imagine if christie was the vp nom and praising obama.
-
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.
PolliGaf 2012 |OT5| Big Bird, Binders, Bayonets, Bad News and Benghazi
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
imagine if christie was the vp nom and praising obama.
Randolph Freelander
Member
This week would have been... awkward.
That's not blame. It's a strategic leak trying to align Romney with the media's new favorite moderate Republican..
Hahaha
PS: Dude do you have 2K13? We should play sometime. I haven't played you since T-Mac was on the Rockets lol
I've been searching for the origins of the news about Iran's suspension, and the initial report originates from the ISNA which is an Iranian news agency. From what I gather, the original report may have been misconstrued. And the swift denial in Fars suggests either the regime is quashing the rumor, or there are disaffected elements within the ruling apparatus; which side is accurate remains to be seen. I await better sources, though.
It's because the odds of winning each state are not 100%.
If you have an 85% chance of achieving outcome A and an 85% chance of achieving outcome B, your odds of achieving A and B are not 85%. Rather, they are .85 x .85, or 72.25%. When you have even more possible outcomes to consider, the math gets more complicated, with factorials and such. And it's not even a straight-up probability calculation either.
ripastraea
Member
Question. We know Obama's first term was about the economy and passing healthcare reform, so what major legislation does that leave for his second term? Immigration reform? Climate change? IIRC climate change is something they decided to put off until this upcoming term... what are the chances he's gonna be able to get anything major done? With Sandy and Bloomberg's endorsement might he be able to convince the American people to pressure congress into action?
We fucked up Kyto. You never even ratified. How are the the next two years looking like?
We fucked up Kyto. You never even ratified. How are the the next two years looking like?
I dunno if he will be able to get anything done really, Ill just be happy that the affordable care act will be able to take full effect, keeping it safe from the slimy hands of repubs.
legalization
1000 years of sexual darkness.
polyh3dron
Banned
I finally heard Romney's "Revenge" dig, shit was hilarious. Talk about grasping at straws. How can he say that the "Romnesia" charge is petty and without merit (completely false), and then put out this garbage?
His attitude shows a complete lack of regard for his voters, thinking they're dumb enough to dupe with all this shit.
His attitude shows a complete lack of regard for his voters, thinking they're dumb enough to dupe with all this shit.
Assuming Republicans retain control of the House, the only major domestic issue with even a remote possibility of passing is immigration reform. Perhaps they compromise on tax reform, too. But I don't foresee Republicans compromising on climate change policy; the legislation already foundered in the 111th Congress. Also, no. Sandy and Bloomberg's endorsement are inconsequential. I fear the ship has sailed on climate change legislation. Fortunately, at least Democrats will make federal and judicial appointees.
polyh3dron
Banned
What's the likelihood of Dems getting the House back anyways?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tROHK1x-a8k&feature=relmfu
how did I miss this one?
one of the most effective ad teams to have played the game here.
how did I miss this one?
one of the most effective ad teams to have played the game here.
Black Mamba
Member
RAND back up for Obama. Obama +3 49-46 (2.5 really yesterday)
Like I said, looks to be stabilizing.
Like I said, looks to be stabilizing.
Pretty much zero. A single digit net gain for dems is the most likely outcome
polyh3dron
Banned
They've been given an easy target.
Kevitivity
Member
Indeed. That is some serious fear mongering - a big change from 4 years ago. Something tells me the DNC is worried.
Why do you folks in the US give the Presidential election such undue weight? The election of the members of congress are far more important. After all it's congress that makes the law, and sets the budget and decides in broad terms what the president can and can not do. I hear so much talk about the Presidential election yet I barely hear anything about the congressional elections. Why is that?
http://web.archive.org/web/20081106113055/http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
win percentage: 98.9%
electoral vote: 348.6 (everything aside from ne-2 and in)
popular vote: 52.3
Ban bet, straight up? I take Obama, you take Romney. I'll give you 6:1 (month) odds.
eBay Huckster
Member
At least make it 6:2 so I can gloat to him on Inauguration Day and have it be soon after his unban
the president can veto stuff from congress that may not work out for them. say the house and the senate is gop-controlled, and obama is president. they could try to repeal obamacare, and he could veto it.
also, the president gets to nominate appointees to the supreme court. this can have a much longer lasting effect, since appointments are for life, and they usually stick around for decades.
