Jump to content


Presidential Politics

Off Topic No holds barred politics

  • Please log in to reply
10254 replies to this topic

#81 TrueBluePhD

TrueBluePhD

    First Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,254 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cheektowaga, NY

Posted 13 August 2012 - 10:20 AM

View PostCOSabre, on 13 August 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

I don't mind Ryan as a person, he has "the look" and is a good family man and everything... and I like that he is a Catholic given all the evangelical types that have been paraded through the Republican party lately... but the theme of his very conservative economic plan will scare a lot of people, especially seniors: cut the hell out of all programs except defense and lower taxes.  It's like deja vu all over again - the standard far-right economic mantra that has been a tough sell over the past 30 years and still is.  Hard for me to believe this move does much to convince those in the center and/or those undecided to move toward Romney.  Although I personally believe we need to mess with Medicare/Medicaid, about 100 million people rely on these programs.  Very dangerous to propose massive changes when seniors vote in a larger % than younger folks.  And, I always laugh at the "rallying the base" argument.  As if any conservative was going to vote for Obama (and any leftie was going to vote for Romney).  The base knew who they were going to vote for long ago.

My personal issue is his budget plan would cut spending on programs that support academic research, such as the National Institutes of Health, and would make several changes to the federal student-aid programs. It also calls for a complete spending cut for the National Endowment for the Humanities.

I'll bow out now because politics/religion and message boards are generally a bad mix (although the conversation on this board is always unusually civil - one reason why I love SabreSpace).

They knew who they were going to vote for...if they were going to vote.  "Rallying the base" doesn't refer to convincing them to vote for Romney, it refers to convincing them to turn out in the first place.  Campaigns have recently started focusing more on mobilization than registration campaigns--they care more about those who are registered actually voting than getting more people registered.  One way to accomplish this is by having a candidate/ticket registered voters can get excited about.  The hardcore ideologues were always going to vote, and always going to vote for Romney...but there's a segment of the Republican party which "lean conservative" or are "weak partisans" who aren't surefire voters--rallying the base refers to getting that segment to turn out on election day.

#82 wjag

wjag

    Buffalo Sports -- Dysfunction Junction

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,787 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just below the Mason-Dixon Line

Posted 13 August 2012 - 10:28 AM

View PostTrueBluePhD, on 13 August 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

Nate Silver's 538 is another great place to track the election:http://fivethirtyeig...gs.nytimes.com/

I like this site too...  Not for the merely curious...

#83 apuszczalowski

apuszczalowski

    Commander of the Armies of the North

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,775 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 August 2012 - 10:52 AM

Lol, man your country is screwed no matter who wins.........

If Obama wins, no matter what they come up with to try and fix things will never be given a chance to happen cause the other side will make sure it doesn't go through

If Romney wins, the middle class will be no more (if its still around) and the rich will continue to get richer with the poor continuing to get poorer

As for the comment by Waldo in response to Romney being viewed as Elitest, the only people that don't view him that way would be his supporters, everyone else, including people outside your country see him this way.

#84 nfreeman

nfreeman

    All I want is everything you got.

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,100 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn

Posted 13 August 2012 - 10:55 AM

View PostLGR4GM, on 12 August 2012 - 11:44 PM, said:

1) Fossil fuels including coal, oil, and wood are killing the planet and more importantly killing this country and its economy.  Green energy such as bio fuels and more importantly sustainable nuclear fusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell) are the only things that will keep this country from grinding to a halt.

Well, at least you made it clear early on that this post couldn't be taken seriously.

View Postd4rksabre, on 13 August 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

I'll raise my hand as one of those people. I don't even think contraception should be something the government should have any say in, but as long as some ass is vehemently in favor of taking it away, then I have to vote against him out of principle. My conscience wont allow me to do otherwise.

Oh for God's sake.  No one in this election is talking about "taking away" contraception.  The question is whether the government may require private insurance plans to pay for contraception -- including private insurance plans run by entities that are religiously opposed to contraception.

View PostPASabreFan, on 13 August 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

Here's a good link to bookmark. A "poll of polls" from RealClearPolitics.com. Obama leads today by about four points. It's interesting that the trend has been Obama up and Romney down the last three weeks. We'll see if Romney gets a Ryan "bump." It's pretty clear Romney just is not connecting with a lot of voters.

http://www.realclear...obama-1171.html

(Of course the one you really want to watch is their rundown of electoral votes based on state by state polling.)

There are a lot of different ways to slice the data in the polls.  One man's "pretty clear Romney isn't connecting" is another man's "Obama has historically low approval ratings."  It's also worth noting that the 2 most credible polls -- Gallup and Rasmussen -- have had Romney tied or in the lead for much of the past couple of months.

#85 d4rksabre

d4rksabre

    This pleases Nikita

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,826 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 August 2012 - 11:11 AM

View Postnfreeman, on 13 August 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:



Well, at least you made it clear early on that this post couldn't be taken seriously.



Oh for God's sake.  No one in this election is talking about "taking away" contraception.  The question is whether the government may require private insurance plans to pay for contraception -- including private insurance plans run by entities that are religiously opposed to contraception.


While that may be the actual issue, that is not the discourse that is taking place.

#86 respk

respk

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 111 posts

Posted 13 August 2012 - 11:37 AM

Unless Romney can build a sizable lead he has no chance of winning the election.  In a close election, which this appears to be, the media will skew the "news" coverage towards pro Obama.  The Obama "politics" are right in the wheelhouse of the liberal media.  IN a close election the media can gently skew the coverage as to make Obama seem better to most Americans.  If Romney can somehow open up a sizable lead over Obama, the media can't provide enough Obama positive coverage to close the gap without looking like they are doing so.  With the lack of interest shown by most Americans in an election, the media chooses who the population votes for.

If Obama wins a second term, it is very likely that the US and world economy will collapse and the US may no longer be considered the world power.

#87 d4rksabre

d4rksabre

    This pleases Nikita

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,826 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 August 2012 - 11:40 AM

View Postrespk, on 13 August 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

Unless Romney can build a sizable lead he has no chance of winning the election.  In a close election, which this appears to be, the media will skew the "news" coverage towards pro Obama.  The Obama "politics" are right in the wheelhouse of the liberal media.  IN a close election the media can gently skew the coverage as to make Obama seem better to most Americans.  If Romney can somehow open up a sizable lead over Obama, the media can't provide enough Obama positive coverage to close the gap without looking like they are doing so.  With the lack of interest shown by most Americans in an election, the media chooses who the population votes for.

If Obama wins a second term, it is very likely that the US and world economy will collapse and the US may no longer be considered the world power.

:rolleyes:

#88 TrueBluePhD

TrueBluePhD

    First Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,254 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cheektowaga, NY

Posted 13 August 2012 - 11:43 AM

View Postnfreeman, on 13 August 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

There are a lot of different ways to slice the data in the polls.  One man's "pretty clear Romney isn't connecting" is another man's "Obama has historically low approval ratings."  It's also worth noting that the 2 most credible polls -- Gallup and Rasmussen -- have had Romney tied or in the lead for much of the past couple of months.

Nationally, sure.  But the state polls in battleground states, which are what really matter, are less favorable.

#89 DHawerchuk10

DHawerchuk10

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 128 posts

Posted 13 August 2012 - 12:02 PM

View Postapuszczalowski, on 13 August 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

Lol, man your country is screwed no matter who wins.........

If Obama wins, no matter what they come up with to try and fix things will never be given a chance to happen cause the other side will make sure it doesn't go through

If Romney wins, the middle class will be no more (if its still around) and the rich will continue to get richer with the poor continuing to get poorer

As for the comment by Waldo in response to Romney being viewed as Elitest, the only people that don't view him that way would be his supporters, everyone else, including people outside your country see him this way.

I guess they have a caste system in Canada or where ever you are from.  But in the US, you can actually work your way out of being poor.  Nobody wants to hear that today because of our "entitled, want everything now" attitudes, but it is as true today as it was yesterday.  This whole rich getting richer, poor getting poorer argument is total garbage.  The evil rich guy twirling his mustache taking advantage of all us common folk is total fantasy.

#90 gohansrage

gohansrage

    Top Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 271 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 August 2012 - 12:08 PM

View Postrespk, on 13 August 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

Unless Romney can build a sizable lead he has no chance of winning the election.  In a close election, which this appears to be, the media will skew the "news" coverage towards pro Obama.  The Obama "politics" are right in the wheelhouse of the liberal media.  IN a close election the media can gently skew the coverage as to make Obama seem better to most Americans.  If Romney can somehow open up a sizable lead over Obama, the media can't provide enough Obama positive coverage to close the gap without looking like they are doing so.  With the lack of interest shown by most Americans in an election, the media chooses who the population votes for.

If Obama wins a second term, it is very likely that the US and world economy will collapse and the US may no longer be considered the world power.

I have searched far and wide for a word that can fully capture the idiocy of this post.  I was unable to do so.

Congratulations good sir, I tip my cap to you.

View PostDHawerchuk10, on 13 August 2012 - 12:02 PM, said:

I guess they have a caste system in Canada or where ever you are from.  But in the US, you can actually work your way out of being poor.  Nobody wants to hear that today because of our "entitled, want everything now" attitudes, but it is as true today as it was yesterday.  This whole rich getting richer, poor getting poorer argument is total garbage.  The evil rich guy twirling his mustache taking advantage of all us common folk is total fantasy.

