PolliGaf 2012 |OT5| Big Bird, Binders, Bayonets, Bad News and Benghazi

Status
Not open for further replies.
Obama campaign cancelled all events for tomorrow as well just now.

Ironically the Romney campaign like an hour ago annouced their "Victory" rallies will be fully back on the schedule starting tomorrow. So Romney will be fully campaigning while Obama is dealing with the Hurricane, not just pretending to not campaign as he is today.
 
"Those states aren't voting for me. Fuck them."

3329dfdffc227fd74bc5e41966c6b866.jpg
 
Obama campaign cancelled all events for tomorrow as well just now.

Ironically the Romney campaign like an hour ago annouced their "Victory" rallies will be fully back on the schedule starting tomorrow. So Romney will be fully campaigning while Obama is dealing with the Hurricane, not just pretending to not campaign as he is today.

Good. Obama will look good all week by just doing his job. Biden and Clinton can still draw crowds and attend rallies, so continuing that is what they need to do for now.
 
No, you don't get it. A one point loss is heartbreaking, but nothing is more disorienting, disheartening, and outright soul-crushing as a team that thinks themselves to be the overwhelming favorite getting absolutely destroyed on the field in every aspect of the game.

That's what needs to happen.

2004 Lakers... :(
 
So my friend is freaking out about this:

http://www.ukprogressive.co.uk/brea...aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

basically saying that wherever Obama doesn't have at least a 10% lead, he will lose because the GOP will hack the voting computers.

He's Diablosing.

I asked him why didn't this happen in 2008 then, and he just said "Sarah Palin happened"

If this is such a big deal with such ironclad evidence, why isn't the New York Times printing it? Why is it only in one progressive blog in the UK and maybe one newspaper over there?
 
If this is such a big deal with such ironclad evidence, why isn't the New York Times printing it? Why is it only in one progressive blog in the UK and maybe one newspaper over there?

This is why I rarely take things posted exclusively on Daily Kos and ThinkProgress seriously, despite my dirty liberal leanings.
 
2004 Lakers... :(
I've gotta say.. a skin-of-the-teeth victory is exhilarating. The closest I've gotten was going to the NFC Championship in 2010, Saints vs Vikings. Won with an overtime field goal kicked by a shaky kicker. The whole city blew-up right then and there (but to our credit, we didn't riot; we just danced).

In retrospect, I feel horrible for Vikings fans. It must've been heartbreaking, coming so close. But at least they have that awesome kicker.

The GOP doesn't have an awesome kicker as a consolation prize. :)
 
Press also posting pictures of all the relief supplies though being gathered.

I thought Red Cross and other organizations didn't want people actually donating food. I think that's been the case for years. Money and clothes sure but actual food, even if they're canned goods, take to long to sort and can be a health hazard.
 
i hope the press does indeed report on romney's campaign events that are bringing much needed relief to the thousands victims of sandy. as previously documented, republicans are much more apt to help out their fellow brethren in times of need than democrats. if romney can bring together large groups of people to provide a surge of relief, we should be applauding him instead of castigating.
 
So my friend is freaking out about this:

http://www.ukprogressive.co.uk/brea...aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

basically saying that wherever Obama doesn't have at least a 10% lead, he will lose because the GOP will hack the voting computers.

He's Diablosing.

I asked him why didn't this happen in 2008 then, and he just said "Sarah Palin happened"

I saw that article, and checked the comments. The top rated one says this:

As much as I'd like to believe this, the analysis of the data is incorrect. The cumulative value is used incorrectly on the X-axis, instead of just the Y, giving statistical bias to the large numbered precincts due to the accumulation. If you use column L instead, which is the integer total number of votes per precinct, you get the flat line you are expecting with the cumulative still used on the Y axis. If you generate the resulting graph it also produces a lot of variance in the smaller precincts before it levels out, which is what I would expect intuitively, it's unlikely that smaller precincts will have such a consistent curve shown in your graph with such a small amount of data, ie 10 voters. I can post the picture of your modified graph, but this comment section does not allow it. If you send me your email, I can send it to you along with the modified excel sheet.

sounds solid to me. wrap this one up as paranoia + bad math
 
Must mean that every nightly news show tonight will spend all thirty minutes highlighting how compassionate and amazing Mitt Romney is for holding this event that will feed hundreds who need it.
They are definitely going to highlight it. I don't agree with some that this is somehow going to make him look bad. Bill and Joe should have been doing the same thing. Missed opportunity for dems to be honest.
 
The American Conservative ripped this up this morning. David Brooks is coming in for a lot of abuse from both sides, which I think is mean since he clearly has had a stroke and thinks it's 1963 and the GOP is a moderate party.

If both sides are criticizing him, that means he's right!

Since as we all know, being "serious" and "moderate" and "centrist" is better than actually being correct and factual.
 
You guys are over-reading Christie. The last thing a governor wants to so during a disaster is piss off a sitting president.

Yeah, what he's saying really doesn't matter. There's a disaster in his state, the federal government is working with the state government, and the governor is grateful. That's all there is really.
 
You guys are over-reading Christie. The last thing a governor wants to so during a disaster is piss off a sitting president.

It's as simple as that his political interests and Obama's are currently aligned, I think. He wants to look good during the storm and portray things as going as smoothly as possible.
 
Anyone else feel like he's more emboldened to do this because media attention will be on the hurricane for the last weeks of the campaign, rather than spending time trying to call him on his BS?

Media has hardly called Romney on his lies. Doubt it has anything to do with the hurricane.
 
Apparently Romney is doubling down on the Jeep-China ad, now its going radio:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...9e8a986-229d-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_blog.html

Again I would challenge Romney with this:

"If government doesn't create jerbs as you said, what exactly would a Romney Administration actually do to stop a privately owned company from shipping those fictional jerbs to China?"

Remember how Obama was able to stop those Apple jerbs from going to FoxConn?

Oh wait...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom