will vote for any fool thing you want.
I'll send you a box of pop tarts for your vote. Or toaster strudel, breakfast of the 1%.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 25, 2012, 10:15:48 PM
Dude, you can do that now. If you give me half of what I'm going to pay in taxes this year, I will vote for any fool thing you want.
:o You're asking BB to break the law! :o
Shit. Pay half my taxes and I'll deliver five or six votes in a swing state. :P
Quote from: Ideologue on October 25, 2012, 10:15:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 23, 2012, 04:59:05 PM
Quote from: Josephus on October 23, 2012, 04:56:52 PM
furriners should be allowed to vote in American elections...after all everything you do effects us. Maybe it could weigh half a vote of an American.
And then we can pay half of the taxes that an American citizen would pay! :w00t:
Dude, you can do that now. If you give me half of what I'm going to pay in taxes this year, I will vote for any fool thing you want.
Are you suggesting that the individuals getting over 250k a year should be paying those instead?
After recent polls showed only single-digit leads for Obama in Minnesota, Romney has decided to air television ads in the state.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/10/report-romney-buys-minnesota-tv-147321.html (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/10/report-romney-buys-minnesota-tv-147321.html)
Btw anytime Seedy posts an article without a link I'm going to assume it's from The Onion. In this case it was actually from a less authentic source: HuffPo.
Romentum can't be stopped. God save us all.
The main thing keeping Obama afloat is Bernanke's Quantitative Easing 3 (money printing) in September, which temporarily boosted the stock market, housing, and job "hiring". Obama is in a race against when these artificial effects of money printing will expire. The Dow may soon drop below 13000, and I am awaiting a painful downward correction in markets and consumer confidence this quarter. The question is if it happens before or after the election.
tldr: Watch the stock market and the final monthly unemployment report due next week.
but a Romney presidency will only make all of this worse!
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 26, 2012, 08:51:07 AM
but a Romney presidency will only make all of this worse!
Romney is change we can believe in.
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 26, 2012, 08:35:11 AM
Romentum can't be stopped. God save us all.
Take heart. Nate Silver said a couple days ago that the Mittmentum had stopped.
One interesting thing I've noticed about the polls is that the poll sponsored by the left-leaning Washington Post has Obama down by 3 while the one sponsored by the right-leaning Washington Times has Obama up by 3.
We must close the Poll Gap!
Quote from: derspiess on October 26, 2012, 08:20:01 AM
Btw anytime Seedy posts an article without a link I'm going to assume it's from The Onion. In this case it was actually from a less authentic source: HuffPo.
It was the link provided on www.truethevote.org. They're your people, man, not mine. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 26, 2012, 10:21:03 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 26, 2012, 08:20:01 AM
Btw anytime Seedy posts an article without a link I'm going to assume it's from The Onion. In this case it was actually from a less authentic source: HuffPo.
It was the link provided on www.truethevote.org. They're your people, man, not mine. :P
I have no official ties to that organization, sir. Besides, it's still a HuffPo story!
Btw I love the "VOTO HONESTO" slogan. Although technically legit, it sounds like some non-Spanish speaker trying to speak Spanish by adding "-o" to the end of each word.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 26, 2012, 09:04:38 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 26, 2012, 08:51:07 AM
but a Romney presidency will only make all of this worse!
Romney is change we can believe in.
He does change his mind often, yes.
Rasmussen has Wisconsin at 49-49.
John Sununu says Colin Powell's endorsement of the POTUS was race-based.
Quote"Frankly, when you take a look at Colin Powell, you have to wonder whether that's an endorsement based on issues or whether he's got a slightly different reason for preferring President Obama," Sununu said.
"What reason would that be?" asked host Piers Morgan.
"I think when you have somebody of your own race that you're proud of being president of the United States, I applaud Colin for standing with him," Sununu said.
I'm voting for whitey.
Quote from: derspiess on October 26, 2012, 11:21:07 AM
Rasmussen has Wisconsin at 49-49.
Biden is in Wisconsin today. Obama campaign very worried.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 26, 2012, 11:25:45 AM
John Sununu says Colin Powell's endorsement of the POTUS was race-based.
Quote"Frankly, when you take a look at Colin Powell, you have to wonder whether that's an endorsement based on issues or whether he's got a slightly different reason for preferring President Obama," Sununu said.
"What reason would that be?" asked host Piers Morgan.
"I think when you have somebody of your own race that you're proud of being president of the United States, I applaud Colin for standing with him," Sununu said.
Ah yes, the mulatto conspiracy. :rolleyes:
Quote from: The Brain on October 26, 2012, 11:29:23 AM
Ah yes, the mulatto conspiracy. :rolleyes:
Yes, that hypothesis certainly holds more water than, say, oh I don't know, a former Secretary of State being openly concerned with the Republican candidate's foreign policy vision.
But hey, he's a brutha! TAKE PRIDE IN YOUR TRIBE
Apparently only Dems are allowed to have crazy conspiracies about race. :rolleyes:
Quote from: garbon on October 26, 2012, 11:34:48 AM
Apparently only Dems are allowed to have crazy conspiracies about race. :rolleyes:
Nonsense.
www.truethevote.org
Powell seems to have destroyed his legacy on both sides by failing to stop the Iraq war on one hand and then endorsing Obama twice on the other. He should have quietly retired after the Army or run for President in 1996. Powell defeated Clinton 50-38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fe%2Fe9%2FGEN_Colin_Powell.JPG%2F170px-GEN_Colin_Powell.JPG&hash=d65f5e06693e0146a1480bf5f8b3daa56d69e71a)
I feel comfortable with these predictions: linky (http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=TQH)
Basically I think Romney is going to get those 261 for sure, then it comes down to Wisconsin, Iowa, and Ohio.
What I think will happen is sort of akin to how Truman won in 1948 in the electoral college, three states (for Truman, California, Illinois, and Ohio) went for Truman by less than a 1% margin (less than like 60,000 total votes) and won him the electoral college and another term.
I suspect Obama will basically have that happen, those three states will break for him in close elections and he wins 277-261. However I predict unlike Truman-Dewey, Obama does not drub Romney in the popular vote. That will be the closest it's been since 2000 and possibly we'll have the winner of the popular vote be Romney.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 26, 2012, 11:37:10 AM
Powell seems to have destroyed his legacy on both sides by failing to stop the Iraq war on one hand and then endorsing Obama twice on the other. He should have quietly retired after the Army or run for President in 1996. Powell defeated Clinton 50-38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fe%2Fe9%2FGEN_Colin_Powell.JPG%2F170px-GEN_Colin_Powell.JPG&hash=d65f5e06693e0146a1480bf5f8b3daa56d69e71a)
Winning hypothetical match-ups is easy. Campaigning is hard. Powell may be an honorable person, but he's no politician, as his stint with Bush's administration proved.
Something I've been noticing is a lot of people are ascribing a sort of scientific accuracy to polling averages and things like InTrade that aren't really historically that valid. InTrade is too new to know how it'll do over say, a century filled with occasional close elections or surprise results.
Averaging polls does not (mathematically) remove the margin of error from those polls, they are still just as error prone.
I say this only to point something out, because of how polling has happened in this election there is a genuine chance of say, Obama winning every toss up state and going 347-191.
There is also likely to be at least one or two states where something happens unexpectedly. As an example going by long term history, it isn't unrealistic a state like North Carolina where Romney's average lead puts him up +5 you could see Romney actually lose North Carolina. Or Michigan even +4 for Obama, historically the polls have been that wrong before and it could break for Romney.
Now my projected map and ultimate election results I think are a good guess based on the polling available to us now. (For Romney what especially hurts him in Ohio is he trails by over 10% in early voters who have been exit polled, so he actually would need a decent portion over 50% of election day voters to actually win the State.) But people have started to act like just because you average together a bunch of polls or use a market system you are guaranteed to know the election results. History shows polls and markets are both wrong all the time. Most prediction models that are popular are always right until they are wrong, then they get thrown in the dustbin of history and someone comes up with a new prediction model that they can massage to correctly predict all past elections. Then it works for a few election cycles until it fails and they start over again.
The reality is there are 7 swing states where Obama is up by less than 5: Ohio, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Nevada.
There are three swing states where Romney is up by less than 5: Florida, Virginia, Colorado.
I'm basing my prediction off the best polling we have. But I'll be surprised if all those Obama States actually do go Obama, and all those Romney states actually do go Romney. Most likely we still get a close election but with some surprises.
It's sort of like picking the March Madness bracket, if you just go on ranking all the way you'll do terribly. Upsets will happen. The reason I still project an Obama victory is he can lose a lot of upsets and still win because he's got a nice basket of swing states he has had a lead in virtually the entire election.
So I voted yesterday. This shouldn't really be any big surprise, but I voted for Democrats all the way down. I also voted for Arkansas's medical marijuana bill. I never thought the day would come when I'd get a chance to vote for weed. :wub:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 26, 2012, 12:26:18 PM
I feel comfortable with these predictions: linky (http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=TQH)
Basically I think Romney is going to get those 261 for sure, then it comes down to Wisconsin, Iowa, and Ohio.
What I think will happen is sort of akin to how Truman won in 1948 in the electoral college, three states (for Truman, California, Illinois, and Ohio) went for Truman by less than a 1% margin (less than like 60,000 total votes) and won him the electoral college and another term.
I suspect Obama will basically have that happen, those three states will break for him in close elections and he wins 277-261. However I predict unlike Truman-Dewey, Obama does not drub Romney in the popular vote. That will be the closest it's been since 2000 and possibly we'll have the winner of the popular vote be Romney.
If that happens, all complaints about the electoral college will cease. :P
Quote from: derspiess on October 26, 2012, 09:56:18 AM
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 26, 2012, 08:35:11 AM
Romentum can't be stopped. God save us all.
Take heart. Nate Silver said a couple days ago that the Mittmentum had stopped.
Gallup has Romney back up at
+5. In fact five of the six latest polls have Romney leading nationally by a few points. However, since Obama stubbornly clings to 2-point leads in pivotal Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, and Wisconsin, the fear increases that he will win the Electoral vote, but lose the popular vote. Romney still has a crapload of money and 10 days, which can be a long time in politics land.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 26, 2012, 12:39:24 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 26, 2012, 12:26:18 PM
I feel comfortable with these predictions: linky (http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=TQH)
Basically I think Romney is going to get those 261 for sure, then it comes down to Wisconsin, Iowa, and Ohio.
What I think will happen is sort of akin to how Truman won in 1948 in the electoral college, three states (for Truman, California, Illinois, and Ohio) went for Truman by less than a 1% margin (less than like 60,000 total votes) and won him the electoral college and another term.
I suspect Obama will basically have that happen, those three states will break for him in close elections and he wins 277-261. However I predict unlike Truman-Dewey, Obama does not drub Romney in the popular vote. That will be the closest it's been since 2000 and possibly we'll have the winner of the popular vote be Romney.
If that happens, all complaints about the electoral college will cease. :P
Wouldn't it just be Republicans who pick up the banner/torch/pitchfork?
I've always liked the electoral college. I'm obviously a Romney voter but I don't care if he won the popular vote by 5% points, if you can't carry the electoral college you shouldn't be President. Federalism is a good thing.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 26, 2012, 12:49:03 PM
I've always liked the electoral college. I'm obviously a Romney voter but I don't care if he won the popular vote by 5% points, if you can't carry the electoral college you shouldn't be President. Federalism is a good thing.
Besides, if anything, removing it would actually increase voter participation in non-battlefield states. We can't have that.
Where the EC is messed up is it represents small states more than it should. Any EC type system by design will do that, but there is no reason to do it as much as we do.
We have 435 House of Rep. members and 538 electoral votes (100 + 435 + 3 for DC.) While an aside, this applies to the House too. There is nothing in the constitution that restricts us to 535 EVs for the 50 states (+3 for DC) and and the 435 House Reps. We basically decided in the middle of the 20th century to lock in at a certain number of House Reps and electoral votes and then just re-divide the pie every 10 years.
In reality what we should do is just stipulate that the smallest state by population should get 3 votes (1 Senator + 2 Reps.) Every other State should get a number of votes equal to its population divided wholly by the population of the smallest state. That would make it a lot more appropriately distributed than it is now.
Quote from: garbon on October 26, 2012, 12:40:56 PM
Wouldn't it just be Republicans who pick up the banner/torch/pitchfork?
I doubt it. Bush is still recent enough memory.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 26, 2012, 12:37:14 PM
Averaging polls does not (mathematically) remove the margin of error from those polls, they are still just as error prone.
Not true. Averaging does reduce the margin of error. The problem is that margin of error is just a measurement of sample error, and that's not the only kind of error that polls have.
QuoteMost prediction models that are popular are always right until they are wrong, then they get thrown in the dustbin of history and someone comes up with a new prediction model that they can massage to correctly predict all past elections. Then it works for a few election cycles until it fails and they start over again.
Good statisticians are very much aware of the danger of over-fitting the past data. It doesn't make them immune, of course, but if Nate Silver is as competent as he seems, then I'm sure he took precautions when fine-tuning the model. There are ways to combat over-fitting.
Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2012, 01:03:02 PM
Not true. Averaging does reduce the margin of error. The problem is that margin of error is just a measurement of sample error, and that's not the only kind of error that polls have.
I did not say it doesn't reduce it.
QuoteGood statisticians are very much aware of the danger of over-fitting the past data. It doesn't make them immune, of course, but if Nate Silver is as competent as he seems, then I'm sure he took precautions when fine-tuning the model. There are ways to combat over-fitting.
I'm sure they are, but I'll comfortably still say "every election prediction model is right until it is wrong." Many of the popular model makers actually release 3-4 competing models in an election cycle and obviously only publicize their successful model heavily. Nate Silver isn't anything new. Ray Fair has a model that has worked pretty well too.
I've noticed trends like this when it comes to election prediction/modeling and sabermetrics (interesting because there are actually overlaps between the professionals behind both things.) A real sabermetrician will tell you he's doing work that can help predict likely results or performance. An "advocate" then takes it and preaches it as gospel.
Note that all I said here was "don't be fooled into thinking these are perfect models." It's a lot easier relatively speaking to give an accurate % likelihood that a given candidate wins the whole shebang than it is to accurately predict who wins each individual state, and even harder still to accurately predict the final margin in the states. (The Fair Model gets close to that sometimes, but not always.)
I never said these models were wrong or useless, I said that people sometimes think they represent something they don't. I'll note that in response to me basically saying "keep in mind these models aren't perfect, and they break down on the margins sometimes" you come in and basically reject my argument (but not really, you refuted points I didn't make--I never said statisticians don't try to fine tune their models or that you can't
reduce margin of error.) But what my argument actually was, that the models aren't perfect and even the guys who create them say that. So you either think the models are perfect and infallible in which case we disagree, or you agree they are not perfect and we have no disagreement here.
Yeah ok so when are we supposed to do austerity? During upturns...but nobody wants to rock the upturn...
So the plan is to never tackle the deficit? It is not like we don't have plenty of bad examples of trying to spend your way out.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 26, 2012, 12:37:14 PM
It's sort of like picking the March Madness bracket, if you just go on ranking all the way you'll do terribly. Upsets will happen.
Had a great exercise at the beginning of a statistical analysis course once; everybody was handed out a racing form for a particular race, and told to best project the Win Place and Shows.
With race histories, jockey records, which horses were mudders and bleeders, track conditions, etc., everybody came up with reasoned, rational projections on which horses would likely have placed in the trifecta.
What the racing form didn't say is how the #4 horse collided with the #3 and #2 horses out of the gate, screwing up the pack, etc.
Who knows; this whole election may be decided on whether it's raining or not in Maine's #2 district.
We will see a big Bradley effect this election where women and minorities fashionably support Obama in public, but abandon him in the voting booth.
I can't tell if you are trolling or are truly loopy.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 26, 2012, 01:39:25 PM
We will see a big Bradley effect this election where women and minorities fashionably support Obama in public, but abandon him in the voting booth.
I'm not holding my breath. That was supposed to happen in 2008.
Quote from: Fireblade on October 26, 2012, 12:37:58 PM
So I voted yesterday. This shouldn't really be any big surprise, but I voted for Democrats all the way down. I also voted for Arkansas's medical marijuana bill. I never thought the day would come when I'd get a chance to vote for weed. :wub:
But who did you vote for in the non-partisan section?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 26, 2012, 12:37:14 PM
It's sort of like picking the March Madness bracket, if you just go on ranking all the way you'll do terribly. Upsets will happen.
Missed that the first time. If you pick strictly on ranking, you will indeed do terribly. However, that's the least terrible prediction available to you. That's because you are expected to do very terribly no matter what bracket you go with. However, if the tournament were repeated millions of times, going by rankings will likely do better than any other strategy.
Deviating from rankings on the theory that upsets have to happen somewhere is a stupid strategy. You should deviate from the rankings only if you have a superior insight to the people or system that generated the rankings. (You should also deviate from rankings if you split money for ties in your pool, but that's a unique shortcoming of the betting structure rather than probability theory).
Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2012, 02:12:11 PM
Deviating from rankings on the theory that upsets have to happen somewhere is a stupid strategy. You should deviate from the rankings only if you have a superior insight to the people or system that generated the rankings. (You should also deviate from rankings if you split money for ties in your pool, but that's a unique shortcoming of the betting structure rather than probability theory).
Incorrect. Deviating from the rankings is usually necessary to differentiate your picks from the rest of the pack-- at least in a pool with a large number of people participating. Picking only according to the rankings will probably guarantee you won't come in last, but it will also keep you from finishing high enough to win money.
Having said that, it's usually a good idea to go conservative with your final 4 & national champion picks.
Seems to me going by the rankings is a good way to get better-than-average results as far as wins and losses, but you'll lose to the people who made inspired/lucky guesses. Considering you don't really win anything for being in the 60th or 70th percentile there's not much point.
Quote from: derspiess on October 26, 2012, 02:32:00 PM
Incorrect. Deviating from the rankings is usually necessary to differentiate your picks from the rest of the pack-- at least in a pool with a large number of people participating. Picking only according to the rankings will probably guarantee you won't come in last, but it will also keep you from finishing high enough to win money.
That goes under the category of splitting money for ties. In complicated betting structures, sometimes it does make sense to go for combination that will be correct less often, but will be uniquely correct if you guess right. In a simple betting structure, where you're getting simple odds for guessing the bracket correctly, you should go with straight rankings, absent superior insight.
That's akin to stock picking competitions. If the goal for you is to maximize your money gain, you should go with an index. If the goal is to come in first place out of thousands of participants, you should instead sink all your money in one company that seems very likely to go bankrupt. You'll lose your money the vast majority of the time, but once in a while the company's fortunes would improve, and you'll multiply your investment many times over. When you get rewarded for coming in first, you should find the investment with the biggest volatility possible, and ignore expected value of the bet. That's why stock picking competitions are so incredibly retarded.
Well I voted. It was sort of ridiculous there were about 40 or so things to vote on but in doing my research only about three of the races were really contested to any serious degree. Ah well.