Social mobility in the United States is more limited here than in comparable countries: http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

If you're born poor, you will probably die poor.  If you're born rich, you will probably die rich.  That's just the reality of life.

Edited by gohansrage, 13 August 2012 - 12:09 PM.


#91 CallawaySabres

CallawaySabres

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,256 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo

Posted 13 August 2012 - 12:26 PM

8 years and counting where there is nobody that jumps out at me. I am starting to wonder if I truly get behind someone 100% ever again with the way politics are these days. It is so freakin' corrupt and makes me sick to my stomach even looking at these people. Having said that, I just can't bring myself to the Obama vote....

#92 nfreeman

nfreeman

    All I want is everything you got.

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,100 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn

Posted 13 August 2012 - 12:34 PM

View Postd4rksabre, on 13 August 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

While that may be the actual issue, that is not the discourse that is taking place.

Yes, but as a level-headed young man, you know better than to waste your breath and/or vote based on this kind of dumbed-down, fundamentally inaccurate "talking point."

View PostTrueBluePhD, on 13 August 2012 - 11:43 AM, said:

Nationally, sure.  But the state polls in battleground states, which are what really matter, are less favorable.

True, but the state polls are much less frequent and much less credible than the Gallup and Rasmussen national polls.  In any case I think your earlier point about the election still being up in the air and won't be decided until after Labor Day, including in the 7-10 key battleground states, is right.

#93 waldo

waldo

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,457 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 13 August 2012 - 12:35 PM

View Postnfreeman, on 13 August 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

There are a lot of different ways to slice the data in the polls.  One man's "pretty clear Romney isn't connecting" is another man's "Obama has historically low approval ratings."  It's also worth noting that the 2 most credible polls -- Gallup and Rasmussen -- have had Romney tied or in the lead for much of the past couple of months.

You are correct sir. Their sampling methodology is generally more precise than the partisan jobs done by Quin , Reuters,PEW and Harris  et al.. Real Clear Politics average of a number of bad polls does not provide an accurate picture imo.l  This election will not be close in the end. Watch the swing in October.

Edited by waldo, 13 August 2012 - 12:44 PM.


#94 nfreeman

nfreeman

    All I want is everything you got.

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,100 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn

Posted 13 August 2012 - 12:40 PM

View Postrespk, on 13 August 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

Unless Romney can build a sizable lead he has no chance of winning the election.  In a close election, which this appears to be, the media will skew the "news" coverage towards pro Obama.  The Obama "politics" are right in the wheelhouse of the liberal media.  IN a close election the media can gently skew the coverage as to make Obama seem better to most Americans.  If Romney can somehow open up a sizable lead over Obama, the media can't provide enough Obama positive coverage to close the gap without looking like they are doing so.  With the lack of interest shown by most Americans in an election, the media chooses who the population votes for.

If Obama wins a second term, it is very likely that the US and world economy will collapse and the US may no longer be considered the world power.

Well, while I agree that most of the mainstream media is suffused with liberal bias, it's still quite surmountable as we saw in 2004.

View Postgohansrage, on 13 August 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:

I have searched far and wide for a word that can fully capture the idiocy of this post.  I was unable to do so.

Congratulations good sir, I tip my cap to you.

There's no reason to start name-calling.

View Postwaldo, on 13 August 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

You are correct sir. Their sampling methodology is generally more precise than the partisan jobs done by Quin , Reuters,PEW and Harris  et al.. An average of any number of bad polls is not an accurate picture. This election will not be close in the end.

I've read a number of predictions of a Romney landslide by conservative commentators.  I have recently started to think that Romney is going to win, but even so the landslide predictions seem like wishful thinking to me.

#95 waldo

waldo

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,457 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 13 August 2012 - 12:49 PM

View Postnfreeman, on 13 August 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

Well, while I agree that most of the mainstream media is suffused with liberal bias, it's still quite surmountable as we saw in 2004.



There's no reason to start name-calling.



I've read a number of predictions of a Romney landslide by conservative commentators.  I have recently started to think that Romney is going to win, but even so the landslide predictions seem like wishful thinking to me.

My opinion is not based on what the conservative commentators think, nor the liberal ones for that matter. I have a friend who runs a major polling operation for the democrats . Once a month we talk and  have an honest discussion of what the tabs say in his most recent polls. He is not optomistic in any sense of the word. We will all know more after Labor day/ when things start to gell . Historically,at this pt. the President should be above 48% approval wise and up by 5-6 , registered voters,in the swing states. He is not. We both wonder what happend to the VP. You cannot let him debate Ryan. Right now there are far more scenerios where they lose, than scenerios where they win. All contingent on neither party making a fatal error. We both agree that if a fatal error is made in a debate the President will make it . His most recent quote (following you did nnot build that)  of..... equal opportunity, equal outcome , or something like that is far to close to Marx's famous quote. If i was Ryan I would ask him if he was running as a communist? just for giggles and as a tit for the tat of the murder add.

Edited by waldo, 13 August 2012 - 01:16 PM.


#96 gohansrage

gohansrage

    Top Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 271 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 August 2012 - 12:52 PM

View Postnfreeman, on 13 August 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

Well, while I agree that most of the mainstream media is suffused with liberal bias, it's still quite surmountable as we saw in 2004.



There's no reason to start name-calling.


I didn't call anybody a name. I said the post contained idiocy. It did.

Believing in any media bias other than "trying to get people to consume media more often" is also idiotic.

#97 Claude_Verret

Claude_Verret

    Second Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,271 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Holly Springs, NC via Hamburg, NY

Posted 13 August 2012 - 12:57 PM

This should be required reading for all registered voters.  If you can read this and still get behind the idea of sending the same "leaders" to Washington year after year, then I don't know how to help you.

Throw Them All Out

Or just read this book review.  .

#98 TrueBluePhD

TrueBluePhD

    First Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,254 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cheektowaga, NY

Posted 13 August 2012 - 01:01 PM

View Postnfreeman, on 13 August 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

True, but the state polls are much less frequent and much less credible than the Gallup and Rasmussen national polls.  In any case I think your earlier point about the election still being up in the air and won't be decided until after Labor Day, including in the 7-10 key battleground states, is right.

I think "much less" credible is underselling the value of the state polls.  They're certainly less frequent, but the frequency of national polls is a weakness as well, if viewed the wrong way.  Daily/weekly national polls will tend to capture short-term effects which are not useful when trying to evaluate what will happen in November.  For example it's likely that the VP selection will give Romney a bump in the national polls, but it's highly unlikely that bump lasts over time--yet inevitably there will be people who read way too much into it (same thing with the upcoming convention bumps).  This stuff has to be looked at over time, which is why even though state polls are less frequent they are still useful.  Yes they tend to have a larger margin of error than national polls, but they're also more directly applicable to predicting the winner, so there's still a lot of value there--but as with all of this stuff, caution is needed (it's way easier to over-read a poll than to under-read it).

Having said that, anybody who thinks this election is decided now, or is going to be a big win one way or the other is fooling themselves.  If this were going to be a landslide election, we'd know it by now.  What to really look for will be the revised second-quarter GDP numbers coming out at the end of the month, and polling a little after the conventions (once the temporary bumps have normalized).

#99 nfreeman

nfreeman

    All I want is everything you got.

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,100 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn

Posted 13 August 2012 - 01:14 PM

View Postgohansrage, on 13 August 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

I didn't call anybody a name. I said the post contained idiocy. It did.

Believing in any media bias other than "trying to get people to consume media more often" is also idiotic.

Really?  So you don't think that media outlets like, say, the NY Times, Washington Post, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, AP and Reuters skew liberal?  Or that the NY Post and Fox skew conservative?

View PostTrueBluePhD, on 13 August 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:

I think "much less" credible is underselling the value of the state polls.  They're certainly less frequent, but the frequency of national polls is a weakness as well, if viewed the wrong way.  Daily/weekly national polls will tend to capture short-term effects which are not useful when trying to evaluate what will happen in November.  For example it's likely that the VP selection will give Romney a bump in the national polls, but it's highly unlikely that bump lasts over time--yet inevitably there will be people who read way too much into it (same thing with the upcoming convention bumps).  This stuff has to be looked at over time, which is why even though state polls are less frequent they are still useful.  Yes they tend to have a larger margin of error than national polls, but they're also more directly applicable to predicting the winner, so there's still a lot of value there--but as with all of this stuff, caution is needed (it's way easier to over-read a poll than to under-read it).

Having said that, anybody who thinks this election is decided now, or is going to be a big win one way or the other is fooling themselves.  If this were going to be a landslide election, we'd know it by now.  What to really look for will be the revised second-quarter GDP numbers coming out at the end of the month, and polling a little after the conventions (once the temporary bumps have normalized).

I generally agree with most of this, but I think "much less credible" is applicable to most of the state polls (and for that matter to most of the national polls other than Gallup and Rasmussen).  Bottom line is that the polling methodologies are fundamentally flawed -- most of them sample registered voters as opposed to likely voters, and most also oversample registered Democrats relative to their percentage of the electorate.  In addition, there are other, more technical methodology flaws that Gallup and Rasmussen address reasonably but the others do not.

If you're interested, a commentator named Jay Cost writes about polls fairly often and IMHO takes a pretty analytical and non-partisan approach.  His stuff is linked on RCP frequently.