Yeah the veto is important but you can be overruled by a 2/3rds vote, and while the President gets to nominate, doesn't the Senate have to approve SCOTUS judges?
Sure, but the President is the single most important member of the government. The executive branch can actually do quite a bit without Congress, plus he sets the overall agenda, particularly if his party controls at least one house of Congress. Also, the 2/3rds vote to override a veto is exceedingly rare, since a 2/3rds majority basically doesn't happen.
polyh3dron
Banned
Actually there was a very similar ad in 2008 showing McCain winning the election (was a mock news thing too). So this isn't some drastic about-face in attitude like you're portraying it to be.
Also, all of these things are actually things Romney and Ryan have vowed to do if they're elected. It may be, as you say, fear mongering, but it's true. It's like saying, don't jump off of that cliff because you'll die.
I find Romney's multiple ads and stump speech attacks about Jeep moving ALL production to China much more deplorable because they're, yknow, LIES.
I'm not saying that the President's election is unimportant. It is. It's just odd to me that the focus on the Presidential election is incredibly heavy, it seems skewed.
The senate does approve the scotus judges but it's the president who recommends who he wants to be a scotus judge. Therefore, the judges more often than not tend to idealogically stand with the president who appointed them, and not often does the senate reject a scotus recommendation from the president. This is why the next president is so important other than the obvious issues, he will probably reside over appointing two judges to the supreme court and those judges are lifetime appointments.
ripastraea
Member
I'm not holding my breath. Hasn't the DoJ cracked down on dispensaries? I'd me more optimistic for y'all if he had asked them not to a la DOMA. Are we suggesting that, since he won't have anything to lose after November 6, he's going to reverse course? I hope he does (and if he cares about his legacy he will). Makes no sense that he's taking this stance. Is it to look tough? Sad to think drone strikes might not have been enough to accomplish that.
Plus, there's the Republicans in the House
We might get it legalized if we oust the Conservatives in 2015. Not sure about Mexico and their new President, apparently he wants to discuss the possibly at least
Pessimistic outlook but I'm prone to believe you.
Do we know the percentage of Americans who would support climate change legislation?
The problems with this system is that when you have a President of a federation that appoints all the judges of the supreme judicial body you usually get Presidents who appoint federalist judges. We've seen it in Australia where the federal government just keeps swallowing up more and more power from the states. I'm being overly cynical but there has been a lot of heat over some appointments to the High Court (equiv to SCOTUS) in Australia.
(N.B: It's the Governor General who does it on advice from the PM)
I've asked this before, but if we have a Republican senate, it'll be the most right wing senate in decades. Why would these guys approve someone that Obama appoints who wouldn't be AT LEAST as right wing as they are?
I always thought Obama had it. It's usually difficult to unseat an incumbent after only one term. That's been the Commonwealth experience at least.
What?
It is a problem for us over here as well because you are basically rolling the dice and hoping that if a scotus retires, they retire when the president you want is in office.
Republicans aren't taking over the senate at all so that won't be a problem.
Obama was going to win with or without sandy, the storm is just a scapegoat republicans can use when they lose.
It's odd from all the US constitutional cases I've seen the bench seems far more "partisan" then the High Court of Australia or Canada or the UK. It's really rather odd.
The sitting president tends to do really well during disasters as long as they handle them well, and Obama has done a great job of at least appearing to be on the case. Look at Bush on 9/11, I think his approval rating went into the high 70's there for awhile. Not quite the same level of tragedy now, but Obama has been on the spot with the hurricane damage and in a very tight race it will probably be the bump he needs. Plus with all the Christie love after seeing his state swamped, and he was the great hope for a lot of Republicans, and his positive comments for Obama and his ignoring of Romney is a huge deal.
lol it probably goes back to when FDR tried to pack the court when he was president.
Well, some of our state governments deserve no power whatsoever.
Maybe. I am not saying Sandy will win the election for him. Hell it could have been Katrina and lost the election for him, but Obama handled it well. It was a freak thing to happen in the last days of the election that will probably benefit Obama. It is not an excuse.
