Byakuya769
Member
That makes sense.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
lollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollol
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/...efects-leaving-state-senate-control-in-doubt/
Net result of the recalls = not a fucking thing. Excellent use of state resources.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/...efects-leaving-state-senate-control-in-doubt/
Net result of the recalls = not a fucking thing. Excellent use of state resources.
they need to adjust their battleground polls to reflect states that are actual battlegrouds, because with that list it tells us basically nothing
Yes, he should be in jail, and take these guys with him. Sadly, even our highest levels of justice think attempts at voter disenfranchisement are not worth looking at.
Lol leave it to kosmoYes, he should be in jail, and take these guys with him.
I will continue to pick that scab. You can't even find a liberal talking head on TV who doesn't think the DOJ was negligent as fuck in this case.
I wonder if he'll trot out the classic "George Soros buying elections for libs" lines.
GTFO with your false equivalency bullshit.
What, if they were a couple of Klansmen at a predominantly black polling station you would just go "These two must be like Ku-Klux-santa's, able to travel to various swing districts at lighting speed, showing up just in time to disenfranchise white votes. "
We have rehashed this many times, nobody with a shred of intelligence thinks the DOJ was in the right to just drop the case.
Next topic.
NathanMcMahon
Banned
smh.
a parody of parody folks. he's done it. amazing. I feel like I'm in Inception: Going The Full Retard
slowclap.gif
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
Dafuq?
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
That has to be my favorite line of the thread so far.
TacticalFox88
Banned
So you're saying I'm not allowed to point out true false equivalency, while you guys pretty much call any valid analogy you disagree with "false equivalency."
Got it.
electricpirate
Member
I'd never really looked into the NBP stuff, now that I have, I'm scratching my head over what's the big deal. The obama administration had 4 civil cases, 3 of which would probably lost, and proceeded against the one that seemed legitimate. I could quibble with the reduced scope of the final decision of the one case that proceeded I guess, but the whole thing just seems like a big nothing burger.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/07/obama-leads-in-michigan-and-pennsylvania.html
Michigan 53-39 Obama
Pennsylvania 49-43 Obama
Michigan 53-39 Obama
Pennsylvania 49-43 Obama
Dems oversampled in this poll.
lol Obama isn't going to lose either PA or MI. Deal with it.
I never said he was.
I'm sure if they hadn't been there McCain would've sewn up that South Philly district.
The false equivalence is on your part, in equating two black men standing around a voting location as being the same thing as a national effort to enact anti-voting legislation which is designed specifically to win the election for Mitt.
Blergmeister
Member
I'm having problems opening the results for myself. Could you explain more about the sampling in this poll?
Dems: 32%
Repubs: 28%
Independents: 40% (this seems way high)
I'm not saying Obama won't win Michigan (I think he will), but I don't think he's at 53%. RCP has it about 46-44 favoring Obama. If on election day 40% of voters truly are Independent, that's not good for Obama at all.
Also curious is that they go through every possible Romney/VP combination (Jindal, Pawlenty, Rice, Portman) but not Rubio....
balladofwindfishes
Member
32% Democrat
28% Republican
40% Independent
seems fairly sampled to me, actually looking at the leanings of those sampled, it almost seems over sampled for Conservatives. 42% identified as Conservative, while only 27% identified as Liberal.
How about from NPR from economists that are registered Democrats?
I'd argue the other way around actually. 40% self identify as conservative of some form while only 27% self identify as liberal of some sort. 30% are moderates, unless they are lying. Looks like the deliberately over sampled conservatives.
I just saw your other post, they did oversample democrats, but they did not oversample liberals based on self identified ideology.
What was the Dem sample, what should it be, and why?
Last time you made this claim about a poll someone easily showed you were wrong. I'd like to see what you are basing this on.
empty vessel
Member
I would respond that in my opinion that represents everything wrong with modern Democrats. Even countries with a VAT maintain progressive income taxation. I would eliminate the payroll tax, though. Right now, today.
He seems to basing it on question 17 while carefully ignoring question 15. The party someone identifies with is not always consistent with their voting pattern or their ideological beliefs. See crats, Dixie.
Gerl I don't think you are allowed to drag up a topic and then decide when to move on to the next one.
Well, as long as you agree that the DOJ should treat a couple of Klansmen standing idly by with knightsticks are a predominantly black polling station saying "You gonna be ruled by the white man" should not be prosecuted, there's nothing more to discuss.
Most of the stuff I've read over the last few weeks seems to all agree that Rubio isn't really one of candidates anymore. He probably told them privately he wouldn't do it. I don't think he should, either. He has a future in the party, and he shouldn't jump down with Romney's sinking ship. I could potentially see them courting him over these next few years to run in 2016 as their big hope to draw in Latinos. Starting in 2016, they are basically going to need to adapt to a very pro-Latino platform on the national level or just never win presidential elections.
Blergmeister
Member
I don't think what the people are wearing in your image are not as theatening both by modern and historical standards. That you are equating this is a false equivalency.
Edit: Also, keep up the discussion on the polling sample. It is very interesting.
To be honest, polling at this point in race like this one isn't worth much as far a determining a winner. Money on the table, I would bet on Obama winning, but with polls in the range they are in, there is so much that can and will happen to make them swing one way or the other. Romney will get the historical 8-10% bounce out of the convention, that will simmer down, and we'll see where we are come the debates.
There's really not much to discuss about the sample. It looks reasonable and overampling of one group is a pretty common way to make your poll more representative. I'd argue that ideology is more important than the party someone identifies with when determining voting patterns, but these early and weekly polls are not that useful as far as predicting the results of the election.
There's also the issue of the 5 point scale used in question 15 vs the 3 point scale used in question 17. More options for respondents = more nuance in your results. The important thing here is that Kosmo will shift his interpretation of data depending on what outcome he wants rather than the methodology or construction of the survey.
Wow, thank you! I've been saying this for years. If republicans are looking to cut taxes, start with the payroll tax.
this is why i find the battleground aggregate polls useless. Out of the 12 states on that list, 3-4 shouldn't be on there, they are skewing the aggregate results
I haven't really been following the daily ins and outs of this campaign, but it seems that Obama's team is missing the boat on tying Romney to GWB. All of Romney's rhetoric and stances (especially on foreign policy and taxes) seem to be the same things that GWB/Cheney believed in or is so vague that you can easily label it as such. Instead they seem to be wasting their time and money on trying to assassinate his character.
I guess there is plenty of time to change focus, but right now I think they are failing.
I guess there is plenty of time to change focus, but right now I think they are failing.
They were oversampled in Pennsylvania. But they also oversampled Republicans. Michigan's sample was peculiar because Democrats were underrepresented by a substantial margin. If anything his lead would be underestimated.
I don't think they mentioned Obama's father. Nevertheless, it comports with the narrative they've propagated in the past. Remember two years ago when they claimed Obama's anti-colonial worldview was dictating his policies? The racial subtext is quite blatant.
Also, his speech yesterday was boring. Not only did he belabor his tired criticisms, he seemed appreciably uncomfortable. His inexperience on foreign policy noticeably affects his performance. Although, he didn't embarrass himself as he typically has when commentating on foreign affairs.
Romney embodies charisma and likeability.
No. We label your tortured analogies as false equivalencies.
But close polls are way more exciting!
I have to agree with that, especially since aren't most of Romney's foreign policy advisers from the Bush administration? Maybe they're just waiting to roll out that attack?
yeah, but its the opposite, including those states overstates Obama's advantage when it comes to actual, real, battleground states
Yeah. Aggregated battleground polls are not informational. If you're going to sample a subset of the nation, it should be a meaningful distinction. A state is a meaningful distinction because of the EC. A group of states is not.
cartoon_soldier
Member
I am sure Obama is hoping he had chosen his words more carefully for the "you didn't build that" flap
I am sure the net effect of all this will be...race is where it was 2 weeks back.
But, at the end of the day, Obama can't afford any errors like these.
I am sure the net effect of all this will be...race is where it was 2 weeks back.
But, at the end of the day, Obama can't afford any errors like these.
That would be hard to believe when you consider all the work Romney's been going through to not be seen with GWB or Cheney (or just be seen as little as possible). And the "endorsements" by GWB have been very hushed. Romney campaign has also probably done focus groups and knows that linking him to GWB would be suicide.
It has nothing to do with whether George W. Bush is toxic or not. People just aren't largely interested in foreign policy right now. If the Obama campaign dedicated a significant portion of its time to talking up Romney's non-existent FP cred and his copy/paste of the Bush foreign policy team they'd be accused by Romney surrogates of changing the subject away from the economy, and the media will accomplice themselves to that line of thinking.
edit: I just noticed that TA mentioned the economy as well as foreign policy.
I've seen polls that still hold GWB accountable for the economy (but maybe those are people that are likely to vote for Obama anyway). They are also very weary of both the wars and any possibility of a war with Iran.
But you are probably right on the focus groups. The Bain attacks have some resonance in the states they want to win, whereas attacks on foreign policy are probably not as nearly effective.
I am not usually into harsh sentencing, but messing with our democracy warrants a MUCH more sever punishment.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
Bringing up GWB would be an inept strategy. Nobody would be moved by it, most people have short memories when it comes to politics.
- Status