How fun would it be if we had a 269-269 tie? The silliness from 2000 would look tame by comparison :D
Quote from: derspiess on October 26, 2012, 03:36:45 PM
How fun would it be if we had a 269-269 tie? The silliness from 2000 would look tame by comparison :D
It would be awesome.
Quote from: Valmy on October 26, 2012, 03:39:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 26, 2012, 03:36:45 PM
How fun would it be if we had a 269-269 tie? The silliness from 2000 would look tame by comparison :D
It would be awesome.
I enjoyed the speculation of a Romney-Biden White House in that event. :lol:
A split decision, be it tie or popular loss / electoral win, would cause mass protests. But enough to spill a little blood and burn down some buildings?
Conservatives don't burn down buildings. They blow them up. With truck bombs.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2012, 03:59:57 PM
Conservatives don't burn down buildings. They blow them up. With truck bombs.
Easy now.
Quote from: Valmy on October 26, 2012, 03:39:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 26, 2012, 03:36:45 PM
How fun would it be if we had a 269-269 tie? The silliness from 2000 would look tame by comparison :D
It would be awesome.
It seems plausible. Not likely per se, but I'd say more likely than it was for any election so far in our lifetimes.
Grumbler excluded, of course.
Quote from: derspiess on October 26, 2012, 04:01:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2012, 03:59:57 PM
Conservatives don't burn down buildings. They blow them up. With truck bombs.
Easy now.
Duck's a duck, Eric derRudolph. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 26, 2012, 04:07:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 26, 2012, 04:01:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2012, 03:59:57 PM
Conservatives don't burn down buildings. They blow them up. With truck bombs.
Easy now.
Duck's a duck, Eric derRudolph. :P
Fine, then. Your side tries to blow up bridges. Yeah, I know-- in Cleveland. BUT IT STILL COUNTS
Poors and their propensity for violence. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 26, 2012, 04:08:55 PM
Poors and their propensity for violence. :rolleyes:
Wait a minute. How many grocery store parking lot altercations have you been involved with? :contract:
Quote from: derspiess on October 26, 2012, 04:09:52 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 26, 2012, 04:08:55 PM
Poors and their propensity for violence. :rolleyes:
Wait a minute. How many grocery store parking lot altercations have you been involved with? :contract:
HEY NOW
NO BLOOD FOR SHOPPING CART DENTS
Quote from: derspiess on October 26, 2012, 04:09:52 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 26, 2012, 04:08:55 PM
Poors and their propensity for violence. :rolleyes:
Wait a minute. How many grocery store parking lot altercations have you been involved with? :contract:
Just remember that he's one of yours for this election. :whistle:
One of them was a poor trying to steal my wife's purse.
I don't care for either side in this election, but the hysteric Republican/Fox News tears over this ad are delicious...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o6G3nwhPuR4
What is that shit on her arm? Her opinion: worthless.
Just say no to tats.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 26, 2012, 04:14:51 PM
One of them was a poor trying to steal my wife's purse.
Your wife's purse could feed a family of four for two weeks, man.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 26, 2012, 04:20:56 PM
What is that shit on her arm? Her opinion: worthless.
Just say no to tats.
My body is a temple. It only accepts offerings of beer, bacon and liquorish.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 26, 2012, 04:22:08 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 26, 2012, 04:14:51 PM
One of them was a poor trying to steal my wife's purse.
Your wife's purse could feed a family of four for two weeks, man.
They can go get a purse at Macy's just like she did.
Poors. :rolleyes:
How dare they touch my property.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 26, 2012, 04:20:56 PM
What is that shit on her arm? Her opinion: worthless.
Just say no to tats.
No shit. I would never "do it" with a girl who looked like that. Ugh.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 26, 2012, 04:24:03 PM
How dare they touch my property.
:thumbsup: You're getting there. I give it 3 out of 5 whore pills.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 26, 2012, 04:20:56 PM
What is that shit on her arm? Her opinion: worthless.
Just say no to tats.
Well, I agree on the tats issue.
Though there is one woman I know, for whom I would make an exception.
Quote from: derspiess on October 26, 2012, 04:09:52 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 26, 2012, 04:08:55 PM
Poors and their propensity for violence. :rolleyes:
Wait a minute. How many grocery store parking lot altercations have you been involved with? :contract:
You forget that Ed grew up a poor. It's in his blood. :P
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 26, 2012, 04:29:03 PM
Well, I agree on the tats issue.
Tats aside, she still looks a bit too Flukish for my tastes. She's one of those gals who spends all her time talking about birth control but in reality doesn't really need it.
Whore pills cause Flukism.
I love Lena and am jealous.
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 26, 2012, 04:29:03 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 26, 2012, 04:20:56 PM
What is that shit on her arm? Her opinion: worthless.
Just say no to tats.
Well, I agree on the tats issue.
Though there is one woman I know, for whom I would make an exception.
Aww, thanks, Toni! :perv:
Quote from: derspiess on October 26, 2012, 04:35:39 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 26, 2012, 04:29:03 PM
Well, I agree on the tats issue.
Tats aside, she still looks a bit too Flukish for my tastes. She's one of those gals who spends all her time talking about birth control but in reality doesn't really need it.
Even if you were right, I doubt she's like that now. 26 with an HBO show and writing a book of essays that had garnered a bit of 3.7 million, girl will probably have no trouble attracting suitors.
Quote from: garbon on October 26, 2012, 04:41:59 PM
26 with an HBO show and writing a book of essays that had garnered a bit of 3.7 million, girl will probably have no trouble attracting suitors.
The Languish Seduction Community has the the hilarious inability to comprehend the concept of The Independent Woman.
NATALIE PORTMAN WAS AT THE TEXAS GAME SHE MUST BE BANGING SOMEBODY THERE
She was. Bangin' Mack Brown.
Oh and bit meant bid. :blush:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 26, 2012, 04:45:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 26, 2012, 04:41:59 PM
26 with an HBO show and writing a book of essays that had garnered a bit of 3.7 million, girl will probably have no trouble attracting suitors.
The Languish Seduction Community has the the hilarious inability to comprehend the concept of The Independent Woman.
NATALIE PORTMAN WAS AT THE TEXAS GAME SHE MUST BE BANGING SOMEBODY THERE
Well D wouldn't want an independent woman. She'd put him in his place.
Quote from: garbon on October 26, 2012, 04:41:59 PM
Even if you were right, I doubt she's like that now. 26 with an HBO show and writing a book of essays that had garnered a bit of 3.7 million, girl will probably have no trouble attracting suitors.
Ah. Didn't know who she was. Still don't, really.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 26, 2012, 04:47:36 PM
She was. Bangin' Mack Brown.
I think Bob Stoops already wore him out the week before.
Quote from: garbon on October 26, 2012, 04:48:42 PM
Well D wouldn't want an independent woman. She'd put him in his place.
Not true. I love independent women. I just wouldn't want a feminazi lecturing me about whore pills all day.
Quote from: derspiess on October 26, 2012, 04:50:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 26, 2012, 04:41:59 PM
Even if you were right, I doubt she's like that now. 26 with an HBO show and writing a book of essays that had garnered a bit of 3.7 million, girl will probably have no trouble attracting suitors.
Ah. Didn't know who she was. Still don't, really.
It is the woman responsible for 'Girls' on HBO.
Quote from: derspiess on October 26, 2012, 04:52:41 PM
Not true. I love independent women. I just wouldn't want a feminazi lecturing me about whore pills all day.
I don't know if she is really one of them, I know of her because the Feminists were all hating on her for not having enough minorities on her HBO show.
Quote from: derspiess on October 26, 2012, 04:52:41 PM
I just wouldn't want a feminazi lecturing me about whore pills all day.
Ed's never had that problem. Should've cruised the local Baptist day care for one like he did.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 26, 2012, 04:54:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 26, 2012, 04:52:41 PM
I just wouldn't want a feminazi lecturing me about whore pills all day.
Ed's never had that problem. Should've cruised the local Baptist day care for one like he did.
Damn right. I told her that only one woman could nag me, and she wasn't it.
Argue yes, nag no.
Quote from: Valmy on October 26, 2012, 04:53:59 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 26, 2012, 04:52:41 PM
Not true. I love independent women. I just wouldn't want a feminazi lecturing me about whore pills all day.
I don't know if she is really one of them, I know of her because the Feminists were all hating on her for not having enough minorities on her HBO show.
Yeah, I can only think of two and they both just had a few minutes of screen time.
Quote from: derspiess on October 26, 2012, 03:36:45 PM
How fun would it be if we had a 269-269 tie? The silliness from 2000 would look tame by comparison :D
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi5.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy174%2Fwilcoxchar%2FElectoralTie.png&hash=af59f251872795c686e7de0de4a000f8efcf0a1f)
Yep, that's what I had in mind.
The colors are all wrong though.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 26, 2012, 05:57:18 PM
The colors are all wrong though.
Red, white and blue? OK, Communist.
Also, if the Republicans win Iowa, they'll probably have New Hampshire.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 26, 2012, 06:01:22 PM
Also, if the Republicans win Iowa, they'll probably have New Hampshire.
I can't see the Republicans winning Iowa. Or New Hampshire, for that matter. Might just be wishful thinking, but I really just can't see it.
What is wrong with Indiana anyway?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2012, 07:41:25 PM
What is wrong with Indiana anyway?
Gary, mostly. That place is a hellhole. It's like Mordor on Lake Michigan.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 26, 2012, 07:43:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2012, 07:41:25 PM
What is wrong with Indiana anyway?
Gary, mostly. That place is a hellhole. It's like Mordor on Lake Michigan.
Richmond is turning into a little crime white trash shithole also.
Southern Indiana is great Raz. Good, godly folk.
From the bbc...
QuoteQuestion from @sophie2709: Should US voters consider the world's view, which gives Obama the most backing internationally?
Katty answers: It's complicated. In 2004 Bush used global antipathy towards him to win support at home. But having friends abroad is useful.
Furrigners. :rolleyes:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 26, 2012, 07:43:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2012, 07:41:25 PM
What is wrong with Indiana anyway?
Gary, mostly. That place is a hellhole. It's like Mordor on Lake Michigan.
That just makes me wonder what Michael Jackson's "precioussss" was ... Macauley Culkin or Bubbles?
QuoteShould US voters consider the world's view, which gives Obama the most backing internationally?
No, we should re-elect him anyway. :D
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2012, 07:59:39 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 26, 2012, 07:43:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2012, 07:41:25 PM
What is wrong with Indiana anyway?
Gary, mostly. That place is a hellhole. It's like Mordor on Lake Michigan.
That just makes me wonder what Michael Jackson's "precioussss" was ... Macauley Culkin or Bubbles?
If LOTR references make you think of Michael Jackson, well, I just don't know what to say...
Gary Johnson 2012!
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 26, 2012, 08:12:15 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2012, 07:59:39 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 26, 2012, 07:43:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2012, 07:41:25 PM
What is wrong with Indiana anyway?
Gary, mostly. That place is a hellhole. It's like Mordor on Lake Michigan.
That just makes me wonder what Michael Jackson's "precioussss" was ... Macauley Culkin or Bubbles?
If LOTR references make you think of Michael Jackson, well, I just don't know what to say...
:secret:Jackson is from Gary Indiana.
Ah, that makes it alright then I guess.
I don't see how people can vote against a Nobel laureate. Boggles the mind.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 26, 2012, 05:57:18 PM
The colors are all wrong though.
Aren't the locked in colors a relatively new thing?
Obama said he wants music to be more political. :yucky:
Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2012, 02:12:11 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 26, 2012, 12:37:14 PM
It's sort of like picking the March Madness bracket, if you just go on ranking all the way you'll do terribly. Upsets will happen.
Missed that the first time. If you pick strictly on ranking, you will indeed do terribly. However, that's the least terrible prediction available to you. That's because you are expected to do very terribly no matter what bracket you go with. However, if the tournament were repeated millions of times, going by rankings will likely do better than any other strategy.
Deviating from rankings on the theory that upsets have to happen somewhere is a stupid strategy. You should deviate from the rankings only if you have a superior insight to the people or system that generated the rankings. (You should also deviate from rankings if you split money for ties in your pool, but that's a unique shortcoming of the betting structure rather than probability theory).
I didn't say you pick random upsets just because "upsets have to happen." Really if we're going to talk about it at length, what was intended to be a simple analogy just doesn't work. March Madness is fundamentally different from U.S. state results in Presidential elections. My point wasn't you should just randomly predict upsets in some states, but only that it is highly unlikely that for say, Nate Silver, every state he predicts as more likely to vote Obama than Romney actually votes for Obama. We have one election where Nate Silver made a name for himself picking 49 out 50 states correctly, and the one state he picked incorrectly was a very close race. The problem is in 2008 there were not nearly as many close races as there are going to be this year. I don't even need a statistical model and I can probably guarantee 35 state election results and be 100% correct come election day.
My only point was
some people act as though all these predictions will come to be 100% accurate, the reality is with so many close races it's all but certain we'll see a few surprise results. Is it your position that the statisticians are perfect, and every state prediction they make will come to pass? :hmm: Silver is relatively new to this game, there are older statistical models like the Fair Model and others that get it very close to right, but they aren't perfect. I see no reason to assume just based on his success in the 2008 election that Silver has stumbled on some perfect model that will never make mistakes. Strong "advocates" of the models preach it like gospel, most of the statisticians are a lot more realistic--for some reason you seem to be informed on the science of statistics but fall into the gospel camp when talking about it. I had an argument with someone about the Fair Model once where they said he was never more than a few percent wrong in any election, and I pointed out that "in a Presidential election a few percent is what you're fighting over and spending hundreds of millions of dollars on."
There's a good article Stephen Jay Gould wrote years ago, in which he basically said for some reason people look at simple statistical measures related to life expectancy with cancer, like median life expectancy after diagnosis, and assume that is the "real hard science." They assume the "noise", or the people who live longer and those who die earlier are just some abstraction that doesn't really mean anything. But the statistics is actually the abstraction, the "noise" is reality. No serious statistician believes they can use a model to predict something 100% accurately. Many will tell you they have a good model that gets "really close" and getting "really close" is very important and all that matters. (Actuarial tables for example, as you should know, get really close but aren't perfect--that is why they change over time.) In a Presidential election, I'm saying you can get very close to right but still blow the overall call, because in a close election a few thousand votes here and there can end up being the difference.
Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2012, 08:44:47 AM
Obama said he wants music to be more political. :yucky:
Ugh.
Apparently Jenna Jameson is supporting Rommey because, "when you're this rich you vote for Republicans." Cant believe I wanked to that whore once :mad:
Quote from: Josephus on October 27, 2012, 10:10:56 AM
Apparently Jenna Jameson is supporting Rommey because, "when you're this rich you vote for Republicans."
Finally, the first honest endorsement yet.
Quote from: Josephus on October 27, 2012, 10:10:56 AM
Apparently Jenna Jameson is supporting Rommey because, "when you're this rich you vote for Republicans." Cant believe I wanked to that whore once :mad:
I wanked to her when she was poor and amateur. Not when she became rich. :)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 27, 2012, 08:57:08 AM
I didn't say you pick random upsets just because "upsets have to happen." Really if we're going to talk about it at length, what was intended to be a simple analogy just doesn't work. March Madness is fundamentally different from U.S. state results in Presidential elections. My point wasn't you should just randomly predict upsets in some states, but only that it is highly unlikely that for say, Nate Silver, every state he predicts as more likely to vote Obama than Romney actually votes for Obama. We have one election where Nate Silver made a name for himself picking 49 out 50 states correctly, and the one state he picked incorrectly was a very close race. The problem is in 2008 there were not nearly as many close races as there are going to be this year. I don't even need a statistical model and I can probably guarantee 35 state election results and be 100% correct come election day.
My only point was some people act as though all these predictions will come to be 100% accurate, the reality is with so many close races it's all but certain we'll see a few surprise results. Is it your position that the statisticians are perfect, and every state prediction they make will come to pass? :hmm: Silver is relatively new to this game, there are older statistical models like the Fair Model and others that get it very close to right, but they aren't perfect. I see no reason to assume just based on his success in the 2008 election that Silver has stumbled on some perfect model that will never make mistakes. Strong "advocates" of the models preach it like gospel, most of the statisticians are a lot more realistic--for some reason you seem to be informed on the science of statistics but fall into the gospel camp when talking about it. I had an argument with someone about the Fair Model once where they said he was never more than a few percent wrong in any election, and I pointed out that "in a Presidential election a few percent is what you're fighting over and spending hundreds of millions of dollars on."
There's a good article Stephen Jay Gould wrote years ago, in which he basically said for some reason people look at simple statistical measures related to life expectancy with cancer, like median life expectancy after diagnosis, and assume that is the "real hard science." They assume the "noise", or the people who live longer and those who die earlier are just some abstraction that doesn't really mean anything. But the statistics is actually the abstraction, the "noise" is reality. No serious statistician believes they can use a model to predict something 100% accurately. Many will tell you they have a good model that gets "really close" and getting "really close" is very important and all that matters. (Actuarial tables for example, as you should know, get really close but aren't perfect--that is why they change over time.) In a Presidential election, I'm saying you can get very close to right but still blow the overall call, because in a close election a few thousand votes here and there can end up being the difference.
I understand all that you're saying. I understand that models aren't perfect. However, as a statistician, I also know that nothing is perfect, it's a science full of limited information. Therefore, your job is to make the best estimate, or more realistically the least worst estimate, and go with it. All outcomes are highly unlikely, but one of those highly unlikely outcomes has to come to fruition, and statistics is all about figuring out which outcome is the least unlikely.
Quote from: derspiess on October 26, 2012, 01:42:39 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on October 26, 2012, 01:39:25 PM
We will see a big Bradley effect this election where women and minorities fashionably support Obama in public, but abandon him in the voting booth.
I'm not holding my breath. That was supposed to happen in 2008.
Associated Press say that up to 56% of Americans are racist against blacks, an increase from 4 years ago: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82964.html
Only amongst Romney die hards is this a good thing.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 27, 2012, 10:42:06 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 26, 2012, 01:42:39 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on October 26, 2012, 01:39:25 PM
We will see a big Bradley effect this election where women and minorities fashionably support Obama in public, but abandon him in the voting booth.
I'm not holding my breath. That was supposed to happen in 2008.
Associated Press say that up to 56% of Americans are racist against blacks, an increase from 4 years ago: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82964.html
That makes sense. Immigration is always increasing, and new immigrants don't want to put up with the sort of shit that black culture has turned into.
Quote from: Neil on October 27, 2012, 10:59:23 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on October 27, 2012, 10:42:06 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 26, 2012, 01:42:39 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on October 26, 2012, 01:39:25 PM
We will see a big Bradley effect this election where women and minorities fashionably support Obama in public, but abandon him in the voting booth.
I'm not holding my breath. That was supposed to happen in 2008.
Associated Press say that up to 56% of Americans are racist against blacks, an increase from 4 years ago: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82964.html
That makes sense. Immigration is always increasing, and new immigrants don't want to put up with the sort of shit that black culture has turned into.
Blacks should be worried. Their numbers are not increasing, and they will become politically marginalized by surging Hispanics and Asians in the electorate.
Asians (the oriental obedient kind) are already tolerated by whites (with high rates of interracial marriage), and white-ish Hispanics will eventually be integrated as "regular" whites.
I actually love black culture in a lot of ways but hate black politics. Blacks will never be part of any part that isn't willing to "stick it to the man" and "give us what's coming." The sense of entitlement in the black community makes them perfect partners for the Democrats. They even conveniently forget just a few decades ago some of those Democrats were lynching them for looking at white women the wrong way.
It's a good thing blacks are becoming a smaller and smaller portion of the electorate and the population. With the right framing, the GOP really can capture a lot of the Hispanic and Asian vote. George W. Bush actually did really well among Hispanic voters. On cultural and economic issues the Asian and Hispanic immigrants groups have a lot of people who lean GOP. But unfortunately the GOP needs a purging of certain Minutemen types.
The modern GOP has this serious problem. We have several fringe elements (with some overlap): Tea Party types, bible thumpers, anti-immigration minutemen types and etc. Okay that's fine, every party has its fringe. But for whatever reason, the GOP has allowed the fringe to actually take over. If you combine all those groups together I bet they don't represent more than 30% of the Republican base. However they vote monolithically, the rest of the GOP votes based on a variety of issues and will splinter along various lines. Because of that, if you don't get the approval of that monolithic base, you can't get past a GOP primary let alone hope to win general election as a Republican. Something has to happen, because the ideas the fringe represent are dying issues of a bygone era. No one cares about gay marriage who is young, increasing numbers of people are perfectly fine with liberalized immigration policy, abortion will probably remain one of those 50/50 issues, but it sucks to be stuck in a party that is absolutist about it. Up until say, the late 1990s there were lots of pro-choice GOP politicians. But because of the ideological purity required of GOP candidates, most of them have lost office. The Democrats still have pro-life Senators and Governors, and the national party doesn't try to primary them out of existence or anything like that. It used to be GOP candidates could be solidly pro-choice or pro-life and still win elections.
We've regressed since then. It used to be even the hardcore pro-life GOP were saying "except in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother." Now the new wave GOP has people openly saying we should force women to carry pregnancies to term regardless of those things. Even some saying that rape can't produce a pregnancy. Birth control, not really a political issue since the early 70s, has risen up again, with the GOP coming down hard on the side of letting employers create health insurance plans that doesn't cover birth control. A great man, Richard Nixon, started Federal Funding of Planned Parenthood because he recognized things like abortion and birth control lead to less poor children. Fewer poor children was good for the country, lowered the crime rate and lowered the number of people who are guaranteed Democrat voters.
That map is dumb. 20 internet dollars says Nevada and Iowa aren't gonna go Romney, gimme a break.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 27, 2012, 02:27:54 PM
That map is dumb. 20 internet dollars says Nevada and Iowa aren't gonna go Romney, gimme a break.
6 quatloos sez Nevada might go. Fuck Iowa. Leftist corn fuckers.
I bet Wyoming is solidly for Romney!
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/26/is-voter-fraud-being-committed-in-ohio/
Summary: NIGGERS!
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 27, 2012, 02:49:06 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on October 27, 2012, 02:27:54 PM
That map is dumb. 20 internet dollars says Nevada and Iowa aren't gonna go Romney, gimme a break.
6 quatloos sez Nevada might go. Fuck Iowa. Leftist corn fuckers.
Deal. If Nevada goes GOP, Obama 2012 would go down as one of the worst campaign team and strategy in recent memory. The Romney camp is trying the Rove trick of 2000 by spinning that "every state is in play!". Rove had Bush campaigning in Cali back in november 2000 and the state went 1.5 million votes for Gore.
It's all bull. My prediction: Wisconsin, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada and Virginia all go for Obama, Florida and Colorado is a toss-up. In any case, the EV math just doesn't work for Romney. They made a game of it for the last 3 weeks, good for them, but that's it.
You know I'll finagle my way out of paying those quatloos.
Well then I hope Rainbow Dash has gonorrhea. :frog:
Quote from: Zoupa on October 27, 2012, 03:48:35 PM
Well then I hope Rainbow Dash has gonorrhea. :frog:
I'll send the twins to take you out.
Two little girls vs. a Frenchman? My money is on the twins.
Quote from: derspiess on October 27, 2012, 04:55:53 PM
Two little girls vs. a Frenchman? My money is on the twins.
They are also of partial German descent. Zoups is doomed.
:glare:
It's all love dawg.
I'm starting to think that an Obama electoral college win and a Romney popular vote win is getting more likely. The national polls and the swing state polls have been divergent for a month.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 27, 2012, 05:25:28 PM
I'm starting to think that an Obama electoral college win and a Romney popular vote win is getting more likely. The national polls and the swing state polls have been divergent for a month.
I dunno...we still have 10 days left. That's still enough time for at least 3 more Republican candidates for office to say something incredibly derfetusish about women.
GOD WANTS WOMEN TO HAVE AT LEAST 2 RAPE BABIES BY 12 YEARS OLD
Hot
Somewhere in west central Ohio, Ed is running a Cylon impregnation operation.
Hott.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 27, 2012, 05:25:28 PM
I'm starting to think that an Obama electoral college win and a Romney popular vote win is getting more likely. The national polls and the swing state polls have been divergent for a month.
I hope so...the Tea Party hysterics will be a blast to see.
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 27, 2012, 06:30:00 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 27, 2012, 05:25:28 PM
I'm starting to think that an Obama electoral college win and a Romney popular vote win is getting more likely. The national polls and the swing state polls have been divergent for a month.
I hope so...the Tea Party hysterics will be a blast to see.
I was told in this thread they wouldn't care.
NV SecState says over 300k people have early voted so far. Dems with a 20% turnout lead so far.
I am not paying Zoups those quatloos.
The Des Moines Register gives a coveted endorsement to Romney today. It endorsed Obama in 2008, Kerry in 2004, and Gore in 2000. In fact, Romney is the first Republican presidential candidate to capture the newspaper’s recommendation to Iowa voters since Richard Nixon in 1972.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/27/des-moines-register-endorses-romney-2/
Worth 15k? The space on his face that is.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.nydailynews.com%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F1.1193915.1351385151%21%2Fimg%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.jpg_gen%2Fderivatives%2Flandscape_635%2Ftattoo28n-1-copy.jpg&hash=99502d2f4b38b2db0b9ab89c85edacabd5851c2e)
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election-2012/man-scores-15-000-romney-tattoo-article-1.1193898
QuoteAn Indiana man tattooed his face with a Mitt Romney presidential campaign logo in exchange for $15,000.
Eric Hartsburg used the online auction house eBay to sell a 5-by-2-inch space on the side of his face, ABC News reported.
He posted the listing in August, and an anonymous Republican fan of the former Massachusetts governor paid for the promotional spot.
Hartsburg, a professional wrestler, is a registered Republican and a Romney supporter. He rejected the highest bidder because the desired tattoo was too "lewd," he told ABC.
He got the Romney ink just a few days ago. The red-and-blue tattoo is the same stylized letter "R" used on Romney advertisements and campaign materials
Hartsburg said a lot of people have hurled insults at him. But he plans to auction off space on his forehead next.
Further tightening in Minnesota? Latest poll has Romney trailing Obama there by 3 points.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/mn/minnesota_romney_vs_obama-1823.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/mn/minnesota_romney_vs_obama-1823.html)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 27, 2012, 08:54:18 PM
NV SecState says over 300k people have early voted so far. Dems with a 20% turnout lead so far.
I've made my prediction of an Obama win and stand by the specific states, but if anything is going to be an upset state it won't be Nevada. Nevada has way too many Hispanics, and we all know their #1 issues is an opposition to any and all desire to do something "racist" like eject illegal immigrants from our jurisdiction.
What is interesting is how Obama's approval numbers have plummeted the past week.
In less than 7 days, Gallup has had the President go from a net 6-point approval to a net 3-point disapproval. (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.backupot.com%2FSmileys%2Fdefault%2Fchin_scratch.gif&hash=ac5059ddf510ab9c11da83a418f0b098d3e7853f)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html)
So, Phil...once it's all over, how will you feed your need for electoral-based statistical analysis orgasms? Dry humping consumer reports? Exposing yourself to DWI fatality statistics? Fondling recidivism rates on the bus?
Same thing I did in 2009.
Curl up in the fetal position in an oversize shirt and little white socks, and cry yourself to sleep with a bottle of chablis and scented candles, listening to Sade?
Hey now! No need to throw scented candles and Sade in with him. :angry:
Quote from: garbon on October 28, 2012, 12:11:54 PM
Hey now! No need to throw scented candles and Sade in with him. :angry:
Lavender and No Ordinary Love. :wub:
Green Bay, Wisconsin is now the most heavily bought ad market in America. Both Romney and Obama will campaign in the state this week.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82971.html
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 27, 2012, 08:54:18 PM
NV SecState says over 300k people have early voted so far. Dems with a 20% turnout lead so far.
Now 400k and 10%. Some tightening it seems.
Incidentally, that's a huge portion of the voters. That's almost the same as the population of my whole city metro area (Washoe). Clark (Vegas) has 2 millionish.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 28, 2012, 11:56:59 AM
So, Phil...once it's all over, how will you feed your need for electoral-based statistical analysis orgasms? Dry humping consumer reports? Exposing yourself to DWI fatality statistics? Fondling recidivism rates on the bus?
He could do the fantasy baseball/football/basketball thing.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 28, 2012, 01:01:18 PM
Green Bay, Wisconsin is now the most heavily bought ad market in America. Both Romney and Obama will campaign in the state this week.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82971.html
Obama is a bears fan so he is screwed.
The race looks like it's about as tight as it can be, and has been for a few weeks. Wonder if any of the news outlets will be able to avoid the obligatory "Presidential Race Tightens in Last Week Before Election" story they always like to run?
Quote from: derspiess on October 29, 2012, 09:16:37 AM
The race looks like it's about as tight as it can be, and has been for a few weeks. Wonder if any of the news outlets will be able to avoid the obligatory "Presidential Race Tightens in Last Week Before Election" story they always like to run?
I can't imagine anything can happen at this point that will change things, either. Now, like you said, it comes down to who shows up at the voting booths. Luckily, Frankenstorm will mostly be gone by election day. I'd hate to think that the election would come down to who was stupid enough to go out in a hurricane to vote.
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 09:18:58 AM
I can't imagine anything can happen at this point that will change things, either.
I think the jobs numbers coming out later this week could be pretty important.
Quote from: Kleves on October 29, 2012, 09:27:37 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 09:18:58 AM
I can't imagine anything can happen at this point that will change things, either.
I think the jobs numbers coming out later this week could be pretty important.
I doubt it. At this point, those who believe that Obama has done the right stuff have already decided to vote for him. Those who've decided that Romney is right and it's moving along too slowly have already decided to vote for him. Short of the jobs numbers coming back with a million new jobs and unemployment under 6%, it's not going to shift anything.
Quote from: Kleves on October 29, 2012, 09:27:37 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 09:18:58 AM
I can't imagine anything can happen at this point that will change things, either.
I think the jobs numbers coming out later this week could be pretty important.
Agreed. If the unemployment rate bumped back up the psychological 8% barrier, it could tilt the election into a clear Romney win.
The financial boosting effects of Quantitative Easing 3 are currently keeping the President afloat.
My local rag endorsed Romney! But that's not exactly a shock, given past endorsements. I wonder if they actually have GOP-leaning journos/editors or they're just placating the locals here in a GOP stronghold.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 29, 2012, 09:58:10 AM
Agreed. If the unemployment rate bumped back up the psychological 8% barrier, it could tilt the election into a clear Romney win.
That may turn out to be a "tree falls in the woods" thing: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/10/29/labor-department-may-delay-jobs-report/
Wouldn't it be funny if the numbers showed 8% and we didn't know about it until Nov. 7th? :mellow:
Quote from: Phillip V on October 29, 2012, 09:58:10 AM
The financial boosting effects of Quantitative Easing 3 are currently keeping the President afloat.
What effects? QE stopped working two years ago in the US. The poor Japanese haven't been able to make it work for decades. They're on QE9 for the Yen.
Quote from: derspiess on October 29, 2012, 10:43:47 AM
My local rag endorsed Romney!
Which one, the
Whitey Times-Picayune?
QuoteI wonder if they actually have GOP-leaning journos/editors or they're just placating the locals here in a GOP stronghold.
Contrary to popular belief and the fevered masturbatory conspiracy fantasies of you GOPtards, not every newspaper editorial board is filled with bleeding heart WoodSteins straight out of 1972.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 29, 2012, 11:42:12 AM
Which one, the Whitey Times-Picayune?
The respected and still somehow profitable Cincinnati Enquirer. But you knew that.
QuoteContrary to popular belief and the fevered masturbatory conspiracy fantasies of you GOPtards, not every newspaper editorial board is filled with bleeding heart WoodSteins straight out of 1972.
Even my journo friends share my skepticism. Btw both those guys are absolutely deified in J-schools everwhere.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 29, 2012, 11:34:58 AM
What effects? QE stopped working two years ago in the US. The poor Japanese haven't been able to make it work for decades. They're on QE9 for the Yen.
I wouldn't say it stopped working. Diminishing returns, yes. But QE3 had at least a small momentary effect.
And by working, I'm speaking in terms of short-term. I don't have any faith that it works on a larger scale.
Quote from: derspiess on October 29, 2012, 11:50:54 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 29, 2012, 11:34:58 AM
What effects? QE stopped working two years ago in the US. The poor Japanese haven't been able to make it work for decades. They're on QE9 for the Yen.
I wouldn't say it stopped working. Diminishing returns, yes. But QE3 had at least a small momentary effect.
And by working, I'm speaking in terms of short-term. I don't have any faith that it works on a larger scale.
Agreed. QE3 immediately raised the stock market to new highs the day it was announced, boosted consumer sentiment in September, and probably influenced the several hundred thousand hiring of part-timers that boosted jobs numbers. An employed part-timer is defined as working one (1) to thirty (30) hours per week.
Quote from: derspiess on October 29, 2012, 11:48:36 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 29, 2012, 11:42:12 AM
Which one, the Whitey Times-Picayune?
The respected and still somehow profitable Cincinnati Enquirer. But you knew that.
I don't know what secondary reading sources you use. One can only read
The Turner Diaries so many times.
QuoteQuoteContrary to popular belief and the fevered masturbatory conspiracy fantasies of you GOPtards, not every newspaper editorial board is filled with bleeding heart WoodSteins straight out of 1972.
Even my journo friends share my skepticism. Btw both those guys are absolutely deified in J-schools everwhere.
Of course they are, much in the same way the Founding Fathers have completely distorted in modern Political Science. Modern American journalism is now for retards with no frontal lobe activity.
Quote from: derspiess on October 29, 2012, 11:18:59 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on October 29, 2012, 09:58:10 AM
Agreed. If the unemployment rate bumped back up the psychological 8% barrier, it could tilt the election into a clear Romney win.
That may turn out to be a "tree falls in the woods" thing: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/10/29/labor-department-may-delay-jobs-report/ (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/10/29/labor-department-may-delay-jobs-report/)
Wouldn't it be funny if the numbers showed 8% and we didn't know about it until Nov. 7th? :mellow:
:hmm:
:lol:
Romney's camp said he was going to suspend all campaigning during the storm, but he went to a high school in Cleveland right after that announcement was made. He ended the speech by saying that this was a time for everyone to come together and work as one unit to get through this. Then his people load up his big "ROMNEY" bus with emergency supplies to distribute while he heads to Iowa for another event.
I suppose it's all he can do, really, since this is going to end up the Obama Show during and after the storm.
Well the last time a GOP presidential candidate suspended his campaign due to a disaster it didn't work out too well :(
So Politico's Battleground poll has Obama up by 1 point, 49 to 48. Yet when they feed the numbers into their "vote election model" it somehow turns into 52 to 47 Romney advantage
Has this one already been posted? :lol:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/229904_457941344257934_415062901_n.jpg)
Classical Archives have under their new releases these two CDs:
- Music for Republicans
- Music for Democrats
Both have the exact same collection of patriotic songs. :lol:
Romney currently leads Obama by 6 points (52%-46%) among voters who already cast their ballots: http://www.gallup.com/poll/158420/registered-voters-already-cast-ballots.aspx
Bill Clinton will start campaigning in Minnesota tomorrow: http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/10/clinton-to-minnesota-147642.html
(https://twimg0-a.akamaihd.net/profile_images/2050216671/gallup_logo_twitter_v4.jpg) (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwestvalley.edu%2Facademics%2Fsocial_science%2Fpolitical_science%2Fimages%2Fbill-clinton.jpg&hash=5b9097546538e1045cd2e8a8707b56b14bff727e)
Listening to yet another radio report about the election and some of the soundbits from voters, I noticed that a lot of the talk in the campaign seems to be very abstract. It's about diffuse "values", the "strength" of America and similar words. There's little concrete talk, at least as seen from over here.
Secondly, considering how polarized the country seems to be and how hard fought the campaign is - why will the voter turnout yet again be very low compared to most other democratic countries (under 60% since 1972)?
For starters, there's gonna be over 100 million votes cast. There's very little chance your vote will actually matter. Also, many people will find themselves standing in lines for several hours to do so.
Quote from: Syt on October 30, 2012, 01:24:18 AM
Secondly, considering how polarized the country seems to be and how hard fought the campaign is - why will the voter turnout yet again be very low compared to most other democratic countries (under 60% since 1972)?
We have alot of unpolitical people in this country. I think the polarization creates a certain fatigue with politics. Another factor may be the problems of our educational system...but on the other hand we had 80% turnout back in the days when illiteracy was a big problem so maybe not.
Quote from: Syt on October 30, 2012, 01:24:18 AM
Listening to yet another radio report about the election and some of the soundbits from voters, I noticed that a lot of the talk in the campaign seems to be very abstract. It's about diffuse "values", the "strength" of America and similar words. There's little concrete talk, at least as seen from over here.
Secondly, considering how polarized the country seems to be and how hard fought the campaign is - why will the voter turnout yet again be very low compared to most other democratic countries (under 60% since 1972)?
61.7% in 2008
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F3%2F35%2FVoter_turnout.png%2F800px-Voter_turnout.png&hash=1c043124f2e8cc07b39d912deea0f31d9f9e5744)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections says 57.37%, Tim.
Quote from: Syt on October 30, 2012, 01:58:06 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections says 57.37%, Tim.
We focus on the turnout of eligible voters in the US, which was 61.7%. That's what the chart uses.
[Eurosmug]Well, if the American system disenfranchises so many people . . . [/Eurosmug] ;)
So Romney opted out of doing any campaigning during the storm in the interest of national unity. Instead, he's doing a not-a-campaign-but-a-storm-relief party at the same venue with the same celebs and the same basic speeches.
And this man is going to be the one to "reach across the aisle" and be the "bi-partisan President"? He can't even drop this shit for 48 hours while people's lives are being pulled apart. :rolleyes:
Quote from: merithyn on October 30, 2012, 08:32:03 AM
And this man is going to be the one to "reach across the aisle" and be the "bi-partisan President"?
Romney is a dirty liar Meri. But nobody cares he is a liar because, you know, he is a politician and they expect it from him. Besides it is not like one could really be a bi-partisan President these days. The other party is not going to work with you and help you look good.
Quote from: merithyn on October 30, 2012, 08:32:03 AM
And this man is going to be the one to "reach across the aisle" and be the "bi-partisan President"? He can't even drop this shit for 48 hours while people's lives are being pulled apart. :rolleyes:
We must have Hope that Romney will bring about bipartisan Change We Can Believe In.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.elephantattire.com%2Fassets%2Fimages%2F375x775bstkr-mr-1.jpg&hash=07548a4fa88de186029b4984d16d7401048454f6)
Quote from: merithyn on October 30, 2012, 08:32:03 AM
So Romney opted out of doing any campaigning during the storm in the interest of national unity. Instead, he's doing a not-a-campaign-but-a-storm-relief party at the same venue with the same celebs and the same basic speeches.
And this man is going to be the one to "reach across the aisle" and be the "bi-partisan President"? He can't even drop this shit for 48 hours while people's lives are being pulled apart. :rolleyes:
It's politics, Meri. Remember the Wellstone memorial? Yeah, I figured you wouldn't.
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2012, 01:45:21 AM
We have alot of unpolitical people in this country. I think the polarization creates a certain fatigue with politics. Another factor may be the problems of our educational system...but on the other hand we had 80% turnout back in the days when illiteracy was a big problem so maybe not.
I think fatigue is part of it, and I also think affluence (relative to the rest of the world) and a shit-ton of possible leisure activities make people numb to politics.
Quote from: derspiess on October 30, 2012, 09:12:14 AM
It's politics, Meri. Remember the Wellstone memorial? Yeah, I figured you wouldn't.
:blink:
I was knee-deep in diapers and going through a divorce in 2002. No, I didn't remember it, probably because I ignored politics during that time. There was enough drama in my own life; I didn't need that shit.
Reading up on it, I find it just as disgraceful as this is. Nonetheless, that was the aftermath of an accident, not a massive storm that is
in process. And both incidents are indicative of why I despise both parties. Unlike you, I don't find one any better than the other. They both suck donkey balls equally.
Well, welcome to politics :hug:
Quote from: merithyn on October 30, 2012, 09:21:21 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 30, 2012, 09:12:14 AM
It's politics, Meri. Remember the Wellstone memorial? Yeah, I figured you wouldn't.
:blink:
I was knee-deep in diapers and going through a divorce in 2002. No, I didn't remember it, probably because I ignored politics during that time. There was enough drama in my own life; I didn't need that shit.
Reading up on it, I find it just as disgraceful as this is. Nonetheless, that was the aftermath of an accident, not a massive storm that is in process. And both incidents are indicative of why I despise both parties. Unlike you, I don't find one any better than the other. They both suck donkey balls equally.
Ah, so you are a coward.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2012, 09:48:22 AM
Ah, so you are a coward.
She is too morally weak to compromise her principles.
Got my tickets for the Romney-Ryan "victory rally" this Friday just up north of Cincy. Haven't been to a political rally since college. I'm taking Tommy & meeting some friends there. Maybe I'll shamelessly use Tommy as a political prop and write slogans all over his shirt :D
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2012, 10:10:51 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2012, 09:48:22 AM
Ah, so you are a coward.
She is too morally weak to compromise her principles.
It's easy to have principles if they never have to be put into practice.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2012, 11:04:06 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2012, 10:10:51 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2012, 09:48:22 AM
Ah, so you are a coward.
She is too morally weak to compromise her principles.
It's easy to have principles if they never have to be put into practice.
Seriously. Pick a team to root for-- politics is a lot more fun that way.
Quote from: The Larch on October 29, 2012, 04:53:00 PM
Has this one already been posted? :lol:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/229904_457941344257934_415062901_n.jpg)
Not that it really matters to me either way, but the hats sold on the official Romney-Ryan campaign site are made in the US.
Chinese knock-offs, is there anywhere they won't get?
Quote from: The Larch on October 30, 2012, 11:23:47 AM
Chinese knock-offs, is there anywhere they won't get?
One time in Argentina I saw knockoff *Old Navy* clothing for sale :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2012, 11:04:06 AM
It's easy to have principles if they never have to be put into practice.
Ok how exactly are my principles supposed to be put into practice if I do not support them? Magical spells?
Quote from: merithyn on October 30, 2012, 08:32:03 AM
So Romney opted out of doing any campaigning during the storm in the interest of national unity. Instead, he's doing a not-a-campaign-but-a-storm-relief party at the same venue with the same celebs and the same basic speeches.
And this man is going to be the one to "reach across the aisle" and be the "bi-partisan President"? He can't even drop this shit for 48 hours while people's lives are being pulled apart. :rolleyes:
Agreed. I think it's a mistake by Mitt because it looks so nakedly political - a bit like his response to Libya. He's in a storm relief event in Ohio, Paul's doing a 'thank you' for volunteers in Wisconsin and Ann's in Iowa and Wisconsin at her own storm relief things.
I think a couple of events in swing states would be okay if Mitt tried to look Presidential by visiting say, New York or New Jersey. Maybe the 'thank you' event could've been for some emergency services people or whatever else. As it is, all three doing events about the storm, miles away from it, in swing states just comes across a bit callow and vulgar in my view.
May look nakedly political to a politics junkie but not necessarily to ordinary folks.
Quote from: derspiess on October 30, 2012, 10:49:25 AM
Got my tickets for the Romney-Ryan "victory rally" this Friday just up north of Cincy. Haven't been to a political rally since college. I'm taking Tommy & meeting some friends there. Maybe I'll shamelessly use Tommy as a political prop and write slogans all over his shirt :D
Don't you feel just the teeniest bit dirty that, for actually taking the time to exert the energy to go to a political rally and all that jazz, that in the end it's for a douchebag like Romney?
Romney pretty much has to do something that's high visibility to counter the fact that Obama can legitimately have a bunch of photo-ops at storm sites and distribute federal largesse.
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2012, 08:35:45 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 30, 2012, 08:32:03 AM
And this man is going to be the one to "reach across the aisle" and be the "bi-partisan President"?
Romney is a dirty liar Meri. But nobody cares he is a liar because, you know, he is a politician and they expect it from him.
When Chrysler calls you out for being a liar over the Jeep stuff, you know you're a liar. But, like you say, nobody cares.
Quote from: Gups on October 30, 2012, 11:48:56 AM
May look nakedly political to a politics junkie but not necessarily to ordinary folks.
I'm not sure. I think everyone will wonder why all of these 'storm relief' events are taking places hundreds of miles away from the storm. Also if it looks nakedly political to journalists and that becomes part of the way they describe the story then it'll be picked up by everyone.
Quote from: Kleves on October 30, 2012, 11:59:28 AM
Romney pretty much has to do something that's high visibility to counter the fact that Obama can legitimately have a bunch of photo-ops at storm sites and distribute federal largesse.
I agree. My point is that all events taking place far away from the storms in midwestern swing states doesn't look good. He would do far better if just one of those events was in, say, New York or New Jersey. It would be just as high profile.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2012, 12:09:29 PM
I agree. My point is that all events taking place far away from the storms in midwestern swing states doesn't look good. He would do far better if just one of those events was in, say, New York or New Jersey. It would be just as high profile.
Yeah, he needs to visit DG in New Jersey, bring some fresh fruit and DG in return can show him what's left of the broadwalk and then teach him about gambling in the casinos down there.
Quote from: Kleves on October 30, 2012, 11:59:28 AM
Romney pretty much has to do something that's high visibility to counter the fact that Obama can legitimately have a bunch of photo-ops at storm sites and distribute federal largesse.
Filling sandbags is doing something. :mellow:
Quote from: merithyn on October 30, 2012, 12:21:34 PM
Filling sandbags is doing something. :mellow:
He should send Ryan to do it. That way, he can fill them after the water's gone, for a building that doesn't need it. It would fit his profile.
I'm just loving this whole CLINTON UNBOUND thing happening, too. Bubba's in such campaign mode, he's acting like it's 1996 all over again. The man's in complete electoral virility mode.
I feel sorry for the first coed intern he sees when he gets back to the Clinton Global Initiative offices when it's all over next week. Man, is she gonna get the monster fuck of her young life.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2012, 11:58:53 AM
Don't you feel just the teeniest bit dirty that, for actually taking the time to exert the energy to go to a political rally and all that jazz, that in the end it's for a douchebag like Romney?
No.
It's not like I have to do anything. I just show up & watch the spectacle. Kinda like going to a sporting event. It will be something a little extra by which to remember this entertaining presidential election.
Silver lining for DG from the Frankenstorm: Gallup suspended its daily polling for the second day in a row.
Quote from: derspiess on October 30, 2012, 11:08:49 AM
Seriously. Pick a team to root for-- politics is a lot more fun that way.
Picking a team to root for doesn't mean one needs to constantly bad-mouth the refs over all the shit the other guys are getting away with while simultaneously glossing over the fouls your guys are committing.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 30, 2012, 04:47:14 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 30, 2012, 11:08:49 AM
Seriously. Pick a team to root for-- politics is a lot more fun that way.
Picking a team to root for doesn't mean one needs to constantly bad-mouth the refs over all the shit the other guys are getting away with while simultaneously glossing over the fouls your guys are committing.
Everyone's a homer at one time or another :P
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMEpiU.png&hash=7e4668181a8fe25303e23167d44c3e8f82e32f31)
Quote from: Syt on October 30, 2012, 01:58:06 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections says 57.37%, Tim.
Maybe Tim's numbers include all the fraudulent votes that were cast for Obama.
VP nominee Paul Ryan visited Minnesota yesterday: http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/30/14815482-one-week-left-ryan-stops-by-traditionally-blue-minnesota
Meanwhile, Romney had decided to make an ad buy in the expensive Philadelphia broadcast market: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/president/candidates/romney/2012/10/30/romney-expands-campaign-into-pennsylvania/cXrvQeT6VPD3ByUArAFFTO/story.html
Worth it?
The prime communist philosopher of our country (I hate his lunatic views, but you cannot deny that he is one of the sharpest minds around), argued in an article I just read, that the focus on personal attacks in campaigns, like in the US election (Obama wasn't born in the States, Romney was an asshole in college, etc.), in contrary to popular belief does not make the campaigns and elections more personal. It makes them more mechanic, as they treat the voters as programable robots, moving on the most basic of instincts. And they are often right.
Discuss.
It makes the election about the personal qualities of the candidates rather than their ideologies, that's what's meant by making it personal. Not that it connects more personally with voters.
Quote from: Tamas on October 31, 2012, 03:12:00 AM
The prime communist philosopher of our country (I hate his lunatic views, but you cannot deny that he is one of the sharpest minds around), argued in an article I just read, that the focus on personal attacks in campaigns, like in the US election (Obama wasn't born in the States, Romney was an asshole in college, etc.), in contrary to popular belief does not make the campaigns and elections more personal. It makes them more mechanic, as they treat the voters as programable robots, moving on the most basic of instincts. And they are often right.
Discuss.
Do some politicians govern on instinct and personality? Obama seems to have delivered on the cool and cautious character that he has had since at least his college years. One can say the same for Romney.
Both have daddy issues.
How does Romney have daddy issues? Obama I can see (given that he wrote a book about it), but not Romney.
Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2012, 09:09:23 AM
How does Romney have daddy issues? Obama I can see (given that he wrote a book about it), but not Romney.
Daddy's shoes will always be too big to fill.
Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2012, 09:09:23 AM
How does Romney have daddy issues? Obama I can see (given that he wrote a book about it), but not Romney.
He wants to do what his father never could: be POTUS.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2012, 09:10:47 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2012, 09:09:23 AM
How does Romney have daddy issues? Obama I can see (given that he wrote a book about it), but not Romney.
Daddy's shoes will always be too big to fill.
That's nothing.
Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2012, 09:14:39 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2012, 09:10:47 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2012, 09:09:23 AM
How does Romney have daddy issues? Obama I can see (given that he wrote a book about it), but not Romney.
Daddy's shoes will always be too big to fill.
That's nothing.
It's the one thing that's driven him all his life. He loved his Dad.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2012, 09:16:54 AM
It's the one thing that's driven him all his life. He loved his Dad.
It's not what I usually think of as a daddy issue though. A lot of us feel like we may never live up to the examples our fathers set. I sure as hell do.
Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2012, 09:18:28 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2012, 09:16:54 AM
It's the one thing that's driven him all his life. He loved his Dad.
It's not what I usually think of as a daddy issue though. A lot of us feel like we may never live up to the examples our fathers set. I sure as hell do.
"Daddy issues" isn't just clear heels and pole dancing under the name "Sin A' Bunns". :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2012, 09:20:25 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2012, 09:18:28 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2012, 09:16:54 AM
It's the one thing that's driven him all his life. He loved his Dad.
It's not what I usually think of as a daddy issue though. A lot of us feel like we may never live up to the examples our fathers set. I sure as hell do.
"Daddy issues" isn't just clear heels and pole dancing under the name "Sin A' Bunns". :lol:
You just gave me a really unfotunate mental picture of Obama :pinch:
Anyway if you expand it much beyond that it becomes a useless term.
So Nate Silver is getting some shit for his seventy-something percent chance of Obama victory, and not just from the right.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/nate-silver-romney-clearly-could-still-win-147618.html
Can't find the video link, but even Seedy's own Morning Joe had an anti-Nate rant.
Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2012, 09:29:37 AM
Can't find the video link, but even Seedy's own Morning Joe had an anti-Nate rant.
I caught it. ;)
Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2012, 09:29:37 AM
So Nate Silver is getting some shit for his seventy-something percent chance of Obama victory, and not just from the right.
Yeah well they want to make sure the lefty base is freaked out enough they will show up to vote.
Looks like the rally Friday is gonna be kind of a big deal.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/31/romney-and-ryan-plan-major-kick-off-rally-friday-in-ohio/?wprss=rss_election-2012
Quote
Romney and Ryan plan major kick-off rally Friday in Ohio
Posted by Philip Rucker on October 31, 2012 at 3:01 am
TAMPA – When Mitt Romney returns to battleground Ohio on Friday night, it won't be for just any humdrum rally. The affair, save for the absence of actor Clint Eastwood, is shaping up as the sequel to the Republican National Convention.
Nearly 100 governors, senators, congressmen, mayors, Olympic gold medalists and other Republican luminaries are scheduled to join Romney and his vice presidential running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.), in a Cincinnati suburb Friday night for a huge rally designed both to inject new energy into their Ohio campaign and to launch the Republican ticket on its final, frenetic three days of barnstorming before Election Day.
Kicking off what the Romney campaign is dubbing the "Romney-Ryan Real Recovery Road Rally," the event will be held in West Chester, just outside of Cincinnati, a populous and potentially decisive swath of southwestern Ohio where Romney needs to drive up turnout within his conservative base and win over moderate suburban voters.
The campaign announced that almost every Romney surrogate – from the candidate's wife, Ann, and their five sons to a number of Olympic athletes to a lengthy roster of elected officials, including Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the GOP's 2008 presidential nominee – will attend, underscoring the importance of Ohio's 18 electoral votes to Romney's calculations.
From West Chester, the surrogates will fan out across the nation to campaign over the weekend in 11 key states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.
This is a big push by the Republicans to demonstrate fresh momentum at the end of a week in which the race seems to have stalled amid the devastating storm that wreaked havoc across the Eastern Seaboard.
The rally will be held at 7:30 p.m. at The Square at Union Centre, a large outdoor gathering space in downtown West Chester, which is the hometown of House Speaker John A. Boehner (R). The same venue hosted then-vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin in October 2008, where she took the stage to "Eye of the Tiger" and rallied a crowd of about 10,000.
In addition to Mitt and Ann Romney and Paul and Janna Ryan, the Romney campaign has announced that the following surrogates will attend: McCain and his wife, Cindy; former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal; Texas Gov. Rick Perry; Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback; Sens. Rob Portman (Ohio), Marco Rubio (Fla.), John Thune (S.D.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (N.H.); former senator Norm Coleman (Minn.); former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani; former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge; Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus; Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah); former congressman Artur Davis (Ala.); Olympic champion speed skater Derek Parra; Olympic champion figure skater Scott Hamilton; champion golfer Jack Nicklaus; as well as Tagg and Jen Romney, Matt and Laurie Romney, Josh Romney, Ben Romney and Craig and Mary Romney.
SCOTT HAMILTON FTW!!!! :punk:
That's actually pretty cool. Are there many attractive young women who attend these Republican events?
Rick Perry eh? Tainted.
Would be interesting to see if Utah elects this black Mormon woman to the U.S. Congress; currently the first and only black woman mayor in the state. Age 36 with three children. :showoff:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/31/us/politics/mia-love-mayor-in-utah-seeks-path-to-congress.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fim41.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F08%2FMia-Love-Hot.jpg&hash=a82e04256afb36dfb74f4496995522eb5cc1b241)
Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2012, 09:41:42 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2012, 09:29:37 AM
So Nate Silver is getting some shit for his seventy-something percent chance of Obama victory, and not just from the right.
Yeah well they want to make sure the lefty base is freaked out enough they will show up to vote.
I would be surprised that the average voter is even aware of Silver's work. It's just a fit of reverse-jinx.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 31, 2012, 09:53:56 AM
That's actually pretty cool. Are there many attractive young women who attend these Republican events?
Seems to be the case in GOP strongholds like my area-- there are a lot of young attractive professional wimmenz that are active in the Cincy GOP. Seems like it's more of a social function for them but I'm okay with it.
In other areas maybe not as much.
Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2012, 09:29:37 AM
So Nate Silver is getting some shit for his seventy-something percent chance of Obama victory, and not just from the right.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/nate-silver-romney-clearly-could-still-win-147618.html
Can't find the video link, but even Seedy's own Morning Joe had an anti-Nate rant.
Ignorance of statistics isn't solely the domain of the right. I don't know if Nate Silver's model is severely flawed or not, but I know that the arguments cited in that article against it are severely flawed. Probability and statistics are very, very hard to truly get, and this article shows it.
Quote from: DGuller on October 31, 2012, 11:10:53 AM
Ignorance of statistics isn't solely the domain of the right. I don't know if Nate Silver's model is severely flawed or not, but I know that the arguments cited in that article against it are severely flawed. Probability and statistics are very, very hard to truly get, and this article shows it.
What people keep missing when they bitch about Silver's "76.4 percent" is that the remaining "23.6 percent" is a really, really big fucking chunk of chance.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2012, 11:21:17 AM
What people keep missing when they bitch about Silver's "76.4 percent" is that the remaining "23.6 percent" is a really, really big fucking chunk of chance.
Not really. It's less than 1 in 4.
Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2012, 11:57:36 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2012, 11:21:17 AM
What people keep missing when they bitch about Silver's "76.4 percent" is that the remaining "23.6 percent" is a really, really big fucking chunk of chance.
Not really. It's less than 1 in 4.
1 out of 4 comes up 9 times out of 10.
Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2012, 11:57:36 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2012, 11:21:17 AM
What people keep missing when they bitch about Silver's "76.4 percent" is that the remaining "23.6 percent" is a really, really big fucking chunk of chance.
Not really. It's less than 1 in 4.
You are obviously more of a high risk gambler than I am, then. How's that work out at the tables for you?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2012, 12:07:51 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2012, 11:57:36 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2012, 11:21:17 AM
What people keep missing when they bitch about Silver's "76.4 percent" is that the remaining "23.6 percent" is a really, really big fucking chunk of chance.
Not really. It's less than 1 in 4.
You are obviously more of a high risk gambler than I am, then. How's that work out at the tables for you?
I'm missing your point, but I only play Blackjack.
Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2012, 12:30:41 PM
I'm missing your point, but I only play Blackjack.
My point is, 1 out of 4 is still very decent odds.
Hell, even rolling a 6 on a 1d6 can get you an EX on the 1-4 Attrition Table without a CAS modifier.
I don't get the Silver hate. The Princeton model has Obama with an 80% chance. The RCP and HuffPost averages have Obama over 270. He's got a stronger lead in Ohio than Bush at this point in 2004 and Romney has never led the state. Romney's surge has stalled, at best. I think he's undone the damage of 47% and a great Dem convention, which is impressive. But, he needs another 1-2% to win.
Right now I think this feels like role reversal 2004.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 31, 2012, 01:37:32 PM
Right now I think this feels like role reversal 2004.
Yeah it totally does. Incompetent incumbent going up against soulless challenger.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 31, 2012, 01:37:32 PM
I don't get the Silver hate. The Princeton model has Obama with an 80% chance. The RCP and HuffPost averages have Obama over 270. He's got a stronger lead in Ohio than Bush at this point in 2004 and Romney has never led the state.
The problem I have with anyone giving Obama greater than a 60% chance is that where he is ahead he's ahead by razor thin margins. And one thing I can't work out in my head is why so many of the polls seem to assume that Obama will get turnout equal or greater to 2008 when his supporters clearly lack the same level of enthusiasm for him.
Anyway, my prediction from months ago stands: Romney wins the popular vote but Obama wins electoral, with it all hinging on one state.
QuoteRomney's surge has stalled, at best. I think he's undone the damage of 47% and a great Dem convention, which is impressive. But, he needs another 1-2% to win.
I think he's ahead of where he was before the Dem convention/47%.
QuoteRight now I think this feels like role reversal 2004.
Well hopefully there won't be as bad of an exit poll screw-up as there was then.
Iowa warns international observers of arrest
I'm getting a international incident boner.
Awesome. If I were here next Tuesdays is be doing citizens arrests, Gomer-style.
I'll form an ad hoc militia company and detain anybody with an accent.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 31, 2012, 03:29:27 PM
I'll form an ad hoc militia company and detain anybody with an accent.
Put yourself in handcuffs asap
Kinky.
I doubt Ed has an accent. He's from the correct region.
I have a confession: I picked up a slight southern accent when I was 12. Never could get rid of it.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 31, 2012, 03:36:20 PM
I have a confession: I picked up a slight southern accent when I was 12. Never could get rid of it.
:(
So here is an interesting contrast between our two countries.
Lets say the US economy quickly recovered after Obama was elected and he didnt spend all the stimulus money which had been approved in the budget because he determined such stimulus was no longer necessary.
Would he be condemned for lack of transparency and accountability for deciding not to spend the money or would he be congratulated for good fiscal management.
That is the position in which our Prime Minister finds himself. The NDP is jumping up and down condemning him for not spending the money he said he would. Others say it is a good thing not to spend stimulus money when the stimulus is no longer needed.
Other than wanting to move to a country that has such problems what says Languish - since I know most of you wouldnt be caught dead in the Canadian politics thread.
Watching Romney's rally in Roanoke now.
After hearing how how North America can achieve energy independence in 8 years, while 12 million jobs can be created in 4 years by lowering taxes so many times, and repealing and replacing Obamacare will save me $2,600 a year, he almost has me convinced.
Favorite quote so far:
"President Obama likes energy that's above the ground like the wind and the sun...well I like prefer stuff that's underground...Oil, coal and gas...and we'll get it all under my Administration!"
Glad to have you on board, then. After DG was told by that quiz he was a Romney supporter, I figured you would be next in line.
I said almost. North American energy independence in 8 years is scientifically and economically impossible. As is 12 million jobs in 4.
Although, I am intrigued about how he'll replace Romneycare with Romneycare. :P
Talking about how he supports single moms who are scraping by: "We have very full hearts."
Alrighty then.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 09:41:01 AM
I said almost. North American energy independence in 8 years is scientifically and economically impossible.
Well he does mention Natural Gas and Coal so maybe he is talking about electricity in which case we are already energy independent. It is fuel we import, not sure how Natural Gas and Coal are going to help us with that. Maybe he is going to pass legislation mandating electric cars only. That might do it actually.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 09:41:01 AM
As is 12 million jobs in 4.
If one went by this election one would think the only thing that determines employment is tax policy. Clearly if we just disbanded the government tommorow and cut taxes to zero we would all be enjoying high paying middle class jobs. Labor markets have nothing to do with it.
Quote from: Valmy on November 01, 2012, 09:48:43 AM
If one went by this election one would think the only thing that determines employment is tax policy. Clearly if we just disbanded the government tommorow and cut taxes to zero we would all be enjoying high paying middle class jobs. Labor markets have nothing to do with it.
I for one can't wait to see how all those future former Federal employees are going to get absorbed into a private sector that refuses to hire.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 09:41:01 AM
Although, I am intrigued about how he'll replace Romneycare with Romneycare. :P
To quote Biden, "a three letter word: JOBS" :D
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 09:50:54 AM
I for one can't wait to see how all those future former Federal employees are going to get absorbed into a private sector that refuses to hire.
Because they're refusing to hire while Obama is president.
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 10:10:37 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 09:50:54 AM
I for one can't wait to see how all those future former Federal employees are going to get absorbed into a private sector that refuses to hire.
Because they're refusing to hire while Obama is president.
:lol:
I just pictured some good ole' boy sitting around a conference table with his managers, stoagie in his mouth, saying, "I really need all these people, but I tell you boys what. I'm not going to hire a stinking one of them until that man is out of the White House!" :mad:
Quote from: Valmy on November 01, 2012, 09:48:43 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 09:41:01 AM
As is 12 million jobs in 4.
If one went by this election one would think the only thing that determines employment is tax policy. Clearly if we just disbanded the government tommorow and cut taxes to zero we would all be enjoying high paying middle class jobs. Labor markets have nothing to do with it.
Even with/without that, I just don't understand how a lower taxe = new employee? Why not just pocket the money?
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 10:10:37 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 09:50:54 AM
I for one can't wait to see how all those future former Federal employees are going to get absorbed into a private sector that refuses to hire.
Because they're refusing to hire while Obama is president.
Well, you know that and I know that, but I don't see how they're going to want to hire a substantial portion of the 2,500,000 federal employees we have now once the Federal government is eviscerated, even after they finally release the $2 trillion in capital they've been accumulating under Obama because they're waiting for a more "business friendly" president to release them from a regulatory environment.
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 10:10:37 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 09:50:54 AM
I for one can't wait to see how all those future former Federal employees are going to get absorbed into a private sector that refuses to hire.
Because they're refusing to hire while Obama is president.
Correction: They're waiting to see if he still will be.
If Romney does get elected, the rules will change yet again. Nobody wants to hire until they know what the rules will really be.
So far this week I've gotten emails from Josh and Tagg. No word from the other three yet.
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 12:08:40 PM
So far this week I've gotten emails from Josh and Tagg. No word from the other three yet.
You have to contribute a bit more to unlock all five!
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 01, 2012, 11:14:26 AM
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 10:10:37 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 09:50:54 AM
I for one can't wait to see how all those future former Federal employees are going to get absorbed into a private sector that refuses to hire.
Because they're refusing to hire while Obama is president.
Correction: They're waiting to see if he still will be.
If Romney does get elected, the rules will change yet again. Nobody wants to hire until they know what the rules will really be.
I know I'm waiting myself.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 12:10:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 12:08:40 PM
So far this week I've gotten emails from Josh and Tagg. No word from the other three yet.
You have to contribute a bit more to unlock all five!
:lol: There's always a catch.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2012, 12:13:13 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 01, 2012, 11:14:26 AM
If Romney does get elected, the rules will change yet again. Nobody wants to hire until they know what the rules will really be.
I know I'm waiting myself.
Coward. True Job Creators(tm) wait for no man.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 12:22:04 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2012, 12:13:13 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 01, 2012, 11:14:26 AM
If Romney does get elected, the rules will change yet again. Nobody wants to hire until they know what the rules will really be.
I know I'm waiting myself.
Coward. True Job Creators(tm) wait for no man.
Plus, he didn't build that. Someone else made it happen.
I'll just sleep on top of my hoard for awhile.
My brother was shopping at Costco and some dude in there gave him tickets to see Paul Ryan speak at the convention center today. Should I go? :lol:
With only a few days left, Obama is campaigning in Wisconsin today. His campaign acknowledged that the state is now in play, citing that VP nominee Paul Ryan "basically moved into the state". Ryan has a house and family in Wisconsin, representing the state in Congress for 14 years.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/11/obama-camp-ryan-put-wis-in-play-147984.html (http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/11/obama-camp-ryan-put-wis-in-play-147984.html)
VP Nominee pulled political stunt yesterday on Halloween by taking children out for trick-or-treating where they hypocritically accepted free handouts just for showing up:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.politico.com%2Fglobal%2F2012%2F11%2Fpaul_ryan_halloween_ap_605.jpg&hash=e7303b732a9b1181a5b87a49c09d927d1d21eb55)
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 12:31:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 12:22:04 PM
Coward. True Job Creators(tm) wait for no man.
Plus, he didn't build that. Someone else made it happen.
With his leg, I wouldn't trust him to lift it, either.
Would probably just try to hump it anyhow.
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 12:31:56 PM
Plus, he didn't build that. Someone else made it happen.
Well, in this case that's true. All Ed did was let some shelves fall on him. Presto! Instant wealth!
Quote from: Phillip V on November 01, 2012, 01:06:26 PM
VP Nominee pulled political stunt yesterday on Halloween by taking children out for trick-or-treating where they hypocritically accepted free handouts just for showing up:
:lol: I gave out Obama Phones.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 09:43:09 AM
Talking about how he supports single moms who are scraping by: "We have very full hearts."
Alrighty then.
Maybe he'll put them in a binder.
Quote from: viper37 on November 01, 2012, 03:12:46 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 09:43:09 AM
Talking about how he supports single moms who are scraping by: "We have very full hearts."
Alrighty then.
Maybe he'll put them in a binder.
The women's organizations do that first and then give him the binders. :contract:
Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2012, 09:43:36 AM
Looks like the rally Friday is gonna be kind of a big deal.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/31/romney-and-ryan-plan-major-kick-off-rally-friday-in-ohio/?wprss=rss_election-2012
SCOTT HAMILTON FTW!!!! :punk:
Just heard on the radio that Kid Rock will join the stage :lol:
IT JUST KEEPS GETTING BETTER
Don't forget your canned goods the Red Cross won't need, Muttski.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 03:25:28 PM
Don't forget your canned goods the Red Cross won't need, Muttski.
The Red Cross will take my cans of pork'n beans and happily repackage them if they know what's good for them :angry:
Money? Their million dollar CEO can donate some of her own.
Quote from: merithyn on November 01, 2012, 01:26:04 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 12:31:56 PM
Plus, he didn't build that. Someone else made it happen.
Well, in this case that's true. All Ed did was let some shelves fall on him. Presto! Instant wealth!
Let?
Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2012, 11:57:36 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2012, 11:21:17 AM
What people keep missing when they bitch about Silver's "76.4 percent" is that the remaining "23.6 percent" is a really, really big fucking chunk of chance.
Not really. It's less than 1 in 4.
How would you feel coming to the operating table with a 1 in 4 chance of dying? Seedy is right on, a lot of people are unable to comprehend probabilities, and convert anything greater than 50% to 100%, and less than 50% to 0%. To be fair, it doesn't help when Nate Silver is being touted for calling 49 out of 50 states right, since that's not a correct metric to evaluate in hindsight his probabilities.
Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2012, 02:15:59 PM
Anyway, my prediction from months ago stands: Romney wins the popular vote but Obama wins electoral, with it all hinging on one state.
Wanna bet?
Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2012, 03:35:00 PM
I doubt Ed has an accent. He's from the correct region.
From Kentucky?
Quote from: DGuller on November 01, 2012, 05:10:32 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2012, 02:15:59 PM
Anyway, my prediction from months ago stands: Romney wins the popular vote but Obama wins electoral, with it all hinging on one state.
Wanna bet?
No.
Quote from: DGuller on November 01, 2012, 05:08:41 PM
How would you feel coming to the operating table with a 1 in 4 chance of dying?
That's a pretty shitty analogy. If I had a greater chance of dying without the operation I'd feel pretty good about it. And despite all the hype, this election ain't analogous to life and death regardless of which guy wins.
Hypothetically, would you pay me 3:1 if we bet on this?
Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2012, 11:57:36 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2012, 11:21:17 AM
What people keep missing when they bitch about Silver's "76.4 percent" is that the remaining "23.6 percent" is a really, really big fucking chunk of chance.
Not really. It's less than 1 in 4.
As OvB pointed out Silver considers anything under 65% a toss-up. So that actually means it's leaning Obama. I read a very interesting post by a political statistician, which I can't find, on this where he basically said it's the equivalent of, in football, Obama being a couple of points up with 5 minutes to go.
However as I say all the prediction models I've seen are predicting an Obama win (largely because of Ohio and Iowa) and the bookies have Obama 1/4, Romney 11/4. I don't think Silver's that odd - but the attention he attracts is, for some reason.
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 06:49:04 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 01, 2012, 05:08:41 PM
How would you feel coming to the operating table with a 1 in 4 chance of dying?
That's a pretty shitty analogy. If I had a greater chance of dying without the operation I'd feel pretty good about it. And despite all the hype, this election ain't analogous to life and death regardless of which guy wins.
Hypothetically, would you pay me 3:1 if we bet on this?
You mean betting on a Romney win?
Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2012, 03:35:00 PM
I doubt Ed has an accent. He's from the correct region.
Is there a region you can come from where you don't have temperature? or mass? Or is Ed mute?
Accents only exist in the ear of the listener.
With only a few days left, Romney will campaign in... Pennsylvania this Sunday; VP nominee Paul Ryan there this Saturday.
Obama in Wisconsin today. Jill Biden will be in Pennsylvania this Friday and Saturday. These are not states that I expected to see action by the end of the race.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Romney-RNC-splashing-down-in-Pa-in-11th-hour-bid-4001859.php (http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Romney-RNC-splashing-down-in-Pa-in-11th-hour-bid-4001859.php)
They could be in play, they could not - there's messaging in where you campaign.
If you campaign in states they should be winning you're saying that you're confident, pressing forward and have momentum. If you campaign in states you should be winning you're saying you're cautious and playing defensively. Both of those messages could be entirely unrelated to the actual state of the campaign, so long as it's not absurd (ie. Obama campaigning in Alabama).
Edit: So I suppose there's two possibilities. Romney could be doing better than the polls would indicate, and that's why the campaign's there. Or Romney's doing as well as the polls indicate and for him it's a bit of a Hail Mary, while Obama's cautiously, conservatively getting the EVs he needs.
Romney should be winning Colorado and Nevada. /shrug
Quote from: mongers on October 28, 2012, 12:57:43 PM
So might the post 'global warming' storm chaos blow the election Romneys' way ?
:P
I'm having some difficulty believing this might be important, I think the view I'm now getting from the media over here is wrong.
Has the damage been as widespread as the media portrays, might only a few thousands home have been lost/damage severely ?
And would one storm, albeit large, really change a considerable number of peoples view on the issue and influence who they voted for ?
I've noticed 'scary Chinese takeover' ad is running again.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 02, 2012, 07:21:07 AM
I've noticed 'scary Chinese takeover' ad is running again.
The laughing at the end makes me want to go punch a mathlete in the face.
October Jobs Report issued today: 171,000 jobs created, 7.9% unemployment rate.
Listening to it on the news, some better statistics in there, from private sector payroll numbers going up, "discouraged job seekers" -reentering the job force increased. Market looking happy this morning prior to opening.
Meterologists are suggesting Northeast could bit hit by Nor'easter on election day.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 01, 2012, 09:32:03 PM
Romney should be winning Colorado and Nevada. /shrug
Aren't they full of potheads and hookers respectively? :unsure:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 02, 2012, 07:36:23 AM
October Jobs Report issued today: 171,000 jobs created, 7.9% unemployment rate.
I bet Romney wishes he could have gotten that extra .1%.
The unemployment rate has increased to 7.9% as of today; no big symbolic move, so the jobs report will have little-to-no effect on the election. The hurricane was probably more important, being a net positive for President Obama in voter opinion. On the other hand, the hurricane after-effects may depress his popular vote total due to the damage in the Northeast.
Meanwhile, another last minute election scramble has Bill Clinton traveling to Pennsylvania this Monday after having been in Minnesota a few days ago. (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/51524/39.gif)
http://www.chron.com/news/article/Jill-Biden-Clinton-to-visit-Pa-before-Tuesday-4003268.php
I don't understand why Romney hasn't been trying to compete in more states before this last week. It's not like he's out of money. Was he worried that if he put money into states in which the polls didn't move, he would look bad or something?
Quote from: Kleves on November 02, 2012, 09:48:57 AM
I don't understand why Romney hasn't been trying to compete in more states before this last week. It's not like he's out of money. Was he worried that if he put money into states in which the polls didn't move, he would look bad or something?
Romney was out of money in August/September, even having to take out a $20 million loan. Everybody was depressed until the turnaround during the October 4 debate. Prior to that, Obama was leading by 10-15 points in states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Quote from: Kleves on November 02, 2012, 09:01:29 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 02, 2012, 07:36:23 AM
October Jobs Report issued today: 171,000 jobs created, 7.9% unemployment rate.
I bet Romney wishes he could have gotten that extra .1%.
And he'll get it retroactively when the unemployment figures are revised upwards next week. The same as has happened for the last 80 weeks or whatever.
NV early voting ends today. 575k in so far, 42% Dem, 37% Rep, 21% Independent
That's almost half the eligible voters.
Quote from: Tyr on November 02, 2012, 08:23:13 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 01, 2012, 09:32:03 PM
Romney should be winning Colorado and Nevada. /shrug
Aren't they full of potheads and hookers respectively? :unsure:
And Mormons. Lots and lots of Mormons.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 02, 2012, 11:37:07 AM
NV early voting ends today. 575k in so far, 42% Dem, 37% Rep, 21% Independent
I take it this is one of those states where it is easier to get third party candidates on the ballot.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 02, 2012, 11:37:54 AM
And Mormons. Lots and lots of Mormons.
Yeah they are an infernal virus, infecting all of the western states.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2012, 12:11:32 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 02, 2012, 11:37:07 AM
NV early voting ends today. 575k in so far, 42% Dem, 37% Rep, 21% Independent
I take it this is one of those states where it is easier to get third party candidates on the ballot.
Not sure. I think that percentage of independents is typically a function of how open the primaries are.
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 06:49:04 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 01, 2012, 05:08:41 PM
How would you feel coming to the operating table with a 1 in 4 chance of dying?
That's a pretty shitty analogy. If I had a greater chance of dying without the operation I'd feel pretty good about it. And despite all the hype, this election ain't analogous to life and death regardless of which guy wins.
Hypothetically, would you pay me 3:1 if we bet on this?
What about the death panels? That seems kinda life and death.
What does 21% independent mean? They voted for neither Romney nor Obama?
Quote from: Zanza on November 02, 2012, 12:54:34 PM
What does 21% independent mean? They voted for neither Romney nor Obama?
They are not registered to either the Republican or Democratic Party, but registered Independent--which does not necessarily mean the Independent Party.
Some states have open primaries, which allow Independents to vote in the GOP or Dem primaries, without being members of those parties.
Right. Those numbers are not who they voted for, but what party the voters in question were registered with. He cannot give out the actual votes right now.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 02, 2012, 01:02:23 PM
Right. Those numbers are not who they voted for, but what party the voters in question were registered with. He cannot give out the actual votes right now.
Ah ok I thought 21% had all voted third party. Damn I was getting excited there.
Is there some kind of "party membership" in addition to registration in America? As in you are actually on their books, pay a membership fee and vote in party internal decisions? E.g. who elects the chairman of the RNC/DNC?
Quote from: Zanza on November 02, 2012, 01:11:44 PM
Is there some kind of "party membership" in addition to registration in America? As in you are actually on their books, pay a membership fee and vote in party internal decisions? E.g. who elects the chairman of the RNC/DNC?
Party membership only concerns voting in primaries and caucasing. At least in my county. And you can switch parties for every election if you want.
Quote from: Zanza on November 02, 2012, 01:11:44 PM
Is there some kind of "party membership" in addition to registration in America? As in you are actually on their books, pay a membership fee and vote in party internal decisions? E.g. who elects the chairman of the RNC/DNC?
That's a separate thing. As a registered voter for a party, you're "on their books" to the extent that they know who you are and where you live--but your participation in the respective parties is pretty much completely optional.
The US party system is pretty silly when it comes to citizens registering for it. In Soviet Union, being part of the Communist party was the real deal. You paid your dues, and you voted on all internal party matters. And those votes had a real effect as well: if you voted for the wrong faction, you died.
DG misses the old days. That extra hunk of black bread and the three potatoes for his prized party membership. Those were the days!
Now? His brownosing of the Democrats gives him diddly squat.
I don't know what you're talking about, I'm a registered Republican. :huh:
Quote from: DGuller on November 02, 2012, 01:23:00 PM
The US party system is pretty silly when it comes to citizens registering for it. In Soviet Union, being part of the Communist party was the real deal. You paid your dues, and you voted on all internal party matters. And those votes had a real effect as well: if you voted for the wrong faction, you died.
Khrushchev was giving a speech about the horrible things Stalin had done at a party rally once. Suddenly someone in the crowd shouted "Why didn't you speak up?". Khrushchev got a furious look on his face and shouted out "Who said that?", but nobody would admit they had shouted the question. Then Khrushchev said, "That's why I didn't speak up".
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen%2Fblogs%2Ftheticket%2Fhomemade_romney_sign.jpg&hash=1398b5722afcc19f60f3824d310731d9a24e6859)
Quote from: DGuller on November 02, 2012, 01:27:33 PM
I don't know what you're talking about, I'm a registered Republican. :huh:
And the quiz said you should vote for Romney. :hug:
Quote from: garbon on November 02, 2012, 02:15:25 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen%2Fblogs%2Ftheticket%2Fhomemade_romney_sign.jpg&hash=1398b5722afcc19f60f3824d310731d9a24e6859)
Great, now garbon is defacing property and causing motor vehicle accidents.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2012, 02:35:11 PM
Great, now garbon is defacing property and causing motor vehicle accidents.
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 02, 2012, 07:36:23 AM
7.9% unemployment rate.
Market looking happy this morning prior to opening.
Market took a big drop today. If the Dow drops below 13000 on Monday afternoon, that may upset some voters.
http://www.google.com/finance (http://www.google.com/finance)
Quote from: Phillip V on November 02, 2012, 03:09:30 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 02, 2012, 07:36:23 AM
7.9% unemployment rate.
Market looking happy this morning prior to opening.
Market took a big drop today. If the Dow drops below 13000 on Monday afternoon, that may upset some voters.
http://www.google.com/finance (http://www.google.com/finance)
They opened happy, and then oil prices took a tumble, taking the market with them.
Don't blame the jobs report, blame OPEC.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2012, 02:35:11 PM
Great, now garbon is defacing property and causing motor vehicle accidents.
I could totally see derspiess and garbon in a
Dukes of Hazzard-style TV buddy show, tear-assing around the county like Bo and Luke Duke, giving Boss Obama and Sheriff Biden all sorts of grief.
Although Luke would have kinkier hair and wearing Daisy's shorts.
Can I be Cooter?
Uncle Jesse.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 02, 2012, 03:11:17 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on November 02, 2012, 03:09:30 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 02, 2012, 07:36:23 AM
7.9% unemployment rate.
Market looking happy this morning prior to opening.
Market took a big drop today. If the Dow drops below 13000 on Monday afternoon, that may upset some voters.
http://www.google.com/finance (http://www.google.com/finance)
They opened happy, and then oil prices took a tumble, taking the market with them.
Don't blame the jobs report, blame OPEC.
Don't ask me about what causes market drops. Ask the voter. ;)
Quote from: DGuller on November 02, 2012, 01:27:33 PM
I don't know what you're talking about, I'm a registered Republican. :huh:
A true independent.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 02, 2012, 03:20:54 PM
Uncle Jesse.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.randomfunnypicture.com%2Fpictures%2F1034uncle-jesses-nuts.jpg&hash=e92d7d254f0c19d731a7d2fc1f4572408c02297f)
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 02, 2012, 03:16:43 PM
Can I be Cooter?
Enos came to my town last year for the Gourd Festival. :cool:
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2012, 01:08:32 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 02, 2012, 01:02:23 PM
Right. Those numbers are not who they voted for, but what party the voters in question were registered with. He cannot give out the actual votes right now.
Ah ok I thought 21% had all voted third party. Damn I was getting excited there.
Negro please. :rolleyes:
At least in America the major parties let members decide who will represent them in the election. In Sweden it's all done in smoke-filled rooms.
So they asked everyone to wear red at tonight's RomneyRally. Isn't it ironic?
Heading out now.
Meanwhile, I'm going to be warm inside while eating a can of Pringles.
Quote from: Kleves on November 02, 2012, 09:01:29 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 02, 2012, 07:36:23 AM
October Jobs Report issued today: 171,000 jobs created, 7.9% unemployment rate.
I bet Romney wishes he could have gotten that extra .1%.
They are now using the line: "The unemployment rate stands at 7.9% – higher than when President Obama took office."
Quote from: DGuller on November 02, 2012, 01:23:00 PM
The US party system is pretty silly when it comes to citizens registering for it. In Soviet Union, being part of the Communist party was the real deal. You paid your dues, and you voted on all internal party matters. And those votes had a real effect as well: if you voted for the wrong faction, you died.
I think it works like this in most European countries too (well, except the part about dieing). Most parties here have very low number of members compared to the general populace (for example, the ruling party in Poland has only 50,000 members).
Now news that VP nominee Paul Ryan will be campaigning in Minnesota this Sunday. Bill Clinton will also return to the state for a second time this Sunday after being there only a few days ago. Very bizarre that the Romney and Obama campaigns are spending their last few days and money in "safe Democratic" states.
http://kstp.com/article/stories/s2822158.shtml
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 02, 2012, 05:31:04 PM
Meanwhile, I'm going to be warm inside while eating a can of Pringles.
And I have strep throat. Though not because of last night. Thought it was just a small cold.
Quote from: derspiess on November 03, 2012, 12:29:26 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 02, 2012, 05:31:04 PM
Meanwhile, I'm going to be warm inside while eating a can of Pringles.
And I have strep throat. Though not because of last night. Thought it was just a small cold.
:(
Quote from: derspiess on November 03, 2012, 12:29:26 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 02, 2012, 05:31:04 PM
Meanwhile, I'm going to be warm inside while eating a can of Pringles.
And I have strep throat. Though not because of last night. Thought it was just a small cold.
I'm in the middle of the cold cycle, which after being transmitted from kids to wife, finally ended up in my lap. Yay.
When I have a sore throat my favorite remedy is to eat something spicy. Numbs the soreness. Little did I know my throat was raw as hell :pinch:
Amoxicillin already seems to be doing its thing.
New poll has Romney leading in Minnesota by 1 point.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/11/aff-poll-minnesota-a-tossup-148296.html
Quote from: Phillip V on November 03, 2012, 07:55:47 PM
New poll has Romney leading in Minnesota by 1 point.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/11/aff-poll-minnesota-a-tossup-148296.html
QuoteIn a polling memo, pollster Glen Bolger attributes the closeness of the race to Minnesota's overwhelmingly white population.
"Minnesota is very much a battleground state due the low minority population of the state and President Obama's problems with white voters. Romney has a good chance to pull off one of the biggest upsets of the election cycle in this state," Bolger writes.
Watch out, Vermont!
In local races here in ohio, Mandel's fuckwads have spammed every one of my email addresses begging for money. They claim it is tied at 48-48 and they need the cash for the final push.
Fuck Mandel and fuck union cocksucker Sherrod 'mumbles' Brown.
A pox on both.
New poll shows tie in Pennsylvania: http://triblive.com/politics/politicalheadlines/2878015-74/romney-percent-poll-state-obama-pennsylvania-president-lee-presidential-voters (http://triblive.com/politics/politicalheadlines/2878015-74/romney-percent-poll-state-obama-pennsylvania-president-lee-presidential-voters)
Quote from: Phillip V on November 04, 2012, 12:05:05 AM
New poll shows tie in Pennsylvania: http://triblive.com/politics/politicalheadlines/2878015-74/romney-percent-poll-state-obama-pennsylvania-president-lee-presidential-voters (http://triblive.com/politics/politicalheadlines/2878015-74/romney-percent-poll-state-obama-pennsylvania-president-lee-presidential-voters)
Aren't you tired of cherrypicking the biggest pro-Romney outliers?
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/58845_10151132706161939_83366154_n.png)
Quote from: DGuller on November 04, 2012, 12:14:40 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on November 04, 2012, 12:05:05 AM
New poll shows tie in Pennsylvania: http://triblive.com/politics/politicalheadlines/2878015-74/romney-percent-poll-state-obama-pennsylvania-president-lee-presidential-voters (http://triblive.com/politics/politicalheadlines/2878015-74/romney-percent-poll-state-obama-pennsylvania-president-lee-presidential-voters)
Aren't you tired of cherrypicking the biggest pro-Romney outliers?
There was a poll showing Obama ahead in Arizona a couple weeks ago. :lol:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 04, 2012, 12:28:08 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 04, 2012, 12:14:40 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on November 04, 2012, 12:05:05 AM
New poll shows tie in Pennsylvania: http://triblive.com/politics/politicalheadlines/2878015-74/romney-percent-poll-state-obama-pennsylvania-president-lee-presidential-voters (http://triblive.com/politics/politicalheadlines/2878015-74/romney-percent-poll-state-obama-pennsylvania-president-lee-presidential-voters)
Aren't you tired of cherrypicking the biggest pro-Romney outliers?
There was a poll showing Obama ahead in Arizona a couple weeks ago. :lol:
And did you see me citing it? No, because I'm not an idiot.
Quote from: DGuller on November 04, 2012, 12:30:45 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 04, 2012, 12:28:08 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 04, 2012, 12:14:40 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on November 04, 2012, 12:05:05 AM
New poll shows tie in Pennsylvania: http://triblive.com/politics/politicalheadlines/2878015-74/romney-percent-poll-state-obama-pennsylvania-president-lee-presidential-voters (http://triblive.com/politics/politicalheadlines/2878015-74/romney-percent-poll-state-obama-pennsylvania-president-lee-presidential-voters)
Aren't you tired of cherrypicking the biggest pro-Romney outliers?
There was a poll showing Obama ahead in Arizona a couple weeks ago. :lol:
And did you see me citing it? No, because I'm not an idiot.
Comparing Arizona to Pennsylvania is idiocy.
It just goes to show that Obama's greater than usual vulnerability in the Rust Belt is countered by Romney's greater vulnerability in the West. Republicans aren't going to be able to keep a lot of those states if they keep getting under 30% of the hispanic vote.
Quote from: Phillip V on November 04, 2012, 12:37:21 AM
Comparing Arizona to Pennsylvania is idiocy.
So, the legitimacy of outlier polls depends on the narrative you want to build?
I don't know what it is with the incessant poll reporting Phillip.
Obama is the clear favorite, has been for months. Romney has about zero chance to pull this thing off.
Let it go.
Quote from: Zoupa on November 04, 2012, 03:47:52 AM
I don't know what it is with the incessant poll reporting Phillip.
Obama is the clear favorite, has been for months. Romney has about zero chance to pull this thing off.
Let it go.
Giving up is in your blood, isn't it?
Quote from: derspiess on November 03, 2012, 12:29:26 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 02, 2012, 05:31:04 PM
Meanwhile, I'm going to be warm inside while eating a can of Pringles.
And I have strep throat. Though not because of last night. Thought it was just a small cold.
God's wrath for considering voting for a party that requires you to wear red
Quote from: DGuller on November 04, 2012, 01:22:55 AM
So, the legitimacy of outlier polls depends on the narrative you want to build?
No, it depends on other polls and if the candidates are actually contesting the state. You do not need to be so offended by the posting of polls. :wacko:
Quote from: DGuller on November 04, 2012, 12:14:40 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on November 04, 2012, 12:05:05 AM
New poll shows tie in Pennsylvania: http://triblive.com/politics/politicalheadlines/2878015-74/romney-percent-poll-state-obama-pennsylvania-president-lee-presidential-voters (http://triblive.com/politics/politicalheadlines/2878015-74/romney-percent-poll-state-obama-pennsylvania-president-lee-presidential-voters)
Aren't you tired of cherrypicking the biggest pro-Romney outliers?
I'm not sure if he's trying convince us or himself.
Those are the polls in Nate Silver's database regarding MI. Nothing to see here.
PPP 11/1 53.0 44.0 Obama +9.0
SurveyUSA 10/28 50.0 43.0 Obama +7.0
Mason-Dixon 10/25 47.0 44.0 Obama +3.0
St. Cloud State 10/21 53.0 45.0 Obama +8.0
Rasmussen 10/21 51.0 46.0 Obama +5.0
SurveyUSA 10/14 50.0 40.0 Obama +10.0
YouGov 10/11 52.0 44.0 Obama +8.0
PPP 10/8 53.0 43.0 Obama +10.0
Star Tribune * 9/19 48.0 40.0 Obama +8.0
YouGov 9/14 50.0 42.0 Obama +8.0
PPP 9/11 51.0 44.0 Obama +7.0
SurveyUSA 9/9 50.0 40.0 Obama +10.0
SurveyUSA 7/19 46.0 40.0 Obama +6.0
PPP 6/3 54.0 39.0 Obama +15.0
SurveyUSA 5/10 52.0 38.0 Obama +14.0
SurveyUSA 2/2 49.0 36.0 Obama +13.0
PPP 1/22 51.0 41.0 Obama +10.0
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 04, 2012, 07:49:06 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on November 04, 2012, 03:47:52 AM
I don't know what it is with the incessant poll reporting Phillip.
Obama is the clear favorite, has been for months. Romney has about zero chance to pull this thing off.
Let it go.
Giving up is in your blood, isn't it?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ralphmag.org%2FCV%2Fcrying-frenchman500x368.gif&hash=f60f2c0d06be1d552451d5651b779c7db4f1fbb0)
I suspect this pic might be more apt.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogcdn.com%2Fmassively.joystiq.com%2Fmedia%2F2008%2F01%2Ffrench_taunter_225.jpg&hash=5b3ac3235cec19384c52ad2c6d850afd723bb5b7)
Quote from: Count on November 03, 2012, 09:48:42 PM
Quoteand President Obama's problems with white voters.
President Obama's not the one with the problems.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2012, 11:46:16 AM
Quote from: Count on November 03, 2012, 09:48:42 PM
Quoteand President Obama's problems with white voters.
President Obama's not the one with the problems.
He's the one who needs something from them, not the other way around. Guess he shouldn't have taken their guns. :homestar:
Quote from: Phillip V on November 04, 2012, 10:21:37 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 04, 2012, 01:22:55 AM
So, the legitimacy of outlier polls depends on the narrative you want to build?
No, it depends on other polls and if the candidates are actually contesting the state. You do not need to be so offended by the posting of polls. :wacko:
I don't have to be, but I am. Intellectual dishonesty grates me, especially one that involves misuse of numbers, and cherrypicking polls ranks right up there.
Well the issue of polls will be settle in a few days anyway. Hopefully. I'd really rather not have a repeat of 2000.
Also I learned something through all this. Dguller is a Jew. I had no idea. I thought he was just a Russian. I guess he's up a peg in the grand scheme of things.
Quote from: Phillip V on November 04, 2012, 10:21:37 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 04, 2012, 01:22:55 AM
So, the legitimacy of outlier polls depends on the narrative you want to build?
No, it depends on other polls and if the candidates are actually contesting the state. You do not need to be so offended by the posting of polls. :wacko:
It's a bit tedious though - not you necessarily - but the amount of attention that polls get in the media during an American election. It's almost as if the polls are the story and the campaigns mere accidents that happen alongside it while the polls should be detail and sort-of evidence for the story of the campaign and the argument between two candidates.
I've read a number of British journalists who are baffled by it, but I think it's possibly because during our elections there's only a few national polls a week - by all the major papers - and for the most part there's no constituency level public polling.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 04, 2012, 12:05:44 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on November 04, 2012, 10:21:37 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 04, 2012, 01:22:55 AM
So, the legitimacy of outlier polls depends on the narrative you want to build?
No, it depends on other polls and if the candidates are actually contesting the state. You do not need to be so offended by the posting of polls. :wacko:
It's a bit tedious though - not you necessarily - but the amount of attention that polls get in the media during an American election. It's almost as if the polls are the story and the campaigns mere accidents that happen alongside it while the polls should be detail and sort-of evidence for the story of the campaign and the argument between two candidates.
I've read a number of British journalists who are baffled by it, but I think it's possibly because during our elections there's only a few national polls a week - by all the major papers - and for the most part there's no constituency level public polling.
Yeah, your system election system is a bit better. I'm tired of Presidential campaigns lasting two years.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 04, 2012, 12:08:19 PM
Yeah, your system election system is a bit better. I'm tired of Presidential campaigns lasting two years.
I find American Presidential elections boring and really not very nice. But I love the primaries.
But we've really the same problem traditionally. Everyone knows roughly when the PM'll call an election (this may change with the fixed term Parliaments introduced by this government) so there's a good year or so when everyone's effectively electioneering but not really. It is nice only having 4-6 weeks of active campaigning though.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 04, 2012, 12:05:44 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on November 04, 2012, 10:21:37 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 04, 2012, 01:22:55 AM
So, the legitimacy of outlier polls depends on the narrative you want to build?
No, it depends on other polls and if the candidates are actually contesting the state. You do not need to be so offended by the posting of polls. :wacko:
It's a bit tedious though - not you necessarily - but the amount of attention that polls get in the media during an American election. It's almost as if the polls are the story and the campaigns mere accidents that happen alongside it while the polls should be detail and sort-of evidence for the story of the campaign and the argument between two candidates.
I've read a number of British journalists who are baffled by it, but I think it's possibly because during our elections there's only a few national polls a week - by all the major papers - and for the most part there's no constituency level public polling.
Maybe polls correlate less to the results in your elections? I'm fairly sure Nate Silver was way off when he tried to predict the British elections in 2010.
Yeah Nate Silver got it really wrong, but 2010 was an exceptional year. Generally polls work less well in our elections - unless there's a landslide like 1997. There tends to be lots of local trends and unusual bumps that make the national average and swing work less well - so the media spends less time reporting them.
2010 was the first year where we had American style exit polls though and the BBC and Sky ones were both more or less accurate. Personally I hate them because they kind of suck the fun out of election night. The first hour or so, before the results start coming in, is spent discussing what it'll mean if the exit poll is right. Then as the results come in it's whether the exit polls were right. As they were in 2010 it removed the fun of the actual surprises through the night <_< :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 04, 2012, 12:16:03 PM
Yeah Nate Silver got it really wrong, but 2010 was an exceptional year. Generally polls work less well in our elections - unless there's a landslide like 1997. There tends to be lots of local trends and unusual bumps that make the national average and swing work less well - so the media spends less time reporting them.
2010 was the first year where we had American style exit polls though and the BBC and Sky ones were both more or less accurate. Personally I hate them because they kind of suck the fun out of election night. The first hour or so, before the results start coming in, is spent discussing what it'll mean if the exit poll is right. Then as the results come in it's whether the exit polls were right. As they were in 2010 it removed the fun of the actual surprises through the night <_< :(
I hate exit polls because of the false hope in 2004. KERRY LANDSLIDE!
Apparently we don't have American style exit polling, Silver bemoaned this in 2010:
QuoteAt a bare minimum, it is disappointing that the BBC and other organizations do not do American-style exit polling, with detail on voting patterns by racial, religious, gender and economic class. Such exit polling would allow the pollsters to weight and calibrate their surveys more effectively, while also making additional tools available to forecasters. If we'd known, for instance, that Labour would lose relatively little of their vote among religious minorities and working-class city dwellers, but more among middle-class suburban whites, we could probably have done a relatively good job of forecasting the election, even without local-level data. Indeed, in an American context, these effects would be discussed and analyzed ad nauseum.
Personally I wish we had less, that which we had got it right enough :bleeding:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 04, 2012, 12:12:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 04, 2012, 12:08:19 PM
Yeah, your system election system is a bit better. I'm tired of Presidential campaigns lasting two years.
I find American Presidential elections boring and really not very nice. But I love the primaries.
But we've really the same problem traditionally. Everyone knows roughly when the PM'll call an election (this may change with the fixed term Parliaments introduced by this government) so there's a good year or so when everyone's effectively electioneering but not really. It is nice only having 4-6 weeks of active campaigning though.
American campaigns have a fairly bitter tone. Not usually from candidates themselves, but from their flunkies. It's kinda sad because a lot of these people would be friends (and sometimes are). George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, though they never ran against one another and are reportedly good friends these days.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 04, 2012, 12:31:24 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 04, 2012, 12:12:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 04, 2012, 12:08:19 PM
Yeah, your system election system is a bit better. I'm tired of Presidential campaigns lasting two years.
I find American Presidential elections boring and really not very nice. But I love the primaries.
But we've really the same problem traditionally. Everyone knows roughly when the PM'll call an election (this may change with the fixed term Parliaments introduced by this government) so there's a good year or so when everyone's effectively electioneering but not really. It is nice only having 4-6 weeks of active campaigning though.
American campaigns have a fairly bitter tone. Not usually from candidates themselves, but from their flunkies. It's kinda sad because a lot of these people would be friends (and sometimes are). George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, though they never ran against one another and are reportedly good friends these days.
They're both rich and have their cocks sucked by the American people. Of course they're friends.(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.backupot.com%2FSmileys%2Fdefault%2FUntitled-1.png&hash=c8751ffe13043f2764a0e9fffef5529152d2d72d)
Quote from: Razgovory on November 04, 2012, 12:03:32 PM
Well the issue of polls will be settle in a few days anyway. Hopefully. I'd really rather not have a repeat of 2000.
Thankfully we can now count down the hours to go; when do polls open on the East Coast Tuesday ?
Certainly less than 48 hours to the end of campaigning and another 12-15 hours to probably find out who the next POTUS is. `
Should be around 6 or 7am.
'New York Times' Bully Knocks Stack Of Polls From Nate Silver's Hands
http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-york-times-bully-knocks-stack-of-polls-from-na,30218/
You have to admire Nate Silver on some level. He got famous for being a statistician who crunched a lot of numbers. How often does that happen in US?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 04, 2012, 12:05:11 PM
Also I learned something through all this. Dguller is a Jew. I had no idea. I thought he was just a Russian. I guess he's up a peg in the grand scheme of things.
I wouldn't be so sure. Lots of Russians are 'Jewish' when it is an excuse to get out of Russia.
I don't know what's worse.
Quote from: Neil on November 04, 2012, 01:08:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 04, 2012, 12:05:11 PM
Also I learned something through all this. Dguller is a Jew. I had no idea. I thought he was just a Russian. I guess he's up a peg in the grand scheme of things.
I wouldn't be so sure. Lots of Russians are 'Jewish' when it is an excuse to get out of Russia.
I trust him.
Obama campaign centers have "comfort captains," assigned to tend to coffee, meals, and sore feet. I wonder if they are attractive females. (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.backupot.com%2FSmileys%2Fdefault%2Ffd59oj.gif&hash=3a1c7c782976771d521e7cd2cda2d18081abf0a6)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/us/politics/in-ohio-2-campaigns-offer-a-study-in-contrasts.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/us/politics/in-ohio-2-campaigns-offer-a-study-in-contrasts.html)
I was reading a Guardian article on Ohio (for the laughs) and they didn't mention Operation Clark County once. I guess they knew they fucked up back in '04.
Stupid furrigners.
My election prediction. Obama 281EV - Romney 257EV
Romney may win the popular vote, but the geography is stacked against him. Obama wins reelection. Hopefully such a scenario would lead to a constitutional amendment abolishing the electoral college, now that both parties have been burned in recent times.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 04, 2012, 08:55:19 PM
My election prediction. Obama 281EV - Romney 257EV
Romney may win the popular vote, but the geography is stacked against him. Obama wins reelection. Hopefully such a scenario would lead to a constitutional amendment abolishing the electoral college, now that both parties have been burned in recent times.
:lmfao:
What?
If it harms both parties they're more likely to cooperate.
The 17th amendment was a more radical restructuring of the government and that got passed.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 04, 2012, 09:05:46 PM
What?
If it harms both parties they're more likely to cooperate.
The 17th amendment was passed was a more radical restructuring of the government and that got passed.
You're just the 17th person on Languish to say exactly that, and it's been pretty much shot down all 17 times.
Well you must know the argument by heart then, lay it on me.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 04, 2012, 09:05:46 PM
What?
If it harms both parties they're more likely to cooperate.
The 17th amendment was passed and that was a more radical restructuring of the government and that got passed.
Does it matter, they're just parties not the foundations of democracy.
Hard for you to believe it, what with the two having had a duopoly for so long, but eventually political parties decline, collapse and transform.
Quote from: mongers on November 04, 2012, 09:11:42 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 04, 2012, 09:05:46 PM
What?
If it harms both parties they're more likely to cooperate.
The 17th amendment was passed and that was a more radical restructuring of the government and that got passed.
Does it matter, they're just parties not the foundations of democracy.
Hard for you to believe it, what with the two having had a duopoly for so long, but eventually political parties decline, collapse and transform.
What does that have to do with anything?
Obviously they're just self interested factions, that's why I think they will get rid of the Electoral College if Romney loses. Because it will be in the interest of both parties to compete for the popular vote.
I love the Electoral College :mad:
I think that Tim is silly. In your scenario, both parties might have been burned by the EC, but both parties have been helped by it as well.
At any rate, how do you intend to convince the smaller states to end their relevance in the federal government?
EC allows third parties the possibility of spoiling the election by winning some Electoral Votes and denying a majority. With the advent of Super PACs / unlimited money, third parties will be able to overcome the entrenched institutional advantages of Democrats and Republicans.
I like the idea of the EC, as it works as a instrument for having federal/state influence on the Executive branch (like the Senate for the Legislative), but it's not hard to argue that the instrument is flawed, or could use refinement. And such refinement is not unprecedented, as Senators used to be selected by the State legislatures.
The people chosen as Electors in the EC, and the EC itself could definitely stand to get more attention by media/schools, so that people actually understand its role in our system, instead of just creating "WTFBBQ?" moments after an election, for the few times it does matter.
I got seven emails from Ann Romney in the past week.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/11/voting-already-mess-florida/58682/
QuoteThe first election-related federal lawsuit has already been filed in South Florida, where some citizens waited over seven hours to vote early over the weekend. In an area that includes Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Broward County -- yes, that Broward County -- Florida Democrats scrambled to extend early voting hours over the weekend citing "inadequate polling facilities" in a complaint filed in a Miami federal court on Sunday. "The extraordinarily long lines deterred or prevented voters from waiting to vote," says the lawsuit. "Some voters left the polling sites upon learning of the expected wait, and others refused to line up altogether. These long lines and extreme delays unduly and unjustifiably burdened the right to vote." These three counties are home to 32 percent of the state's Democrats.
So far, local officials haven't seemed too sympathetic to the plight of early voters. In response to Sunday's lawsuit, election supervisors in Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties said that they'd allow would-be early voters to pick up and drop off absentee ballots so that they wouldn't have to wait in line. The small concession came after another request for an extension of early voting was denied last Thursday by Republican Governor Rick Scott and state election officials who said that everything was running smoothly. Scott is the same governor who approved a measure last year that reduced Florida's early voting period from 14 to eight days, a crunch that many critics think caused the long lines this year.
It's not even Election Day, yet, but some people are freaking out about the chaotic situation in Florida. "We're looking at an election meltdown that is eerily similar to 2000, minus the hanging chads," Dan Smith, a political science professor at the University of Florida, told The Huffington Post. Smith also warned that attempted to bridge the gap with absentee ballots, as a number of districts across Florida are now doing, would disenfranchise minorities. "Absentee ballots have a much higher rejection rate for minorities and young people, if you look at the Aug. 14 primary." HuffPost's Amanda Terkel adds, "Democrats are traditionally more likely to vote early, which is why many in the party have ascribed political motives to Scott's restriction of the process."
Now, this is not the year 2000. After that election, though, everybody in America knows that Florida can make a big difference in a presidential election. Everybody agrees that Ohio is the state to win, but Florida is still a toss-up with a lot of Electoral College votes. It's also a state that could probably do without another big voting scandal. The Obama campaign, for one, is not going to let Floridians forget about that one.
Hey derfetus, you told us you were going to Romney's rally, not Obama's as well. At least you were released on your own recognizance.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.politico.com%2Fglobal%2F2012%2F11%2F121105_obama_heckler_605.jpg&hash=3d0369d063b1dfc1cca27909813318581b11e2ba)
QuoteCINCINNATI – President Obama was interrupted by a heckler during his appearance here, which prompted a two-minute break in his remarks.
The heckler, yelling something incomprehensible about abortion and holding a sign with three photos of fetuses, marked a rare interruption to Obama's stump speech. He would be carried out of the arena by four police officers after they pried his fingers from the bars in front of his seat in the first row of the balcony.
Obama paused his remarks as the crowd drowned the man out while the crowd picked up the familiar a chant of "four year years."
Quote from: derspiess on November 05, 2012, 12:24:06 AM
I got seven emails from Ann Romney in the past week.
They were addressed to "You People".
I was very confused when I saw those long lines in Florida. Also sounds like many waited till last day of early voting so...
24 hours until I get to vote. 48 hours until we know who our president is. 72 hours until I won't have to listen to another freaking election commercial for at least a year.
Yay!! :w00t:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2012, 08:07:02 AM
Hey derfetus, you told us you were going to Romney's rally, not Obama's as well. At least you were released on your own recognizance.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.politico.com%2Fglobal%2F2012%2F11%2F121105_obama_heckler_605.jpg&hash=3d0369d063b1dfc1cca27909813318581b11e2ba)
QuoteCINCINNATI – President Obama was interrupted by a heckler during his appearance here, which prompted a two-minute break in his remarks.
The heckler, yelling something incomprehensible about abortion and holding a sign with three photos of fetuses, marked a rare interruption to Obama's stump speech. He would be carried out of the arena by four police officers after they pried his fingers from the bars in front of his seat in the first row of the balcony.
Obama paused his remarks as the crowd drowned the man out while the crowd picked up the familiar a chant of "four year years."
Is "four year years" a familiar chant for Obama supporters?
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2012, 08:10:59 AM
Is "four year years" a familiar chant for Obama supporters?
I think one year years are long enough already.
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2012, 08:09:44 AM
I was very confused when I saw those long lines in Florida. Also sounds like many waited till last day of early voting so...
The reason so many working-class people do the early voting is because they can't fit regular voting times into their work schedule. So it stands to reason that if the early voting was shortened from 14 days to 8 days that there would only be one weekend in that time, and that's when the majority of those same people would go to the polls. It's not about waiting until the last second. It's about being able to vote on a weekend when they don't have to be at work.
Quote from: merithyn on November 05, 2012, 08:13:30 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2012, 08:09:44 AM
I was very confused when I saw those long lines in Florida. Also sounds like many waited till last day of early voting so...
The reason so many working-class people do the early voting is because they can't fit regular voting times into their work schedule. So it stands to reason that if the early voting was shortened from 14 days to 8 days that there would only be one weekend in that time, and that's when the majority of those same people would go to the polls. It's not about waiting until the last second. It's about being able to vote on a weekend when they don't have to be at work.
Why are you even responding to him? He doesn't give a shit about that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2012, 08:14:56 AM
Quote from: merithyn on November 05, 2012, 08:13:30 AM
The reason so many working-class people do the early voting is because they can't fit regular voting times into their work schedule. So it stands to reason that if the early voting was shortened from 14 days to 8 days that there would only be one weekend in that time, and that's when the majority of those same people would go to the polls. It's not about waiting until the last second. It's about being able to vote on a weekend when they don't have to be at work.
Why are you even responding to him? He doesn't give a shit about that.
I still have hope for him. :sleep:
Quote from: merithyn on November 05, 2012, 08:13:30 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2012, 08:09:44 AM
I was very confused when I saw those long lines in Florida. Also sounds like many waited till last day of early voting so...
The reason so many working-class people do the early voting is because they can't fit regular voting times into their work schedule. So it stands to reason that if the early voting was shortened from 14 days to 8 days that there would only be one weekend in that time, and that's when the majority of those same people would go to the polls. It's not about waiting until the last second. It's about being able to vote on a weekend when they don't have to be at work.
Understandable except that isn't it the case that many states don't have early voting? Are they disenfranchising their populace? Is postal voting particularly onerous? Though as mentioned again many states allow neither form of early vote.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 04, 2012, 09:14:19 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 04, 2012, 09:11:42 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 04, 2012, 09:05:46 PM
What?
If it harms both parties they're more likely to cooperate.
The 17th amendment was passed and that was a more radical restructuring of the government and that got passed.
Does it matter, they're just parties not the foundations of democracy.
Hard for you to believe it, what with the two having had a duopoly for so long, but eventually political parties decline, collapse and transform.
What does that have to do with anything?
Obviously they're just self interested factions, that's why I think they will get rid of the Electoral College if Romney loses. Because it will be in the interest of both parties to compete for the popular vote.
Under the current set-up, both parties' Presidential nominees can concentrate their efforts on a few swing states. I'm not sure how it would ever be in either party's interest to chance that, and force candidates to run a truly nation-wide compaign.
RE: long lines for early voting--I was going to vote early a couple of weeks ago, but there was a huge line, so I passed. To me, the whole point of voting early is the convenience, and if I'm going to have to wait in a line 10 times as long as the one there'll be on Tuesday, that's not convenient. I'll just wait till Tuesday and vote after work.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 05, 2012, 08:12:34 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2012, 08:10:59 AM
Is "four year years" a familiar chant for Obama supporters?
I think one year years are long enough already.
:yes:
New video goes viral of Romney angered by having his faith questioned in 2007.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxMD02zU9SE
Saw it before, to be frank it's an interesting discussion should not Romney be so abrasively defensive about it.
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2012, 08:25:32 AM
Understandable except that isn't it the case that many states don't have early voting? Are they disenfranchising their populace? Is postal voting particularly onerous? Though as mentioned again many states allow neither form of early vote.
I don't know. I've never voted early, nor have I ever voted absentee. It's a really big deal for me to go to the polls on election day, so I make sure that I can. (I'm a traditionalist at heart, but shh, don't tell Max.)
I would argue that given how disenfranchised so many voters already are - and how low our voter turn-outs are - anything that can be done to get people to vote should be. And beyond that, anything that appears to be done in order to specifically prevent a particular party or subset of people from voting should be not only discouraged, but prosecuted. It seems nefarious where the problems were and when, to me, and falls in line with all of the other crap that's going on. I'm not just blaming Rebuplicans, by the way, since I live in Illinois and the same crap is happening here from the Democrats. It's all bullshit, and it all needs to stop.
I agree though I think it is hard to take seriously the notion that 8 days of advanced voting plus absentee ballots are insufficient windows for voters given that states like Mass and New York typically only have election day and appear to allow absentee ballots only if you will be out of town or have one of the listed hardships.
:ph34r:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Finternacional.elpais.com%2Finternacional%2F2012%2F11%2F05%2Factualidad%2F1352111625_284992.html&act=url (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Finternacional.elpais.com%2Finternacional%2F2012%2F11%2F05%2Factualidad%2F1352111625_284992.html&act=url)
QuoteA survey published last week by ASISA reflected a 48% support the first option, 41% associated sovereignty and only 6% for independence. Any change in the status of Puerto Rico must be approved by the U.S. Congress.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 05, 2012, 10:25:14 AM
:ph34r:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Finternacional.elpais.com%2Finternacional%2F2012%2F11%2F05%2Factualidad%2F1352111625_284992.html&act=url (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Finternacional.elpais.com%2Finternacional%2F2012%2F11%2F05%2Factualidad%2F1352111625_284992.html&act=url)
QuoteA survey published last week by ASISA reflected a 48% support the first option, 41% associated sovereignty and only 6% for independence. Any change in the status of Puerto Rico must be approved by the U.S. Congress.
Good. Puerto Rico needs to step up and become a U.S. State.
Next: Canada
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 04, 2012, 08:55:19 PM
Romney may win the popular vote, but the geography is stacked against him. Obama wins reelection. Hopefully such a scenario would lead to a constitutional amendment abolishing the electoral college, now that both parties have been burned in recent times.
I don't think that would help at all. Back when I thought we had a real chance of that it was because the EC was seemingly so insignificant. But after 2000 I knew we would never reform the EC.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 05, 2012, 10:25:14 AM
:ph34r:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Finternacional.elpais.com%2Finternacional%2F2012%2F11%2F05%2Factualidad%2F1352111625_284992.html&act=url (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Finternacional.elpais.com%2Finternacional%2F2012%2F11%2F05%2Factualidad%2F1352111625_284992.html&act=url)
QuoteA survey published last week by ASISA reflected a 48% support the first option, 41% associated sovereignty and only 6% for independence. Any change in the status of Puerto Rico must be approved by the U.S. Congress.
I think all the inhabited territories either need to become a state, join a state, or become independent. Non-statehood is supposed to be a transition not a permanent status...DC being the obvious exception here. But Congress is unlikely to do anything one way or the other.
Is this election thing over yet? I'm tired of the polls, the negative ads and polls, and more polls, and the languish thread, and the other thread about the fucking polls. :glare:
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2012, 10:50:41 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 05, 2012, 10:25:14 AM
:ph34r:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Finternacional.elpais.com%2Finternacional%2F2012%2F11%2F05%2Factualidad%2F1352111625_284992.html&act=url (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Finternacional.elpais.com%2Finternacional%2F2012%2F11%2F05%2Factualidad%2F1352111625_284992.html&act=url)
QuoteA survey published last week by ASISA reflected a 48% support the first option, 41% associated sovereignty and only 6% for independence. Any change in the status of Puerto Rico must be approved by the U.S. Congress.
I think all the inhabited territories either need to become a state, join a state, or become independent. Non-statehood is supposed to be a transition not a permanent status...DC being the obvious exception here. But Congress is unlikely to do anything one way or the other.
What would be the consequences if Puerto Rico became a state and started sending representation to the Congress?
Quote from: celedhring on November 05, 2012, 11:22:22 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2012, 10:50:41 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 05, 2012, 10:25:14 AM
:ph34r:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Finternacional.elpais.com%2Finternacional%2F2012%2F11%2F05%2Factualidad%2F1352111625_284992.html&act=url (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Finternacional.elpais.com%2Finternacional%2F2012%2F11%2F05%2Factualidad%2F1352111625_284992.html&act=url)
QuoteA survey published last week by ASISA reflected a 48% support the first option, 41% associated sovereignty and only 6% for independence. Any change in the status of Puerto Rico must be approved by the U.S. Congress.
I think all the inhabited territories either need to become a state, join a state, or become independent. Non-statehood is supposed to be a transition not a permanent status...DC being the obvious exception here. But Congress is unlikely to do anything one way or the other.
What would be the consequences if Puerto Rico became a state and started sending representation to the Congress?
More corruption. :)
Quote from: celedhring on November 05, 2012, 11:22:22 AM
What would be the consequences if Puerto Rico became a state and started sending representation to the Congress?
:cthulu:
Quote from: merithyn on October 31, 2012, 09:14:11 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2012, 09:09:23 AM
How does Romney have daddy issues? Obama I can see (given that he wrote a book about it), but not Romney.
He wants to do what his father never could: be POTUS.
Why didn't anybody demand to see George Romney's birth certificate?
Quote from: Viking on November 05, 2012, 11:29:23 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 31, 2012, 09:14:11 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2012, 09:09:23 AM
How does Romney have daddy issues? Obama I can see (given that he wrote a book about it), but not Romney.
He wants to do what his father never could: be POTUS.
Why didn't anybody demand to see George Romney's birth certificate?
For what? It is not contested that George Romney was born in Mexico.
His eligibility for office was however contested. Here is article + Mitt's certificate: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/29/us-usa-campaign-romney-birth-certificate-idUSBRE84S1GF20120529
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs1.reutersmedia.net%2Fresources%2Fr%2F%3Fm%3D02%26amp%3Bd%3D20120529%26amp%3Bt%3D2%26amp%3Bi%3D613026630%26amp%3Bw%3D460%26amp%3Bfh%3D%26amp%3Bfw%3D%26amp%3Bll%3D%26amp%3Bpl%3D%26amp%3Br%3DCBRE84S1T4100&hash=ab7f8cd9a18bac51fa1095d718dc45f319b461e8)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2012, 08:14:56 AM
Quote from: merithyn on November 05, 2012, 08:13:30 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2012, 08:09:44 AM
I was very confused when I saw those long lines in Florida. Also sounds like many waited till last day of early voting so...
The reason so many working-class people do the early voting is because they can't fit regular voting times into their work schedule. So it stands to reason that if the early voting was shortened from 14 days to 8 days that there would only be one weekend in that time, and that's when the majority of those same people would go to the polls. It's not about waiting until the last second. It's about being able to vote on a weekend when they don't have to be at work.
Why are you even responding to him? He doesn't give a shit about that.
Blow it out your ass, Seedy. Shouldn't you be printing fake phone bills for your voting fraud scheme?
Quote from: derspiess on November 05, 2012, 12:13:11 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2012, 08:14:56 AM
Quote from: merithyn on November 05, 2012, 08:13:30 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2012, 08:09:44 AM
I was very confused when I saw those long lines in Florida. Also sounds like many waited till last day of early voting so...
The reason so many working-class people do the early voting is because they can't fit regular voting times into their work schedule. So it stands to reason that if the early voting was shortened from 14 days to 8 days that there would only be one weekend in that time, and that's when the majority of those same people would go to the polls. It's not about waiting until the last second. It's about being able to vote on a weekend when they don't have to be at work.
Why are you even responding to him? He doesn't give a shit about that.
Blow it out your ass, Seedy. Shouldn't you be printing fake phone bills for your voting fraud scheme?
She wasn't talking to you, and I wasn't talking to you. So have a whore pill and a smile and shut the fuck up.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2012, 12:21:54 PM
She wasn't talking to you, and I wasn't talking to you. So have a whore pill and a smile and shut the fuck up.
:hug: Have fun tomorrow with the election & whatnot. I'm heading to sunny South America to be with my people.
NV SecState says the only swing county in the state (Washoe) had 900 more Democrat votes than GOP votes in the early voting. Party members, I mean. Why that's troubling---"independents" here tend to be largely libertarians.
Quote from: derspiess on November 05, 2012, 12:51:06 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2012, 12:21:54 PM
She wasn't talking to you, and I wasn't talking to you. So have a whore pill and a smile and shut the fuck up.
:hug: Have fun tomorrow with the election & whatnot. I'm heading to sunny South America to be with my people.
When did you become a Nazi?
Quote from: derspiess on November 05, 2012, 12:51:06 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2012, 12:21:54 PM
She wasn't talking to you, and I wasn't talking to you. So have a whore pill and a smile and shut the fuck up.
:hug: Have fun tomorrow with the election & whatnot. I'm heading to sunny South America to be with my people.
LOL, Say hi to Mrs. Mengele for us.
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2012, 12:55:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 05, 2012, 12:51:06 PM
to be with my people.
:x
Talk about kissing up to the in-laws, right? Bet he's even downloaded
Evita to his iPod. Probably been practicing his
gaucho bolos in the back yard on the dog, too.
The BBC election live page just had this post/contribution:
QuoteAnil in Chicago emails: As a minority and an immigrant, I want to see family values upheld. I dread what Obama could do if granted another four years. Hence my wife and I shall vote Romney tomorro...
One or two 'leaps' of logic in there.
Man, you can tell both these guys have more money than they can spend: been drowning in ads all weekend and today. I shudder to think what life in a battleground state has been like for the last 3 months.
I'm surprised I haven't received any robocalls telling me Election Day was postponed until Thursday, like in 2008. But it's still early.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2012, 01:58:12 PM
Man, you can tell both these guys have more money than they can spend: been drowning in ads all weekend and today. I shudder to think what life in a battleground state has been like for the last 3 months.
I'm surprised I haven't received any robocalls telling me Election Day was postponed until Thursday, like in 2008. But it's still early.
:frusty: :bleeding: :cry: And Michigan is only a secondary battleground. :shutup:
What out for some potential silliness out side Parliament and I Think the White House, Anonymous are apparently going to recreate a scene from 'V for Vendetta' or some equally hairbrained 'idea'.
http://pastebin.com/nP9XCEDy (http://pastebin.com/nP9XCEDy)
Quote
#OPVENDETTA PRESS RELEASE
At 8pm on November 5th 2012, Anonymous will march on The Houses of Parliament peacefully and unarmed. This is the centrepiece of a worldwide Anonymous operation of global strength and solidarity, a warning to all governments worldwide that if they keep trying to censor, cut, imprison, or silence the free world or the free internet they will not be our governments for much longer.Change is coming
The Demands of the UK collective:
Stop the education, health and welfare cuts; Cut the causes of the problems, don't cause more. 'Austerity measures' targeting vulnerable areas of the economy and society must be stopped. Bank support and bailouts using the taxpayers money must end.
Recognise the internet as an independent, self-governing, self-managing entity; An entity that is not, and will never be, controlled. The rights of internet users to protect their privacy must be respected
......
etc.
I know they wear the mask from the lead character in the film, but it's still a Guy Fawkes mask, you know the religious fanatic.
QuoteRecognise the internet as an independent, self-governing, self-managing entity; An entity that is not, and will never be, controlled. The rights of internet users to protect their privacy must be respected
I find it funny when leftists start sounding like Libertarians. 'Get the Gub'mint out of my Internets!'
What can you do, the Gub'mint, especially yours, is too vested with private enterprises interest.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 05, 2012, 01:04:22 PM
NV SecState says the only swing county in the state (Washoe) had 900 more Democrat votes than GOP votes in the early voting. Party members, I mean. Why that's troubling---"independents" here tend to be largely libertarians.
In 2008, Obama beat McCain in this county by about 23,000 votes. He won the state by 100k. So, if W Co. can only get 2k for Obama, Vegas will have to make up the difference. They can do it with the union machine they've got on the Strip (just ask Sharron Angle), but with the lower turnout this year I think it'll be closer.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2012, 01:41:12 PM
Talk about kissing up to the in-laws, right? Bet he's even downloaded Evita to his iPod. Probably been practicing his gaucho bolos in the back yard on the dog, too.
Evita worship is for dirty illiterate poor people and American homogays.
Quote from: derspiess on November 05, 2012, 03:25:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2012, 01:41:12 PM
Talk about kissing up to the in-laws, right? Bet he's even downloaded Evita to his iPod. Probably been practicing his gaucho bolos in the back yard on the dog, too.
Evita worship is for dirty illiterate poor people and American homogays.
What about heterogays?
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2012, 03:30:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 05, 2012, 03:25:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2012, 01:41:12 PM
Talk about kissing up to the in-laws, right? Bet he's even downloaded Evita to his iPod. Probably been practicing his gaucho bolos in the back yard on the dog, too.
Evita worship is for dirty illiterate poor people and American homogays.
What about heterogays?
Dunno. Ask Mango.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/04/thedc-predicts-the-winner-of-the-presidential-election/2/
QuoteNAME: GREGG RE
ELECTORAL COLLEGE PREDICTION:
Obama wins, 290 – 248
Nate Silver doesn't realize that the models and simulations he tirelessly iterates to the immense satisfaction of his superiors actually have a tragic, practical purpose. On Nov. 6, the electoral map will precisely match Silver's state-by-state predictions, revealing to everyone in the New York Times' secret command school that his gift for destroying the Republican threat is as real as it is powerful.
"I will program your battles now, not the computer," General Petraeus will tell the former baseball statistician, as CNN holograms systematically call Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio and Wisconsin for Obama, by massive margins. "From now on the enemy is more clever than you. From now on the enemy is stronger than you. From now on you are always about to lose... but you will win. You will learn to defeat the enemy."
For all the world like Ender Wiggin, Silver will immediately leave his jeesh and enter into a deep depression. Mankind, lacking a new enemy half as fearsome as Mitt Romney and the Republicans, will begin waging brutal, neverending war against itself. Millions will die, and Silver will become hunted for his talent.
Years later, Silver will come across an egg laid by Ann Romney on Newt Gingrich's moon base. Through telepathy, Silver will learn that Romney and the Republicans had come in peace. Taking the egg in hand, with a grin so wide it will threaten to split his face into two bloody halves, Silver will promise the queen that he will help start the Republican Party again on a new, more hopeful planet elsewhere in the Solar System.
:lol:
Quote from: celedhring on November 05, 2012, 11:22:22 AM
What would be the consequences if Puerto Rico became a state and started sending representation to the Congress?
Two Democratic Senators, and about five* Democratic Representatives.
*This would probably go down to four, as they'd have to pinch theirs from a few other states.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 05, 2012, 05:32:41 PM
Quote from: celedhring on November 05, 2012, 11:22:22 AM
What would be the consequences if Puerto Rico became a state and started sending representation to the Congress?
Two Democratic Senators, and about five* Democratic Representatives.
*This would probably go down to four, as they'd have to pinch theirs from a few other states.
Congress could always just expand to 440.
Is the House chamber literally filled to the brim? Why has it remained the same size so long?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 05, 2012, 05:39:38 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 05, 2012, 05:32:41 PM
Quote from: celedhring on November 05, 2012, 11:22:22 AM
What would be the consequences if Puerto Rico became a state and started sending representation to the Congress?
Two Democratic Senators, and about five* Democratic Representatives.
*This would probably go down to four, as they'd have to pinch theirs from a few other states.
Congress could always just expand to 440.
Is the House chamber literally filled to the brim? Why has it remained the same size so long?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Law_62-5
Apparently the House chamber has 446 physical seats.
Not sure how they handle seating during the State of the Union.
Quote from: merithyn on November 05, 2012, 08:10:40 AM
24 hours until I get to vote. 48 hours until we know who our president is. 72 hours until I won't have to listen to another freaking election commercial for at least a year.
Yay!! :w00t:
That's a bit optimistic, don't you think? Midterms are coming up, and it's never too early to turn on the taps of filth and smear potential opponents, their wives, their kids, their lovable family pets that were gifts from Texan admirers.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 05, 2012, 05:47:47 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 05, 2012, 05:39:38 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 05, 2012, 05:32:41 PM
Quote from: celedhring on November 05, 2012, 11:22:22 AM
What would be the consequences if Puerto Rico became a state and started sending representation to the Congress?
Two Democratic Senators, and about five* Democratic Representatives.
*This would probably go down to four, as they'd have to pinch theirs from a few other states.
Congress could always just expand to 440.
Is the House chamber literally filled to the brim? Why has it remained the same size so long?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Law_62-5
Yeah, I know about that law. But that doesn't answer the why.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 05, 2012, 06:38:08 PM
Yeah, I know about that law. But that doesn't answer the why.
From my follow-up on the number of physical House chamber seats (and I think that includes the Speaker's podium), the answer is obvious. They don't want to renovate the sacrosanct Capitol building. Nor do they want to have to move to RFK stadium.
And really, there is a point where having too many Representatives becomes prohibitive, not only in expenses, but in political impotence. But is 435 the right number to stop at? Who knows...they thought it was a good idea in 1911. And if they want to expand it, it doesn't even require an amendment...just political will.
But the real, probable answer is that enormous districts make it easier for the established political parties to retain control.
Why do they all need an individual seat? How often are they all in the Chamber?
There wasn't enough seats in the Commons when it was blown up in the war. Churchill, being Churchill, ordered that it be rebuilt exactly as it was rather than expanding it to fit the number of MPs. We now have even more MPs.
I'm surprised there's not much mention of the Puerto Rico referendum around. It is happening right?
That stands out to me as something pretty important and newsworthy, a literal redrawing of the map and flag potentially.
The question asked seems pretty stupid though, voting safe and going with no would seem a very sane gamble even for supporters of the other options.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 05, 2012, 09:06:28 PM
Why do they all need an individual seat? How often are they all in the Chamber?
There wasn't enough seats in the Commons when it was blown up in the war. Churchill, being Churchill, ordered that it be rebuilt exactly as it was rather than expanding it to fit the number of MPs. We now have even more MPs.
Oh Churchill. <_<
Aren't they going to be rennovating it soon (in political terms, i.e. within a few decades)?
Would be nice if they'd change it then.
Though there are moves underway/they have recently, cut the number right?- all the Tory's game to give themselves an advantage IIRC since a lot of their seats are currently large ones whilst a lot of labour ones are small.
I think the Lib Dems are going to vote against shrinking the Commons and the accompanying boundary review (which they initially supported) after the Tories stopped their House of Lords reform bill going though.
Edit: Also I think keeping the Commons small was a good choice by Churchill. The fact that they can't fit in is probably a part of what gives it a raucous atmosphere on the big set pieces.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 05, 2012, 08:10:38 PM
From my follow-up on the number of physical House chamber seats (and I think that includes the Speaker's podium), the answer is obvious. They don't want to renovate the sacrosanct Capitol building.
Bingo.
QuoteAnd really, there is a point where having too many Representatives becomes prohibitive, not only in expenses, but in political impotence. But is 435 the right number to stop at? Who knows...they thought it was a good idea in 1911. And if they want to expand it, it doesn't even require an amendment...just political will.
But the real, probable answer is that enormous districts make it easier for the established political parties to retain control.
Allowing them to redraw their own districts really doesn't help, either.
If that call center thing is true, damn that's sleazy.
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Poll-challenges-fake-calls-may-mar-vote-4010990.php
Anyone who falls for it is dumb/ignorant as hell, but still...
Would CBS be a good choice of election watching if one wanted to follow it? Our national broadcaster has chosen that to stream during the night.
NO
They're all pretty much the same, the only choice is in the flavor of bullshit one wants to listen to while twiddling thumbs and waiting for the results.
Quote from: Liep on November 06, 2012, 10:02:12 AM
Would CBS be a good choice of election watching if one wanted to follow it? Our national broadcaster has chosen that to stream during the night.
I will follow languish coverage.
When do you think this will get called? Pondering if I can afford to stay up or not. States west of MI will be largely irrelevant but I don't know how long the Ohio count will take.
Obama should get an early lead, until republicans get off work this evening and can go vote.
:)
Quote from: celedhring on November 06, 2012, 01:40:33 PM
When do you think this will get called? Pondering if I can afford to stay up or not. States west of MI will be largely irrelevant but I don't know how long the Ohio count will take.
It depends. Will: Katherine Harris be involved? :menace:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/544677_481885385167803_418428482_n.jpg)
Hamill will make a great Yoda I think. :)