Nobody will vote for a Mormon president
Ironically enough, this year plenty of evangelicals will. I have to laugh to myself a little bit on that one.
Nobody will vote for a Mormon president
Making personal jabs really helps the Obama camp. So does the race card... I mean... he was white when we voted him in... wasnt he? Oh that's right! He wasn't!
You can more a more convincing point not insisting that people that dont like him are insane, racist, etc
You sound no better than the right wing that believes Romney's BS. Grow up.
These people and right wing pundits put their hands up to their ears and go "lalalalalalalalalalalala" just because it's Obama. Not even the Bush haters were this extreme. Look at what happened when bin laden was taken out. People on the right praising Bush. As recently as Tuesdays debate people on the right gushing how Romney won. I know Obama lost the first debate as do all the liberals and democrats that saw it. We accepted reality. We didn't plug up our ears and deny it.
Also Bush haters had legitimate reasons to hate him. Obama haters hate him because he's a communist socialist muslim.
Nobody will vote for a Mormon president
Yep, and the polls behind Iowa, Ohio, and to a small degree Wisconsin(?) have huge margins in Obama's favor for people that have actually already voted. Any window of opportunity for Romney is rapidly closing. The election is basically over.
What's up with the Newsmax poll that now shows Obama ahead in Florida?
Or the Quinnipac/Susquehanna polls that show Obama now trailing in Pennsylvania, which was considered solid blue on 538?
What's up with the Newsmax poll that now shows Obama ahead in Florida?
Or the Quinnipac/Susquehanna polls that show Obama now trailing in Pennsylvania, which was considered solid blue on 538?
Neither.... I'm a human.
I was checking 538 on GAF's recommendation a couple weeks ago and it had something like a 87% chance of Obama winning. I visit it now and it's down to 66%.
I mean, I've missed attacks with better odds before in Fire Emblem. Just sayin'.
538 projection updated:
![]()
Pfft. Nytimes.
Pfft. Nytimes.
"Mitt Romney wasn't conservative enough"
3
2
1
I actually like the Nytimes, I guess that didn't come off as sarcastic as I had wanted.
e: I forget that in political threads there's always seems to be a high level of tension with the other posters.
I actually like the Nytimes, I guess that didn't come off as sarcastic as I had wanted.
e: I forget that in political threads there's always seems to be a high level of tension with the other posters.
I actually like the Nytimes, I guess that didn't come off as sarcastic as I had wanted.
e: I forget that in political threads there's always seems to be a high level of tension with the other posters.
Iowa Wisconcin going Obama pretty much wraps this thing up.
I still can't believe people are going on and on about how we should give Mitt a chance to fix the economy because he was a businessman. First of all, the economy is showing great signs of recovery. Anyone expecting a magic cure to the huge problems we had in 4 years needs to get over themselves when we were on the verge of a depression/much worse recession. As for his business experience, if Mitt ran America like he ran his businesses jobs would be shipped overseas and anyone that wasn't doing well would be shut down. The whole idea that America can be run like a business is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The whole point of a business is to make as much money as possible even if they means choosing the cheapest options available. The point of a government isn't to make lots of money especially in downturn. If you're going to vote for Mitt Romney on the basis that you are rich and don't want any more of your money to go to the government just admit it. And if you are a business person I would hope you would realize that having a greater base of customers with jobs would be better for your business. None of Romney's plans show any data to back up the idea that they would create job. Cutting taxes does not create jobs.
That is very kind of you sir, thank you. Unfortunately I have only a marginal interest in US politics - it isn't that it is uninteresting, it is just quite hard to keep up with multiple country's politics in the depths I'd like so I stick to the UK. The cultural foibles alsO make certain things difficult for me to understand - such as having a Mormon candidate in a country with quite a lot of religious voters. Being unfamiliar with Mormons, the make up of US Christians and Christianity in general, actually, it isn't really something I feel all that comfortable discussing.The last great "conservative" mind on NEOGAF was probably Loki (Note: Conservative, not Republican). DarienA was a solid centrist too, back in the days when he would have been considered a centrist in American politics (now he's to the left). Iceman's nominally a smart guy as well, but unfortunately he offers nothing more politically beyond toting the Republican line.
I have high hopes for CyclopsRock though. I think he has the potential to offer an intelligent counter-narrative.
Is there a decent polling aggregator that we can use instead of running all over citing different polls as they post?
Is there a decent polling aggregator that we can use instead of running all over citing different polls as they post?
Is there a decent polling aggregator that we can use instead of running all over citing different polls as they post?
![]()
I think we can all agree that Gallup is right and everyone else is wrong.
It was one of the best-known polling firms, however, that had among the worst results. In late October, Gallup consistently showed Mr. Romney ahead by about six percentage points among likely voters, far different from the average of other surveys. Gallup’s final poll of the election, which had Mr. Romney up by one point, was slightly better, but still identified the wrong winner in the election. Gallup has now had three poor elections in a row. In 2008, their polls overestimated Mr. Obama’s performance, while in 2010, they overestimated how well Republicans would do in the race for the United States House.
I thought the common talking point was everyone was oversampling Ds.. but if reading right, they were actually oversampling Rs?
Gallup will never be viewed as a credible source for anything again.
Being off by that much on something so big ruins any bit of credibility they ever had.
Good. Let the new era of pollsters sink in.Gallup will never be viewed as a credible source for anything again.
Being off by that much on something so big ruins any bit of credibility they ever had.
If our government is competent, we won't need pollsters. We'll have fully electronic voting that starts a few months in advance of election night and results will be live daily.
Its deeper than that. There's a market for people deliberately misinforming themselves, sadly.It was the common talking point but a stupid one. If there was going to be a slant it was always going to be towards the dems...nobody knew how large it would be but Nate raised this possibility long ago. The "party identification" bullshit was just math Republicans did to make themselves feel better.
Hopefully we don't have to go through this "Nate Silver is a crazy gay socialist fixing the numbers" bullshit next time around.
This is their third bad election in a row. As long as there are big names with bad methodology and poor general undersanding of polling among Americans, people will cherry pick. It's on gallup to improve their polling process.