View Postwaldo, on 13 August 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

My opinion is not based on what the conservative commentators think, nor the liberal ones for that matter. I have a friend who runs a major polling operation for the democrats . Once a month we talk and  have an honest discussion of what the tabs say in his most recent polls. He is not optomistic in any sense of the word. We will all know more after Labor day/ when things start to gell . Historically,at this pt. the President should be above 48% approval wise and up by 5-6 , registered voters,in the swing states. He is not. We both wonder what happend to the VP. You cannot let him debate Ryan. Right now there are far more scenerios where they lose, than scenerios where they win. All contingent on neither partynot making a fatal error. We both agree that if a fatal error is made in a debate the President will make it . His most recent quote  of..... equal opportunity . equal outcome , or something like that is far to close to Marx's famous quote. If i was Ryan I would ask him if he was running as a communist? just for giggles

Interesting stuff -- thanks.

As for Biden, I think what happened is that as VP, people started paying more attention to the nonsense that pours out of his mouth on a regular basis.  I continue to believe that he is at least as much of an airhead as Palin was.

#100 gohansrage

gohansrage

    Top Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 271 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 August 2012 - 01:15 PM

View Postnfreeman, on 13 August 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

Or that the NY Post and Fox skew conservative?

I'll concede that

#101 waldo

waldo

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,457 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 13 August 2012 - 01:20 PM

View Postnfreeman, on 13 August 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

As for Biden, I think what happened is that as VP, people started paying more attention to the nonsense that pours out of his mouth on a regular basis.  I continue to believe that he is at least as much of an airhead as Palin was.

Good point...laughter here.

fyi ...you will see that new presidential quote in play within the next few days/

Edited by waldo, 13 August 2012 - 01:21 PM.


#102 SwampD

SwampD

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,751 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Jersey, orig. NT

Posted 13 August 2012 - 01:24 PM

View Postnfreeman, on 13 August 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

Really?  So you don't think that media outlets like, say, the NY Times, Washington Post, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, AP and Reuters skew liberal?  Or that the NY Post, ABC and Fox skew conservative?

When you're off to the right, everyone else is left.

#103 Claude_Verret

Claude_Verret

    Second Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,271 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Holly Springs, NC via Hamburg, NY

Posted 13 August 2012 - 01:29 PM

View Postgohansrage, on 13 August 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:

I'll concede that

But you won't concede that MSNBC is a network with a decided liberal bent?

#104 gohansrage

gohansrage

    Top Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 271 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 August 2012 - 01:41 PM

View PostClaude_Verret, on 13 August 2012 - 01:29 PM, said:

But you won't concede that MSNBC is a network with a decided liberal bent?

Can I meet you halfway and concede that cable news is garbage in general?

#105 PASabreFan

PASabreFan

    Resistance is futile

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,948 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 13 August 2012 - 01:41 PM

View Postnfreeman, on 13 August 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

One man's "pretty clear Romney isn't connecting" is another man's "Obama has historically low approval ratings."

What ratings though? A recent national survey by USA Today and Gallup found that 60% see Obama as personally likable, but only 30% see Romney that way.

#106 d4rksabre

d4rksabre

    This pleases Nikita

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,826 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 August 2012 - 01:41 PM

View Postnfreeman, on 13 August 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

Yes, but as a level-headed young man, you know better than to waste your breath and/or vote based on this kind of dumbed-down, fundamentally inaccurate "talking point."


To be honest, it isn't driving my vote anyway, alternative energy is. But you are right.

#107 wjag

wjag

    Buffalo Sports -- Dysfunction Junction

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,787 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just below the Mason-Dixon Line

Posted 13 August 2012 - 01:43 PM

View PostCallawaySabres, on 13 August 2012 - 12:26 PM, said:

8 years and counting where there is nobody that jumps out at me. I am starting to wonder if I truly get behind someone 100% ever again with the way politics are these days. It is so freakin' corrupt and makes me sick to my stomach even looking at these people. Having said that, I just can't bring myself to the Obama vote....

Just eight year?  Mine goes back much further...

View Postwaldo, on 13 August 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

My opinion is not based on what the conservative commentators think, nor the liberal ones for that matter. I have a friend who runs a major polling operation for the democrats . Once a month we talk and  have an honest discussion of what the tabs say in his most recent polls. He is not optomistic in any sense of the word. We will all know more after Labor day/ when things start to gell . Historically,at this pt. the President should be above 48% approval wise and up by 5-6 , registered voters,in the swing states. He is not. We both wonder what happend to the VP. You cannot let him debate Ryan. Right now there are far more scenerios where they lose, than scenerios where they win. All contingent on neither party making a fatal error. We both agree that if a fatal error is made in a debate the President will make it . His most recent quote (following you did not build that)  of..... equal opportunity, equal outcome , or something like that is far to close to Marx's famous quote. If i was Ryan I would ask him if he was running as a communist? just for giggles and as a tit for the tat of the murder add.

1.  I think the VP will be out and about doing what he does best.  He'll be Obama's hatchet man with a very scripted, heavily scripted, set of talking points.  Romney just fed them all the red meat they can handle.

2.  I really am a wonk on the process of running for President.  Obama has a pretty scripted message most of the time.  I've got to believe he went off script here and wishes he could get those words back.  If anyone is capable of making this gaff, it's Romney who is not worried about the poor...

View Postnfreeman, on 13 August 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:


Really?  So you don't think that media outlets like, say, the NY Times, Washington Post, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, AP and Reuters skew liberal?  Or that the NY Post and Fox skew conservative?

For me, Fox and MSNBC are unwatchable based on their over the top leanings.

#108 PASabreFan

PASabreFan

    Resistance is futile

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,948 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 13 August 2012 - 01:47 PM

View Postnfreeman, on 13 August 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

It's also worth noting that the 2 most credible polls -- Gallup and Rasmussen -- have had Romney tied or in the lead for much of the past couple of months.

FWIW, Gallup was way off in its final poll in 2008, while Rasmussen was close, although not as close as several others.

http://www.realclear...t/national.html

#109 Claude_Verret

Claude_Verret

    Second Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,271 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Holly Springs, NC via Hamburg, NY

Posted 13 August 2012 - 01:47 PM

View Postgohansrage, on 13 August 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

Can I meet you halfway and concede that cable news is garbage in general?

I guess. Why you wouldn't concede the bias of a news organization that is the Fox News of the left is kind of telling though.

#110 nfreeman

nfreeman

    All I want is everything you got.

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,100 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn

Posted 13 August 2012 - 01:56 PM

View PostPASabreFan, on 13 August 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

What ratings though? A recent national survey by USA Today and Gallup found that 60% see Obama as personally likable, but only 30% see Romney that way.

I think the "likability" poll is relatively new, whereas the "approval rating" is older and accordingly has more historical data for comparison purposes.

View PostPASabreFan, on 13 August 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

FWIW, Gallup was way off in its final poll in 2008, while Rasmussen was close, although not as close as several others.

http://www.realclear...t/national.html

That's interesting -- thanks.  Worth noting, though, that those final polls from 2008 were all of likely voters -- not registered voters.  The current polls are, other than Politico and Rasmussen, all of registered voters.  Check it out:  http://www.realclear...obama-1171.html

View PostClaude_Verret, on 13 August 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

I guess. Why you wouldn't concede the bias of a news organization that is the Fox News of the left is kind of telling though.

Exactly.  If someone is willing to concede only the existence of conservative bias, but not liberal bias, then it's not really a concession -- just dogma.

#111 gohansrage

gohansrage

    Top Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 271 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 August 2012 - 02:01 PM

View PostClaude_Verret, on 13 August 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

I guess. Why you wouldn't concede the bias of a news organization that is the Fox News of the left is kind of telling though.

Because the bias of 24 hours news cycle doesn't matter.  The media is out to scare you into consuming more media. That is it's main purpose. Whether it does this by convincing old people Obama is out to steal their medicare or by convincing young people Boehner is out to make birth control illegal is irrelevant.  I could go on for hours about Fox News's agenda and you can respond with MSNBC's agenda and we could get mad at each other until we're blue in the face for all the good it's going to do.

#112 LGR4GM

LGR4GM

    Poop Flavored Lollypop

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,617 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Myth, The Man, The Legend, Zemgus Destroyer of Worlds.

Posted 13 August 2012 - 02:10 PM

View Postnfreeman, on 13 August 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

Well, at least you made it clear early on that this post couldn't be taken seriously.



Oh for God's sake.  No one in this election is talking about "taking away" contraception.  The question is whether the government may require private insurance plans to pay for contraception -- including private insurance plans run by entities that are religiously opposed to contraception.
well at least you made it clear you have no ###### clue what I am talking about.  I'd explain fusion and specifically electrostatic confinement fusion but i wouldnt want anyones head to explode.  There are other types but in the scientific community a sustainable fusion system using Boron is the holy grail of green energy and something the government should fund whether it be this way or another.

as far as your other point, contraceptives such as birth control should be offered because IMPO they are essential to women's health and welfare.  now can the gov force these private companies to cover it?  No, but if they are covering viagara for men they should cover BC women.  But hey my definition of equality is different than a lot of peoples.

View Postnfreeman, on 13 August 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

Well, while I agree that most of the mainstream media is suffused with liberal bias, it's still quite surmountable as we saw in 2004.

I've read a number of predictions of a Romney landslide by conservative commentators.  I have recently started to think that Romney is going to win, but even so the landslide predictions seem like wishful thinking to me.
There is media bias from both right and left.  Fox news is a joke and so is MSNBC.  Usually I try to read CNN and BBC to try and see the clear picture and I try to weed through the opinions and look at facts.  Some days it is harder than others.

This election will be close.  No landslide victory for either side.

#113 Claude_Verret

Claude_Verret

    Second Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,271 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Holly Springs, NC via Hamburg, NY

Posted 13 August 2012 - 02:11 PM

View Postgohansrage, on 13 August 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

Because the bias of 24 hours news cycle doesn't matter.  The media is out to scare you into consuming more media. That is it's main purpose. Whether it does this by convincing old people Obama is out to steal their medicare or by convincing young people Boehner is out to make birth control illegal is irrelevant.  I could go on for hours about Fox News's agenda and you can respond with MSNBC's agenda and we could get mad at each other until we're blue in the face for all the good it's going to do.

I wouldn't get mad, I fully realize that they are both biased and therefore have no use for either one of them. Certainly their main goal is to get you to consume more of what they're selling, that's why they are in the news business.  I just thought it was interesting that you only chose to concede on Fox and not it's equal MSNBC.

#114 Eleven

Eleven

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,829 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo

Posted 13 August 2012 - 02:37 PM

View PostClaude_Verret, on 13 August 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

I guess. Why you wouldn't concede the bias of a news organization that is the Fox News of the left is kind of telling though.

I'll readily concede it.  But I'm rarely confronted with MSNBC.  Seems that diehard right-wingers have Fox on in their lobbies, bars, locker rooms, whatever, but everywhere else has CNN or an over-the-air network.  In other words, there are circumstances where Fox is forced upon me, but there are not circumstances where MSNBC is forced upon me.  I also don't know that MSNBC's on-air personalities enjoy anywhere near the following that Fox's personalities do.  (Maybe the left recognizes propaganda when it sees it?)

So while MSNBC is definitely the "Fox of the left," I don't think it has anywhere near the impact on the national conversation.

#115 wjag

wjag

    Buffalo Sports -- Dysfunction Junction

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,787 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just below the Mason-Dixon Line

Posted 13 August 2012 - 02:39 PM

View PostEleven, on 13 August 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

.  I also don't know that MSNBC's on-air personalities enjoy anywhere near the following that Fox's personalities do.  

Well that should chum the waters...

#116 CallawaySabres

CallawaySabres

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,256 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo

Posted 13 August 2012 - 02:44 PM

View PostClaude_Verret, on 13 August 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

I guess. Why you wouldn't concede the bias of a news organization that is the Fox News of the left is kind of telling though.

Oh my gosh yes, Fox is only ONE of the offenders. Not only the reporting they do but the LACK of reporting that is done when it might offend the Obama side of things.

#117 TrueBluePhD

TrueBluePhD

    First Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,254 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cheektowaga, NY

Posted 13 August 2012 - 02:53 PM

View Postnfreeman, on 13 August 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

That's interesting -- thanks.  Worth noting, though, that those final polls from 2008 were all of likely voters -- not registered voters.  The current polls are, other than Politico and Rasmussen, all of registered voters.  Check it out:  http://www.realclear...obama-1171.html

Going from registered to likely voters is a pretty easy adjustment--polls tend to break about 1.5 points towards Republicans when likely voters are used (which is the measure that should be used; and it makes sense, since Republicans in general are a little more likely to vote than Democrats).  So if a poll of registered voters has Obama up by 4, in reality it's more like 2.5.

As to media bias, I'm really hesitant to get in on the debate because the evidence is extraordinarily mixed.  Clearly MSNBC and FOX are junk, but beyond that, I could go find 20 articles on the networks and half would say there's some liberal bias, and the other half would say there's none.  From an individual standpoint, people tend to view bias as what they disagree with.  For example, a hardcore liberal will see negative coverage of Obama as a conservative bias, even if the network is simply reporting a current even which does not reflect well on Obama.  Is reporting less-than-expected GDP growth really some anti-Obama bias?  Of course not, but those on the left will see it that way if the report is entirely negative.  And those on the right are no different--sorry, but negative coverage of Palin wasn't because the media is ultra-liberal.  As for newspapers, research suggests the news has a slight liberal bent, but the editorial pages have a slight conservative bent.  The whole enterprise of trying to evaluate this stuff is a mess (the slightest change in the coding scheme for the content analysis can have a major impact on the results).  Defining positive and negative coverage is far easier theoretically than in reality--most coding schemes classify negative coverage as negative bias, but what if the news/event itself just happens to be negative?  Is that really bias?  

At the end of the day my general take is that there's some liberal bias on the networks with respect to coverage, but it's not nearly the pervasive "Republicans against the world" effect that some like to make it out to be (think about it--if the media was as biased AND as influential as some make it out to be, the Republicans would never win anything).  The biggest problem with the media, in my view, is that it focuses on fluff and the horse race rather than emphasizing candidate differences on issues and trying to explain things.  The question of how Ryan's budget will impact the race now that he's on the ticket should be far less important than what is actually in the budget and where the candidates stand on it.

View PostEleven, on 13 August 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

I'll readily concede it.  But I'm rarely confronted with MSNBC.  Seems that diehard right-wingers have Fox on in their lobbies, bars, locker rooms, whatever, but everywhere else has CNN or an over-the-air network.  In other words, there are circumstances where Fox is forced upon me, but there are not circumstances where MSNBC is forced upon me.  I also don't know that MSNBC's on-air personalities enjoy anywhere near the following that Fox's personalities do.  (Maybe the left recognizes propaganda when it sees it?)

So while MSNBC is definitely the "Fox of the left," I don't think it has anywhere near the impact on the national conversation.

Not at all, there's simply more conservatives than liberals.  Unless and until that changes, FOX personalities will always have more followers than MSNBC personalities.

View Postwjag, on 13 August 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

Well that should chum the waters...

I don't know why that comment should.  Unless things have changed since I last looked at the numbers, FOX regularly has significantly better ratings than MSNBC.

#118 gohansrage

gohansrage

    Top Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 271 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 August 2012 - 02:54 PM

View PostClaude_Verret, on 13 August 2012 - 02:11 PM, said:

I wouldn't get mad, I fully realize that they are both biased and therefore have no use for either one of them. Certainly their main goal is to get you to consume more of what they're selling, that's why they are in the news business. I just thought it was interesting that you only chose to concede on Fox and not it's equal MSNBC.

Because I was trolling nfreeman honestly.  I will admit MSNBC's talking heads are liberals (Maddow, Matthew, Schultz ), but I don't think their efforts are systemic like Fox.

This discussion started with this:

"In a close election, which this appears to be, the media will skew the "news" coverage towards pro Obama.  The Obama "politics" are right in the wheelhouse of the liberal media" - Respsk

and

"Well, while I agree that most of the mainstream media is suffused with liberal bias, it's still quite surmountable as we saw in 2004" - nfreeman

These statements imply the "liberal" news organizations have a boss pushing talking points, a unified message, and a concetrated effort to prop up one party and push down the other.  However, the only organization who I see participating in this wholesale spin is Fox.

Except Ed Schultz. He is a liberal Fox News guy. I don't like him one bit

#119 TheMatrix31

TheMatrix31

    30

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,882 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 13 August 2012 - 02:55 PM

Too much to respond to in the time betweem my last post and now.

Here's a link with some early returns post-announcement-----http://townhall.com/...nts_and_seniors

I don't put too much faith in polls in general, but in cases where a major campaign event happens, it's a bit of an easy way to get a quick snapshot of things. Also, when looking at polls in general, LOOK AT SAMPLING DATA. Many news outlets are releasing polls that have sampling that is ridiculously skewed.

EDIT: If you don't think MSNBC/NBC in general is participating in "wholesale spin", I don't know what to tell ya. I don't watch any TV news. Far quicker to get news and opinion online. By the time something shows up on TV, it's already "old" on Twitter. Media bias is a huge deal, but less so because there is a ton of new media out there now. A TON. Twitter is arguably the single biggest thing to happen to the conservative movement in years.

Also a note about something I saw when scrolling through responses.....someone said that they won't vote for Romney/Ryan because they're "too right". Well, a lot of conservatives have major reservations about Romney because he's not exactly a right-wing extremist. He's about as middle-of-the-road as you can get. Typical blue state Republican. Picking Ryan pulls him to the right, sure, but that doesn't pull him to the "omg TOO right" portion of the spectrum, lol.

I also like this whole thing about Romney being "so elite" just because he has money and Obama somehow representing the people even though he ALSO has money, AND has ties to radicals, and racists, and acts like a petulant child every time he doesn't get his way, and this and that and this and that. Lest we forget all the bundlers Obama has. He's the one going to multiple 30k-a-plate dinners a day. How Obama is viewed as "likeable" and "not elite" is straight up beyond me.

Edited by TheMatrix31, 13 August 2012 - 03:07 PM.


#120 Eleven

Eleven

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,829 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo

Posted 13 August 2012 - 02:56 PM

View PostTrueBluePhD, on 13 August 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:



Not at all, there's simply more conservatives than liberals.  Unless and until that changes, FOX personalities will always have more followers than MSNBC personalities.


Oh, I don't think so.  But I do think there are more conservatives who are drawn to the far right than liberals who are drawn to the far left.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Off Topic, No holds barred politics