Yes, I understand this is your position, but all of this is hand waving conjecture in the face of real polling evidence.
The actual polls, as aggregated by multiple sources (Real Clear Politics, FiveThirtyEight, Princeton Election Consortium) suggest that Obama was ahead before the storm, and is ahead by about the same after.
Your position simply is not supported by the evidence we have available. Again, I'm not saying your position doesn't have intuitive or "gut" sense, it just doesn't actually line up with the reality we're seeing based on the evidence we have.
I actually think the evidence is showing that very little of this matters. The first debate win for Romney mattered, definitely. Otherwise, very little else has moved the dial substantially, from Biden's gaffes to Romney's missteps to Sandy. It "feels" like these are significant and momentous things, but the polls simply do not mirror that feeling. The changes are minute or often non existent.
TheHeretic
Banned
Polls have to make estimates about the composition of the electorate, a few percentage points difference in the white voter turnout could sway the election against the president. It would be odd for so many polls to be off at this point but it is a possibility.
Absolutely, which is why I couched my phrasing in terms like "the evidence we have available." It's possible the evidence we have is misleading, or wrong, and that a more complete picture (that accurately projected white voter turnout, for example) would show that Obama is behind.
So while we should always take in to account the possibility that our evidence is incomplete, we also shouldn't allow that to prevent us from reaching tentative conclusions. If we insisted on avoiding conclusions until we had "all the evidence," we'd never reach any conclusions at all.
TheHeretic
Banned
Right, but its also a question of how much confidence you have in that data, especially when we are talking about a few percentage points in critical swing states. Once we are talking about two percentage points in favour of one candidate, given the pitfalls of polling I look at the methodology pretty critically.
Most polling models also assume a very similar (if not identical) turnout to 2008, which may also be problematic. People should also know the sample size on mobile phones is much lower than it needs to be, which also throws the numbers off. Many pollers claim about 45% of calls should be mobile - but its a lot more expensive so they rely on extrapolation, which is problematic as well. Nate Silver seems to be ahead of the game on a lot of this and he tries to build uncertainty into the model where he can, so I trust his model on the whole.
I still give Romney a higher chance than Nate does, albeit just on gut. The national polls are so close there's some chance Romney picks up the popular vote and inches out a win in Ohio despite the state polling.
Real polling evidence has been a bit inconsistent over the the past few elections. Yes with Obama, he had an obvious lead 4 years ago. We knew he was going to win. With the previous two Bush wins though, it was quite different. The national polls were very close, and as I recall they favored at least Gore, I am not sure about Kerry.
I do think exit polls and typical polls are based around urban areas which swing to the left generally. I do not think they are putting the same sort of effort into rural areas of lets say 100K or less where the right tends to do much better. So in a close election, I think there may be a small percentage advantage in polls for the left. So a tie in the polls maybe really means a 1% benefit for the Republicans. But it does appear to not be all that super even, and so I think Obama is going to win. Me stating that the hurricane may have helped Obama does not dismiss that Obama already had the benefit of the doubt. It is just another plus in his column that could put it more out of reach for Romney.
Also I think you have to consider the passion and turnout for Obama four years ago compared to where he is at now, The bigger question is whether or not the right will support Romney with a greater passion then they did McCain. Do they like Romney enough, or do they fear Obama more. I am not sure polls really account for those sort of attitudes.
We like to laugh at right for their poll truthing, but even here more often than not criticism/skepticism isn't based on actual research on the topic, but rather gut assumptions, not unlike the claims made by the right. The above two posts are pretty good examples.
Most polling models assume 2008 turnout? Typical polls are based around urban areas? You "think" there may be a small advantage for the left? You aren't sure if polls account for attitudes? These are clearly poorly researched, wrong or even nonsensical assumptions.
Most polling models assume 2008 turnout? Typical polls are based around urban areas? You "think" there may be a small advantage for the left? You aren't sure if polls account for attitudes? These are clearly poorly researched, wrong or even nonsensical assumptions.
Sorry, I just don't think that someone without a college education deserves to be anything more than lower middle class unless they start their own business of course.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked