2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Heald]

I just want to see how he responds to this

Try posting an image people can actually see (i.e. not hotlinked from your Gmail account kthxbai)

[kurai]

Seeing how the SEC filings were added in the article in the evidence presented, it was determined by Fact Check that it did not amount to enough evidence to be considered perjury. As such it can be said that they did de facto address it, especially by adding that Obama has not provided sufficient proof when the SEC filings was part of the initial proof given. As such it was seen that the "Left Active Management" was seen as enough proof that Romney was not involved in their operations even by signing the SEC documents.

as we can see, such analysis of the FEC filing hinges on the management aspect - this is not the only angle, given that romney's remark is quite a bit more general than this, concerning involvement in any way. they entirely fail to address whether the SEC filing necessities themselves count against such a sweeping claim of detachment: this argument can only be disproven through trial. this is why they can not provide evidence against it - it is a question of whether apparent material fact would be sufficient for indictment (or conviction). this is not the same thing as providing evidence for whether or not romney was managing bain, which is what factcheck provides.

As you notice it largely has not mattered, Obama has thrown everything at Romney to the last few weeks, amounting to nearly 100 million in negative ads, including many lies about Romney. And yet the two remain at parity in the polls, and the economy remains by far the top target for people.

No I will note that only a small minority of people actually went full retard, the rest of the public did not give a damn as we were heading into a depression. I would say that the same argument can be presented here, where the public see's a wild accusation ( Obama being a Kenyan/Romney being a felon ), and dismisses it based on the concerns that directly effect them. So far just like the argument that Obama is a Kenyan remained largely at right wing blogs, the argument that Romney is a felon has largely been left to the blogs. A quick google of Romney FEC Felon, shows it only showing up at far lefty blogs like Fire Dog Lake, Mother Jones, and Daily Kos. The reality is the Democratic Party realizes a losing battle when they see it, and having already been bitten by Washington Post and Fact Check on the SEC allegations ( And FEC allegations with Fact Check.org ) it is logical they are attempting to move on, unless they wish to be pegged as insane nut jobs like the Birthers.

Except the public doesn't care, you are not going to see a indepth five hour analysis on if Obama was born in Kenya on ABC, just as you are not going to see the same analysis on Romney. To say that success brings vindication is as absurd as it is stupid. The public did not sit down with all the facts on Obama in 2008 and decide that he was a American, they laughed down the argument the minute that it was made. That does not mean Obama is any more or less a Kenyan, or here Romney is any more or less a felon. It is that the public saw it as a pathetically stupid argument and choose to ignore what ever facts were presented and instead focus on what matters to them.

it is certainly the case that some people considered the validity of obama's candidacy to be a primary issue on which they would decide their vote. you dismiss this notion far too easily given the prevalence and attention provided to birtherism during the election - it was essentially The Media Topic for the entire summer of 2008, with scores of articles and hours of television coverage.

but while not everyone would care about obama's citizenship, or consider it to be wholly persuasive for their election day choice, it did sway the choices of some - perhaps "a small minority of people [who] actually went full retard", but people with voting rights nonetheless. if the romney-perjury connection were to remain ongoing throughout the summer, we can expect at least the same sort of fringe effect - capturing it is not an unwise strategy.

secondly, for those outside this most affected group, the characterization contributes to an attack on the romney persona. certainly one's feeling about the candidates is an often cited reason for one's electoral choices (ex. voting for the person they like the most). thus, we see an analogy between otherized-obama and deceitful-romney. we can not rely on a kind of economic determinism alone when projecting voter choice. the issue of persuasion and choice is not so simple as this - and people are not nearly this rational on the whole.

finally, i am not sure that the claim of a democratic party perception of the losing this battle is evident. web and tv ads on the subject are bring released en masse, as we have seen in the last 24 hours:

What Does "Retroactively Retired" Mean?


Mitt Romney: Chairman, CEO, and Sole Shareholder—But Not Responsible?


moveon is joining:

Tricky Mitt


more sticking to the general theme of romney as deceptive:

Obama for America TV Ad: "Makes You Wonder"


Mitt Dancing Around The Issues Volume I


it is clear that they are going to remain focused on this messaging strategy for the time being. we can consider this result from the recent poll out of fox news from 7/15 to 7/17:

Do you think Mitt Romney is honest and trustworthy, or not? 
		Yes 	No 	(Don’t know) 
15-17 Jul 12 	46% 	43 	11 

Do you think “Honest” describes Romney, or not? 
		Yes, it does 	No, it doesn’t 	(Don’t know) 
5-7 Dec 11 	54% 		36 		11

thus, it is evident that the recent salvo has been fairly effective. consider that 'honesty' is necessarily a fairly important aspect of one's political persona - any value judgements on policy proposals of any sort, including those relating to the economic sphere, will be contingent on whether or not people actually think that such proposals are truthfully intended.

[Roy Karrde]

as we can see, such analysis of the FEC filing hinges on the management aspect - this is not the only angle, given that romney's remark is quite a bit more general than this, concerning involvement in any way. they entirely fail to address whether the SEC filing necessities themselves count against such a sweeping claim of detachment: this argument can only be disproven through trial. this is why they can not provide evidence against it - it is a question of whether apparent material fact would be sufficient for indictment (or conviction). this is not the same thing as providing evidence for whether or not romney was managing bain, which is what factcheck provides.

And yet we both know a trial is not going to happen, especially since it would absolutely destroy the Democratic party for years to come. As such right now all we can go with is FactCheck's evaluation that even the SEC documents do not provide enough information to fullfill the claim, anything more is just speculation on your part and not warrant of debate.

it is certainly the case that some people considered the validity of obama's candidacy to be a primary issue on which they would decide their vote. you dismiss this notion far too easily given the prevalence and attention provided to birtherism during the election - it was essentially The Media Topic for the entire summer of 2008, with scores of articles and hours of television coverage.

Yet as one would note, people do not pay attention to the political election until after the summer ends. Furthermore the media never did a indepth analysis on the topic, mainly because Obama refused to release his birth certificate or answer questions about it. To say the public was informed during a time when they pay little attention to it, and little information was discovered is ludicrous.

but while not everyone would care about obama's citizenship, or consider it to be wholly persuasive for their election day choice, it did sway the choices of some - perhaps "a small minority of people [who] actually went full retard", but people with voting rights nonetheless. if the romney-perjury connection were to remain ongoing throughout the summer, we can expect at least the same sort of fringe effect - capturing it is not an unwise strategy.

Doubtful, those willing to latch on to Obama's Citizenship beliefs already have a deeply held distrust of him, from conspiracy theorists, to some one who have a axe to grind such as Hillary Voters, to angry Republican voters. In other words people who would not vote for Obama already, to say it did any noticeable effect on undecideds, especially when the economy was the prevailing issue, and John McCain refused to even hint at the birth certificate as a issue, is again ludicrous.

secondly, for those outside this most affected group, the characterization contributes to an attack on the romney persona. certainly one's feeling about the candidates is an often cited reason for one's electoral choices (ex. voting for the person they like the most). thus, we see an analogy between otherized-obama and deceitful-romney. we can not rely on a kind of economic determinism alone when projecting voter choice. the issue of persuasion and choice is not so simple as this - and people are not nearly this rational on the whole.

Except that is a two way street, Obama playing hard ball, diminishes his images as well, Romney looks like the victim here, while Obama who in 2008 established himself as a non partisan candidate who would not take cheap shots and was above the fray is now pulling himself down into the political muck. For voters who voted for Obama in the belief he was a different kind of politician, this sort of low ball tactic comes off entirely as disenfranchising.

finally, i am not sure that the claim of a democratic party perception of the losing this battle is evident. web and tv ads on the subject are bring released en masse, as we have seen in the last 24 hours:

it is clear that they are going to remain focused on this messaging strategy for the time being. we can consider this result from the recent poll out of fox news from 7/15 to 7/17:

Do you think Mitt Romney is honest and trustworthy, or not? 
		Yes 	No 	(Don’t know) 
15-17 Jul 12 	46% 	43 	11 

Do you think “Honest” describes Romney, or not? 
		Yes, it does 	No, it doesn’t 	(Don’t know) 
5-7 Dec 11 	54% 		36 		11

thus, it is evident that the recent salvo has been fairly effective. consider that 'honesty' is necessarily a fairly important aspect of one's political persona - any value judgements on policy proposals of any sort, including those relating to the economic sphere, will be contingent on whether or not people actually think that such proposals are truthfully intended.

That is a rather ignorant conclusion, look at the dates of your poll, Dec 11th was before the voting for the Primary began and when things heated up. To think that he would not take a hit in a brutal primary battle is stupid. To try to tie it to recent events with out providing polling proof from the previous weeks is even more stupid.

Finally lets look at what really matters.

CBS/NYT Poll
Romney vs Obama, 
Romney leads 47-46 among Registered Voters. 

Obama's economic approval rating
April: 45%
Now: 39%

Obama's current approval rating: 44%

Romney's Favorable/Unfavorable
Favorable: 32%
Unfavorable: 36%

Obama's Unfavorable/Favorable
Favorable: 36%
Unfavorable: 48%

Does Romney's Experience at Bain Capital make you more likely or less likely to vote for him
More Likely: 14% 
Less Likely: 23%
No Effect: 60%
Don't Know 3%

Obama has released over 100 million dollars of attack ads, with as you note groups like Move On joining in the fray. Yet Romney now leads by a 1% margin, furthermore Obama's Favorable/Unfavorable percentage is far higher than Romney's. So for all those attack ads, all that money being spent. It not only is not moving the needle in overall polling, but Obama still has a higher Favorable/Unfavorable percentage. And to top it off, 60% of the public DOES NOT GIVE A DAMN

And Romney has not even unleashed his barrage of ads yet.

[kurai]

all along it has been provided that the election will decide the validity of the claim, rather than a trial. you repeatedly confound the SEC and FEC documents - factcheck does not provide evidence fully accounting for the problems found in the latter. this runs parallel to romney's recent remarks defending himself explicitly using claims of non-management, but as with the factcheck analysis, this does not address the concerns about non-involvement.

some mistaken conceptions about the 2008 have arisen, though - you will probably find that obama did release birth certificate evidence in the middle of the summer as a result of media pressure. but there is a fundamental logical problem developing here: a dismissive approach to the voter decision as an ongoing process, shaped by discursive evidence as it unfolds, is incompatible with a citation of recent polling (or polling in general). it is nonsensical to suggest that polling could provide valid evidence of opinion transitions while downplaying the idea that people pay attention to ongoing events and that this has an effect on their choices.

to argue otherwise would set the entire field of marketing as actually invalid. the fact that romney holds a lead in spite of a mass of advertising does not indicate that it is meaningless, but that it has only had an effect on the rate of change. this is surely a troubling notion for the obama campaign, but only one which warrants additional efforts.

regardless, an interesting conclusion can readily be drawn from the 'honesty' polling. further investigation would reveal that does provide indication of a shift in perceptions consequent to one such effort:

Do you think Barack Obama is honest and trustworthy, or not?
		Yes	No	(Don't know)
15-17 Jul 12	51	46	4

Do you think “Honest” describes Obama, or not? 
		Yes, it does	No, it doesn’t	(Don’t know) 
5-7 Dec 11	57%		40	3

we can easily observe a parallel in the presence of a fall, and yet through this subject we find a control for "a brutal primary battle" by its absence. the perception of honesty in romney has fallen a greater degree in the latest polling. it is unfortunate that the contrast is not directly with recent weeks (but we can not do anything about non-existent data); the important part is that the polling examines the temperature of the moment. recent events are tied to recent polls through virtue of the linear nature of time.

we conclude with "a look at what really matters" through some polling data; yet is this not "[trying] to tie it to recent events with out providing polling proof from the previous weeks"? you are making a claim about favorables without such information. obama's unfavorables have been hovering between 40 and 50% for the last three years. what is the causal factor and its timeframe?

additionally, it is probably not a useful argument that 60% of people do not care about an issue when 40% of them evidently do. constant discussion of an issue necessarily grants it importance - it becomes worth caring about. a campaign wants this transition to happen in favor of their interests rather than against them.

[Roy Karrde]

all along it has been provided that the election will decide the validity of the claim, rather than a trial. you repeatedly confound the SEC and FEC documents - factcheck does not provide evidence fully accounting for the problems found in the latter. this runs parallel to romney's recent remarks defending himself explicitly using claims of non-management, but as with the factcheck analysis, this does not address the concerns about non-involvement.

Factcheck acknowledges the FEC problem as noted in the quote, they also seem to believe that the SEC documents do not rise to the level given. As again noted in the quote, and I would think they would include non involvement as they make quite clear the evidence is not enough, mind you, you are suggesting that the lawyers and skilled members of FactCheck did not consider this. Furthermore they do not need to post indepth run down on every conspiracy theory spawned from this, the article is meant as a run down. Unless you want to become a mindreader or provide proof stating otherwise, you have no where left to go.

some mistaken conceptions about the 2008 have arisen, though - you will probably find that obama did release birth certificate evidence in the middle of the summer as a result of media pressure.

Not enough to settle questions, something you surely should know.

but there is a fundamental logical problem developing here: a dismissive approach to the voter decision as an ongoing process, shaped by discursive evidence as it unfolds, is incompatible with a citation of recent polling (or polling in general). it is nonsensical to suggest that polling could provide valid evidence of opinion transitions while downplaying the idea that people pay attention to ongoing events and that this has an effect on their choices.

It is a known political fact that people tune out the elections during the summer, I am surprised you do not know this. It is typical for people to focus on vacations or relaxing than paying heavy attention to the daily ins and outs of political races. So far you have provided no proof to the contray, infact your proof seems to back me up as even though there has been millions upon millions of dollars of negative material launched at Romney from the Obama Campaign, it has not even made a dent.

to argue otherwise would set the entire field of marketing as actually invalid. the fact that romney holds a lead in spite of a mass of advertising does not indicate that it is meaningless, but that it has only had an effect on the rate of change. this is surely a troubling notion for the obama campaign, but only one which warrants additional efforts.

If we look at the polling from the same organization, we will find that their last in April the two were tied, now Romney is ahead by one, you will find poll after poll reflecting the same thing. Advertising during Summer Months just does not move the needle or people are tuning Obama out, take your pick.

regardless, an interesting conclusion can readily be drawn from the 'honesty' polling. further investigation would reveal that does provide indication of a shift in perceptions consequent to one such effort:

Do you think Barack Obama is honest and trustworthy, or not?
		Yes	No	(Don't know)
15-17 Jul 12	51	46	4

Do you think “Honest” describes Obama, or not? 
		Yes, it does	No, it doesn’t	(Don’t know) 
5-7 Dec 11	57%		40	3

we can easily observe a parallel in the presence of a fall, and yet through this subject we find a control for "a brutal primary battle" by its absence. the perception of honesty in romney has fallen a greater degree in the latest polling. it is unfortunate that the contrast is not directly with recent weeks (but we can not do anything about non-existent data); the important part is that the polling examines the temperature of the moment. recent events are tied to recent polls through virtue of the linear nature of time.

Again you ignore that the Primary Battle focused less on Obama and more on the candidates tearing each other down, with a split Republican party you are likely to have those that favor one candidate see another in a negative light ( same goes with independents who are tuning in ), furthermore since Obama is already a known commodity, unlike say Romney, one would say his trustworthiness was already baked in. Here is some free advice, fine some polling from the last few weeks, do not rely on polling from such large parts between eachother, as I am only making you look even more foolish.

we conclude with "a look at what really matters" through some polling data; yet is this not "[trying] to tie it to recent events with out providing polling proof from the previous weeks"? you are making a claim about favorables without such information. obama's unfavorables have been hovering between 40 and 50% for the last three years. what is the causal factor and its timeframe?

Unfavorables Yes, Favorables No. Obama's Unfavorables have dropped rapidly through out the last few months. For example in April Obama's Favorables were at 42, with 45 Unfavorable, a -3 percent difference. Between then and now, that number has dropped to a -12 percent difference. And unlike your poll, the only two things that have largely changed between then and now, is a drop in the economy, and a increase in Obama going negative. And while as I have stated people tend to tune out ads and attacks during the summer, Obama's negativity in and of itself is pretty well known by now, something that could potentially hit his ratings.

additionally, it is probably not a useful argument that 60% of people do not care about an issue when 40% of them evidently do. constant discussion of an issue necessarily grants it importance - it becomes worth caring about. a campaign wants this transition to happen in favor of their interests rather than against them.

Except of those that care of the issue, not all are uniformly see it as a unfavorable thing. Note that 14% see Romney's experience at Bain as a plus, only 23% see it as a negative, thus the attacks right now have only effected a total of 23% of the populous, one has to wonder how many of those are part of the Democratic Party already.

[kurai]

Factcheck acknowledges the FEC problem as noted in the quote, they also seem to believe that the SEC documents do not rise to the level given. As again noted in the quote, and I would think they would include non involvement as they make quite clear the evidence is not enough, mind you, you are suggesting that the lawyers and skilled members of FactCheck did not consider this. Furthermore they do not need to post indepth run down on every conspiracy theory spawned from this, the article is meant as a run down. Unless you want to become a mindreader or provide proof stating otherwise, you have no where left to go.

one can not presume that factcheck meant to cover things which were not explicitly stated. the entire point is that they do not provide an in-depth analysis, focusing instead solely on the management aspect. they do not cover that which they can not disprove outside a trial setting - they could not make any truth claims about involvement beyond their management parameters, because they have no evidence of how other involvement would be received.

It is a known political fact that people tune out the elections during the summer, I am surprised you do not know this. It is typical for people to focus on vacations or relaxing than paying heavy attention to the daily ins and outs of political races. So far you have provided no proof to the contray, infact your proof seems to back me up as even though there has been millions upon millions of dollars of negative material launched at Romney from the Obama Campaign, it has not even made a dent.

If we look at the polling from the same organization, we will find that their last in April the two were tied, now Romney is ahead by one, you will find poll after poll reflecting the same thing. Advertising during Summer Months just does not move the needle or people are tuning Obama out, take your pick.

how do you know that obama would not be doing much worse in the polling without the advertising campaign, given worsening/failing to improve economic conditions (or whatever other metric we can point to)?

you are taking it as a given that people are not paying attention and not responsive, but it is evident that preferences on the whole are not stable (as indicated by polling), and that both current events and current campaigning are ongoing (by necessity). looking at aggregate polling, preferences are not remaining stable, but at best are operating cyclically - only the distance between the choices is narrowing as a trend over the last weeks. consider:



the fact that people find the post-primary/pre-nomination season to be more boring than the more direct antagonism found on either side of it does not indicate that marketing efforts in the meantime have no effect. people often remark that the summer is slow, but this is reflective of the pre-PAC advertising, pre-24 hour news cycle. quite to the contrary - this is the season for brand definition and the shaping and trial of long-term strategy.

consider also, the summer of 2008, in which 1-7 point flux runs throughout:



or even the summer of 2004, wherein we find vast swings during the season with trend at all until the fall:



thus, contrary to the common adage that no one cares for politics during summer: people do not merely "focus on vacations", but actually are influenced substantially by ongoing campaigning and events.

Unfavorables Yes, Favorables No. Obama's Unfavorables have dropped rapidly through out the last few months. For example in April Obama's Favorables were at 42, with 45 Unfavorable, a -3 percent difference. Between then and now, that number has dropped to a -12 percent difference. And unlike your poll, the only two things that have largely changed between then and now, is a drop in the economy, and a increase in Obama going negative. And while as I have stated people tend to tune out ads and attacks during the summer, Obama's negativity in and of itself is pretty well known by now, something that could potentially hit his ratings.

you provide for a problematic development in the transition from a -3 to a -12 differential, attributing causality to recent conditions. but as stated, this has been an extremely variable measure for years:

FOX News			7/15 - 7/17	901 RV	52	46	+6
CBS News/NY Times		7/11 - 7/16	942 RV	36	48	-12
McClatchy/Marist		7/9 - 7/11	849 RV	49	46	+3
Quinnipiac			7/1 - 7/8	2722 RV	45	48	-3
CNN/Opinion Research		6/28 - 7/1	1390 RV	54	45	+9
Newsweek/Daily Beast		6/28 - 6/28	600 LV	51	47	+4
Bloomberg			6/15 - 6/18	1002 A	55	42	+13
Pew Research			6/7 - 6/17	1563 RV	50	48	+2
Monmouth/SurveyUSA/Braun	6/4 - 6/6	1152 LV	45	43	+2
FOX News			6/3 - 6/5	907 RV	54	42	+12
Gallup				6/1 - 6/4	2069 A	52	43	+9
CNN/Opinion Research		5/29 - 5/31	1009 A	56	42	+14
ABC News/Wash Post		5/23 - 5/27	RV	49	48	+1
FOX News			5/13 - 5/15	913 RV	52	44	+8
USA Today/Gallup		5/10 - 5/13	1012 A	52	46	+6
Associated Press/GfK		5/3 - 5/7	1004 A	58	38	+20
Resurgent Republic (R)		4/30 - 5/3	1000 RV	50	45	+5
FOX News			4/22 - 4/24	915 RV	50	48	+2
CBS News/NY Times		4/13 - 4/17	957 A	42	45	-3
CNN/Opinion Research		4/13 - 4/15	1015 A	56	42	+14
Quinnipiac			4/11 - 4/17	2577 RV	45	49	-4
ABC News/Wash Post		4/11 - 4/15	1009 A	56	40	+16
CNN/Opinion Research		3/24 - 3/25	1014 A	56	42	+14
ABC News/Wash Post		3/21 - 3/25	1016 A	53	43	+10
McClatchy/Marist		3/20 - 3/22	846 RV	50	46	+4
FOX News			3/10 - 3/12	912 RV	50	47	+3
Bloomberg			3/8 - 3/11	1002 A	52	45	+7
CBS News/NY Times		3/7 - 3/11	878 RV	41	41	Tie
Pew Research			3/7 - 3/11	1503 A	56	41	+15
ABC News/Wash Post		2/22 - 2/26	1011 A	51	45	+6
Politico/GWU/Battleground	2/19 - 2/22	1000 LV	54	42	+12
Associated Press/GfK		2/16 - 2/20	1000 A	57	42	+15
USA Today/Gallup		2/16 - 2/19	1014 A	50	48	+2
Quinnipiac			2/14 - 2/20	2605 RV	47	48	-1
CNN/Opinion Research		2/10 - 2/13	1026 A	53	45	+8
CBS News/NY Times		2/8 - 2/13	1604 RV	45	41	+4
Pew Research			2/8 - 2/12	1501 A	54	42	+12
ABC News/Wash Post		1/18 - 1/22	1009 A	53	43	+10
CBS News/NY Times		1/12 - 1/17	1021 RV	38	45	-7
Pew Research			1/11 - 1/16	1502 A	51	45	+6
FOX News			1/12 - 1/14	906 RV	51	46	+5
CNN/Opinion Research		1/11 - 1/12	1021 A	49	49	Tie
Associated Press/GfK		12/8 - 12/12	1000 A	53	46	+7
ABC News/Wash Post		12/7 - 12/11	1012 A	48	49	-1
Pew Research			11/9 - 11/14	2001 A	52	45	+7
McClatchy/Marist		11/8 - 11/10	872 RV	47	49	-2
Resurgent Republic (R)		10/30 - 11/2	1000 RV	51	45	+6
Quinnipiac			10/25 - 10/31	2294 RV	49	46	+3
FOX News			10/23 - 10/25	904 RV	48	48	Tie
Associated Press/GfK		10/13 - 10/17	1000 A	54	44	+10
CNN/Opinion Research		9/23 - 9/25	1010 A	53	45	+8
ABC News/Wash Post		9/14 - 9/18	1013 A	47	46	+1
CBS News/NY Times		9/10 - 9/15	1452 A	39	42	-3
McClatchy/Marist		9/13 - 9/14	825 RV	46	48	-2
Bloomberg			9/9 - 9/12	997 A	50	47	+3
Politico/GWU/Battleground	8/28 - 9/1	1000 LV	49	46	+3
Resurgent Republic (R)		8/28 - 8/31	1000 RV	50	47	+3
Quinnipiac			8/16 - 8/27	2730 RV	47	47	Tie
Associated Press/GfK		8/18 - 8/22	1000 A	54	45	+9
FOX News			8/7 - 8/9	904 RV	48	47	+1
McClatchy/Marist		8/2 - 8/4	807 RV	52	41	+11
McClatchy/Marist		6/15 - 6/23	801 RV	50	44	+6
Associated Press/GfK		6/16 - 6/20	1001 A	56	43	+13
Associated Press/GfK		5/5 - 5/9	1001 A	63	36	+27
FOX News			4/25 - 4/27	911 RV	53	44	+9
ABC News/Wash Post		4/14 - 4/17	1001 A	52	45	+7
McClatchy/Marist		4/10 - 4/14	1084 A	48	48	Tie
Associated Press/GfK		3/24 - 3/28	1001 A	59	39	+20
Bloomberg			3/4 - 3/7	1001 A	55	41	+14
Resurgent Republic (R)		3/1 - 3/3	1000 RV	49	47	+2
FOX News			1/18 - 1/19	900 RV	56	40	+16
CBS News/NY Times		1/15 - 1/19	1036 A	40	34	+6
McClatchy/Marist		1/6 - 1/10	827 RV	53	40	+13
Associated Press/GfK		1/5 - 1/10	1001 A	59	40	+19
Bloomberg			12/4 - 12/7	1000 A	52	44	+8
Reuters/Ipsos			12/2 - 12/5	1028 A	55	43	+12
Pew Research			12/1 - 12/5	1500 A	54	43	+11
McClatchy/Marist		11/15 - 11/18	810 RV	47	49	-2
Associated Press/GfK		11/3 - 11/8	1000 A	55	44	+11
CNN/Opinion Research		10/27 - 10/30	1006 A	48	48	Tie
FOX News			10/26 - 10/28	1200 RV	47	48	-1
CBS News/NY Times		10/21 - 10/26	1173 A	40	36	+4
Associated Press/GfK		10/13 - 10/18	1000 A	57	43	+14
CBS News/NY Times		10/1 - 10/5	1000 A	42	39	+3
McClatchy/Marist		9/30 - 10/5	829 RV	50	47	+3
Democracy Corps (D)		10/2 - 10/4	816 LV	45	44	+1
McClatchy/Marist		9/14 - 9/16	815 RV	49	48	+1
Associated Press/GfK		9/8 - 9/13	1000 A	57	42	+15
Politico/GWU/Battleground	9/7 - 9/9	1000 LV	53	44	+9
Quinnipiac			8/31 - 9/7	1907 RV	47	45	+2
Pew Research			8/25 - 9/6	3509 A	53	43	+10
FOX News			9/1 - 9/2	900 RV	50	46	+4
Democracy Corps (D)		8/30 - 9/2	1002 LV	44	43	+1
Associated Press/GfK		8/11 - 8/16	1007 A	56	43	+13
Democracy Corps (D)		7/26 - 7/29	1000 LV	46	43	+3
Quinnipiac			7/13 - 7/19	2181 RV	49	45	+4
Bloomberg			7/9 - 7/12	1004 A	55	40	+15
Gallup				7/8 - 7/11	1020 A	52	44	+8
FOX News			6/29 - 6/30	900 RV	52	44	+8
Marist				6/17 - 6/24	813 RV	50	43	+7
Resurgent Republic (R)		6/20 - 6/23	1000 RV	49	45	+4
Democracy Corps (D)		6/19 - 6/22	1016 LV	49	40	+9
Associated Press/GfK		6/9 - 6/14	1000 A	59	40	+19

we can observe sweeping changes on a very frequent basis without a sole appeal to 'the economy/Obama going negative' - they can not be presented as isolated factors. regardless, "obama's negativity in and of itself" is not available as a causal argument. a thing-of-itself is not empirical and not subject to observation - either the negativity is influential through a direct manner found in reality (ie. ongoing campaigning), or you must alternately make a claim based on the Platonic ideal of Negative-Obama.

Except of those that care of the issue, not all are uniformly see it as a unfavorable thing. Note that 14% see Romney's experience at Bain as a plus, only 23% see it as a negative, thus the attacks right now have only effected a total of 23% of the populous, one has to wonder how many of those are part of the Democratic Party already.

continued emphasis on bain experience leads to increased importance of this issue. if voter preferences are splitting 23-14 against romney presently, his campaign absolutely does not want the other 60% to split in the same fashion while focus remains on the issue moving forwards. thus, they either have to hope that the issue drops, or counter it in a persuasive manner.

but anyway, since "one has to wonder how many of those are part of the Democratic Party already", we can look to the exact same poll and find out:

q55. Does Mitt Romney's experience as head of the private equity firm, Bain Capital, make you more likely to vote for him, less likely to vote for him, or doesn't it affect howyou will vote one way or another?

** REGISTERED VOTERS ***** 

Party ID	Total	Rep	Dem	Ind
		% 	%	% 	%
More likely 	14 	29 	2 	13
Less likely 	23 	5 	39 	22
No effect 	60 	63 	55 	62

it appears that independents split almost exactly in accordance with the overall breakdown. it is notable that the 'Rep less likely' preference is double the 'Dem more likely'... it does not seem to be a particularly good issue on which romney can hope to capture swing-inclined or independent voters.

[Roy Karrde]

one can not presume that factcheck meant to cover things which were not explicitly stated. the entire point is that they do not provide an in-depth analysis, focusing instead solely on the management aspect. they do not cover that which they can not disprove outside a trial setting - they could not make any truth claims about involvement beyond their management parameters, because they have no evidence of how other involvement would be received.

FactCheck explicitly stated they covered both the SEC and the FEC documents, are you honestly telling me that they did not put two and two together? Are you honestly going that low? Furthermore since we do not have a trial setting, and since we can only work with the documents we have with us, we can only go by the analysis of seasoned pros like FactCheck. Now are you honestly going to say that in all of their due diligence looking over the FEC and SEC documents for a crime, that they did not ONCE consider that Mitt Romney signing the SEC documents, was a violation of the FEC documents?

Furthermore when talking about the possibility of a FEC Felony, they say this.

"Much of the Obama campaign’s letter is devoted to quoting portions of documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In summary, the letter states there are “at least 63 filings with that agency after March 1, 1999 that list various Bain entities and describe them as ‘wholly owned by W. Mitt Romney.’” That’s true, but not relevant.

We have never disputed that Romney remained the owner of Bain while he was running the Olympics committee. The issue always has been, who was running Bain? Nothing in the SEC documents contradicts what Romney has certified as true."

That would include the SEC documents in question. End of Story.

how do you know that obama would not be doing much worse in the polling without the advertising campaign, given worsening/failing to improve economic conditions (or whatever other metric we can point to)?

Because as noted, people do not care about the Bain attacks, only a tiny 20+% minority see it as a issue not to vote against Romney. As such we can largely extrapolate the belief that the ads have done very little to nothing to change the minds of the public at large.

you are taking it as a given that people are not paying attention and not responsive, but it is evident that preferences on the whole are not stable (as indicated by polling), and that both current events and current campaigning are ongoing (by necessity). looking at aggregate polling, preferences are not remaining stable, but at best are operating cyclically - only the distance between the choices is narrowing as a trend over the last weeks. consider:



the fact that people find the post-primary/pre-nomination season to be more boring than the more direct antagonism found on either side of it does not indicate that marketing efforts in the meantime have no effect. people often remark that the summer is slow, but this is reflective of the pre-PAC advertising, pre-24 hour news cycle. quite to the contrary - this is the season for brand definition and the shaping and trial of long-term strategy.

You will notice that those polls all fall into the MOE of 3 points or more from May onward, one could surmise that much of the change could just be normal fluctuation of polling back and forth through the MOE.

consider also, the summer of 2008, in which 1-7 point flux runs throughout:



or even the summer of 2004, wherein we find vast swings during the season with trend at all until the fall:

And again you will notice that the polling remained largely within the MOE until the fall in 2004 and outside a short discreprency in June in 2008 the same remains the same.

thus, contrary to the common adage that no one cares for politics during summer: people do not merely "focus on vacations", but actually are influenced substantially by ongoing campaigning and events.

That would show a rather ignorant view of your own polls, look at the largest jump in 2004, right after the convention in which Bush took momentum which except for a dip in October largely carried him to the convention. The same could be said for Obama, in which people did not largely make up their minds until the beginning of the economic crisis.

you provide for a problematic development in the transition from a -3 to a -12 differential, attributing causality to recent conditions. but as stated, this has been an extremely variable measure for years:

we can observe sweeping changes on a very frequent basis without a sole appeal to 'the economy/Obama going negative' - they can not be presented as isolated factors. regardless, "obama's negativity in and of itself" is not available as a causal argument. a thing-of-itself is not empirical and not subject to observation - either the negativity is influential through a direct manner found in reality (ie. ongoing campaigning), or you must alternately make a claim based on the Platonic ideal of Negative-Obama.

Well first your poll is a utter mess as it is a missmash of various organizations. So to put it in more context I painstakingly broke it apart, now if we are going to assume a sweeping change is anything of a 10 point jump in any direction from one poll to the next of the same organization, lets look at how many of these "frequent changes" appear shall we?

FOX News 1/18 - 1/19 900 RV 56 40 +16
FOX News 10/26 - 10/28 1200 RV 47 48 -1

CBS News/NY Times 7/11 - 7/16 942 RV 36 48 -12
CBS News/NY Times 4/13 - 4/17 957 A 42 45 -3

McClatchy/Marist 11/8 - 11/10 872 RV 47 49 -2
McClatchy/Marist 8/2 - 8/4 807 RV 52 41 +11

CNN/Opinion Research 3/24 - 3/25 1014 A 56 42 +14
CNN/Opinion Research 1/11 - 1/12 1021 A 49 49 Tie

Pew Research 6/7 - 6/17 1563 RV 50 48 +2
Pew Research 3/7 - 3/11 1503 A 56 41 +15

Associated Press/GfK 6/16 - 6/20 1001 A 56 43 +13
Associated Press/GfK 5/5 - 5/9 1001 A 63 36 +27

That is what? Five wild swings? Two of which are correlated together ( Pew and CBS ) meaning outside of the events between Late March/Early April and now, there has been a total of three "sweeping changes" swings, discount the Bin Laden bump from the Associated Press/GFK, and you are down to two. Suddenly I do not see so many mega swings as we have observed in the Pew and CBS poll from the last few months.

continued emphasis on bain experience leads to increased importance of this issue. if voter preferences are splitting 23-14 against romney presently, his campaign absolutely does not want the other 60% to split in the same fashion while focus remains on the issue moving forwards. thus, they either have to hope that the issue drops, or counter it in a persuasive manner.

That is under the false assumption that the public even gives a damn. As I quote from the Boston Globe and Andy Smith of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center.

"“I think the big reason it isn’t is the only people who are paying attention are either hard-core Democrats or hard-core Republicans and others who haven’t decided aren’t paying attention right now,” said Andy Smith of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center.

“I don’t think the effort was designed to sway voters so much as it was a way to get the Democratic base motivated again,” Smith added. “To give them something to be angry about again.”"

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/col...tions_dwindle/

That 23-14 split ( Running dangerously close to the +6 dem advantage of the poll ). Is largely that of the hard-cores. After a month of attack, if it is not moving the needle away from that 60%, there is very little anything else were, especially since most of the largest charges against Romney from Bain have already been leveled.

Mind you focusing on the issue =/= importance, that is beyond idiotic

If the public has made up their mind that they do not care about Bain then no matter how much Obama focuses on it, those numbers wont change. Furthermore it may de-emphesize the importance of the issue as the public begins to say "Fine, we heard that, now talk to us about the issue that is effecting our lives."

You also neglect one big thing, Romney right now leads Obama on who will do better with the economy. While Obama is pandering to the hard left, Romney has been focusing on the economy. Seeing how the public largely cares more about the economy than Bain, it only further reinforces the image that Obama has nothing to run on, and Obama does not care about the economy.

but anyway, since "one has to wonder how many of those are part of the Democratic Party already", we can look to the exact same poll and find out:

q55. Does Mitt Romney's experience as head of the private equity firm, Bain Capital, make you more likely to vote for him, less likely to vote for him, or doesn't it affect howyou will vote one way or another?

** REGISTERED VOTERS ***** 

Party ID	Total	Rep	Dem	Ind
		% 	%	% 	%
More likely 	14 	29 	2 	13
Less likely 	23 	5 	39 	22
No effect 	60 	63 	55 	62

it appears that independents split almost exactly in accordance with the overall breakdown. it is notable that the 'Rep less likely' preference is double the 'Dem more likely'... it does not seem to be a particularly good issue on which romney can hope to capture swing-inclined or independent voters.

You will also notice that nearly three times as many independents do not care on the issue, as are likely to vote against Romney on it. Furthermore the Dems seem far more likely to care about it than Independents.

Also note that Romney is not focusing on Bain, Obama's team is, so by your own logic: "it does not seem to be a particularly good issue on which Obama can hope to capture swing-inclined or independent voters"

[Heald]

Romney visits the UK, gets intelligence briefing from MI6

So Romney visited the UK and met with both the opposition leader of the socialist party, Ed Miliband (who Romney hilariously forgot the name of) and our Prime Minister David Cameron. Romney and Cameron appeared to have a detailed and thorough conversation and Romney was also given a briefing on the situation in Syria by the head of British Intelligence. It is unheard of for someone who is not a head of state to receive such a briefing.

This would indicate Romney is looking to thaw relations between the UK and the US, should be win in November, considering the current frosty relationship the countries share due to the actions of Obama and Hillary Clinton. The actions taken by David Cameron, to give him attention usually reserved for a prominent head of state, would seem to indicate that he sees Romney's victory as a high enough possibility to warrant taken pre-emptive measures to ensure their relationship begins on solid ground.

[Dark Sage]

Yeah, Heald, I'm sure that everyone in Great Britain loves Mr. Romney NOW.

Same for a lot of people in Israel. He's making a lot of friends there too.

[Sarcasm].

[Heald]

He came across very badly in both the UK and Israel. I can't speak for Israel but in the UK, Republicans generally get a bad press thanks to the idiocy that was Dubya's presidency. Still, the fact that the UK gave him such a reception in the first place would indicate our government takes the chance of him winning the presidency rather seriously. Romney made a series of gaffes over a span of 2 or 3 days. Obama has been making gaffes in relation to the UK for the past 4 years. At the end of the day, the general view in the UK is that Americans generally are rather ignorant, so we've learnt to put up with the gaffes over the last few decades. Actions, on the other hand, tend to lead to more serious thoughts on Presidents. We despise Bush for bullying our spineless Prime Minister into a pointless and costly war, both in terms of the human and financial cost, and likewise Obama's actions in office have indicated that he does not consider the UK an ally, or at least one of any real importance.

[Dark Sage]

Why? Because he's siding with Argentina over the Falkland Island issue?

I have news for you, Heald, most Americans, myself included, don't even CARE about that, if they've even heard about it.

Let me spell Romney's situation out for you in plain English:

1) The election is not being held today, tomorrow, or the day after the Republican or Democratic conventions. It's in November.

Polls and gaffs today are meaningless, and only provide the necessary fodder for pundits to endlessly flap their lips and speculate.

2) Romney STILL hasn't dealt with his tax return issue, and its only going to get worse, especially in light of the revelations of Senate Majority leader Harry Reid yesterday. Romney did not do a thing to deny it. And to those who talk about "unfounded rumors and lies", I have two words for you:

Birth Certificate.

3) There have been no debates yet, and everyone knows (even the GOP) that the President will mop the floor with Romney.

The GOP has Romney right where they want him; on the fast track to defeat. They aren't giving him any support, and want him to fail fair and square, so he'll never run for elected office again.

So, Heald... did you find THAT entertaining enough for you?

While I'm at it, I think I'll list some more lies that have been spread about Mr. Obama, just to show how low the GOP has sunk.

(This list is by no-means complete):

President Obama nominated Elena Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court as a reward for her help in getting nine challenges to his eligibility dismissed.
...
Photographs show Michelle Obama with Princess Letizia and Carla Bruni-Sarkozy.

President Obama's November 2010 trip to India cost U.S. taxpayers $200 million per day.

Video clips show Barack Obama acknowledging that he is not a natural-born U.S. citizen.

President Obama stopped wearing his wedding ring and wristwatch in observance of Ramadan.

The Obamas were "snubbed" and were purposely not invited to the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was fired for revealing that First Lady Michelle Obama is pregnant.

The Pigford v. Glickman lawsuit settlement paid out more than $1.25 billion, much of it to fraudulent claimants.

Barack Obama uses a Social Security number belonging to man born in 1890.

The world is full of so many dishonest people...

[Heald]

I merged your double posts.

Also, it's not just about the Falklands thing, Obama has done at least a dozen notable things to piss off the British.

I'm also not saying that what the British think of Romney and Obama is going to make any difference because it will not. All I was saying is that the British government appears to consider the chance of a Romney win big enough to entertain him as if he was a visiting head of state. If they felt he had no realistic chance of winning then they wouldn't have bothered rolling out the red carpet (metaphorically speaking).

I don't really particularly care how the race is going over that side of the pond. Both candidates are pretty shitty to be honest. I've always said that Obama will probably win, I was just making a note that it was interesting that the UK government decided to devote time to Romney, considering we have a lot on our plate at the moment.

[ChobiChibi]

Who had their money on 2 weeks?

[Dark Sage]

Who had their money on 2 weeks?

No-one. The only bet made was by Bear, who said five hours.

And if you folks think this is going to be entertaining, think again. I'm going to make this as un-entertaining as possible.

If any of you want to eat popcorn while politics are discussed, I say, choke on it.

[ChobiChibi]

Wow, someone can't take a joke...

What's funny is how aggressive you already are from three posts. Seriously. What's got you so wound up?

[Heald]

If any of you want to eat popcorn while politics are discussed, I say, choke on it.

[Roy Karrde]

Same for a lot of people in Israel. He's making a lot of friends there too.

May I ask why people in Israel wouldn't love him? He said Jerusalem is their capital and spoke highly of their culture.

2) Romney STILL hasn't dealt with his tax return issue, and its only going to get worse, especially in light of the revelations of Senate Majority leader Harry Reid yesterday. Romney did not do a thing to deny it. And to those who talk about "unfounded rumors and lies", I have two words for you:

Birth Certificate.

Here is what Reid said

“He didn’t pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain,” said Reid. “But obviously he can’t release those tax returns. How would it look?

Reid is a disgusting bastard, and yes there is no proof to this, but hey if you want to say Reid is a disgusting birther, be my guess.

3) There have been no debates yet, and everyone knows (even the GOP) that the President will mop the floor with Romney.

This.. the same President who last time he stepped away from a teleprompter, engaged in a gaff so stupid that he spent weeks having to respond to it, and it is still hurting him terribly?

The GOP has Romney right where they want him; on the fast track to defeat. They aren't giving him any support, and want him to fail fair and square, so he'll never run for elected office again.

Yeah that is why Romney is having to cut ads explaining how to donate to him, oh wait that is Obama!

The world is full of so many dishonest people...

Yeah one of them is the Senate Majority leader

[Dark Sage]

Did I ever tell you how stupid I think the whole think with My Little Pony is?

No, I don't have any animosity towards a cartoon that little girls watch, I simply think that the fad of using it to mock people is stupid.

By the way, another thing I heard about Romney that Roy might like to look at:

http://mittromneywearingjeans.tumblr.com/

I may have made a mistake about the Mormon view of the death penalty, but I do know that soda is a big no-no for for them. Romney may have a lot of explaining to do.

[Heald]

[Roy Karrde]

By the way, another thing I heard about Romney that Roy might like to look at:

http://mittromneywearingjeans.tumblr.com/

Cute but no where close to OBAMA AND HIS MOM JEANS!



Jeans so tight you can slice cheese off of them!

I may have made a mistake about the Mormon view of the death penalty, but I do know that soda is a big no-no for for them. Romney may have a lot of explaining to do.

While it is not a technical violation of the Word of Wisdom, Latter-day Saints are encouraged by Church leaders to avoid caffeinated drinks.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/d...ealth/cola.htm

[Dark Sage]

Go to Hell, Heald.

Hello again, Roy.

Btw, did you look at Romney's tax plan?

* Romney's tax plan cuts 20 percent for all income groups


* Those making over $1 million benefit most under plan


* Romney hasn't spelled out how to fund tax cuts

Not the best plan, IMOHO.

[Roy Karrde]

Hello again, Roy.

Btw, did you look at Romney's tax plan?

* Romney's tax plan cuts 20 percent for all income groups


* Those making over $1 million benefit most under plan


* Romney hasn't spelled out how to fund tax cuts

Not the best plan, IMOHO.

As opposed to Obama's, you know, raise taxes in a recession/depression.

[Dark Sage]

Obama's plan, the one that the Senate approved (which by some miracle, the Senate GOP didn't block) ends the Bush tax cuts for everyone except those earning over $250,000 a year.

The House plan will end them for everyone.

Which will likely mean that neither will pass, which will be very bad news for the GOP, as they will be saying "drop dead" to the middle class.

And we are NOT in a depression.

[Roy Karrde]

Obama's plan, the one that the Senate approved (which by some miracle, the Senate GOP didn't block) ends the Bush tax cuts for everyone except those earning over $250,000 a year.

The House plan will end them for everyone.

Which will likely mean that neither will pass, which will be very bad news for the GOP, as they will be saying "drop dead" to the middle class.

The results of Obama's plan on the middle class including a loss in jobs and spending when those tax cuts expire are what really is going to be telling the Middle Class to "Drop Dead". I cannot understand how a President could be so stupid when it comes to tax issues and even go back on what he has said in the past. You are supposed to go toward the center the closer you get to the election, while Obama has swung further and further to the left.

And we are NOT in a depression.

By the numbers? No, but tell that to CNN Market Watch.

The Great Depression that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke claims to have averted has been part of the background radiation of our economy since at least 2008.

It’s just that like radiation — it’s invisible.

We’ve called it the recovery, the jobless recovery, the slogging recovery and more recently the fading recovery. We’ve measured modest growth in our nation’s gross domestic product to record that our so-called Great Recession ended in June 2009. And now we are saying that if this disappointing growth suddenly disappears, as currently feared, we will be in a new recession.

There is nothing more depressing than hearing about a new recession when you haven’t fully recovered from the last one. I take heart in suspecting that in a still-distant future, historians will look back with clarity and call this whole rotten period a depression.

The precise definition of a depression, of course, remains as debatable as anything else in the field of economics. By some definitions, it is a long-term slump in economic activity, often characterized by unusually high unemployment, a banking crisis, a sovereign-debt crisis, surprising bankruptcies and other horrible symptoms we can find in the headlines almost every day.

It is easy to avoid seeing all of these events as constituting a depression if you somehow have kept your livelihood intact all this time. But it’s important to remember that not everyone has to stand in a bread line during a depression.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the...ors_picks=true

The Great Depression had fits and starts, but in the end we view it as a whole and not parts.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, I'm not convinced that it's a depression unless I see bread lines and "Hoovervilles".

Of course, I guess they'd be called "Obamavilles" this time... If they existed at all.

Edit: Roy, do you know what the difference is between me and you?

You try to back up everything you say with statistics and links. It may be an intellectual approach, but it isn't always as accurate as you might imagine.

Me? I talk to real people. I listen in on internet chat rooms, message boards, on facebook, and any other public forum. I listen people with real opinions.

I don't need to look at polls to know that Mr. Obama is highly favored in New York... Nor do I need to look at them to know that Romney is highly favored in Texas. I hear what people say in both states, and the 48 other ones.

You can quote all the statistics and news articles you like. I talk to a few people who read those articles, and they wonder what the writers were thinking.

After all, it's hard to trust the media, nowadays. Nancy Grace is an example of a reporter I do NOT trust, and as I'm sure Heald knows, the British newspapers treated Amanda Knox horribly. When she was acquitted, one of them even got the verdict wrong, likely due to wishful thinking.

Thing is, the news rarely even reports the news any more. It's all editorial most of the time. That's why I was so deeply saddened when Mike Wallace died. He was one of the few reporters left from a time where they knew what their job was supposed to be...

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, I'm not convinced that it's a depression unless I see bread lines and "Hoovervilles".

Of course, I guess they'd be called "Obamavilles" this time... If they existed at all.

Well the breadlines would be food stamps now right? And we all know how much those have increased, as for Obamavilles. Just call the Occupy Wall Street.

Surprised you did not take the bait in what I said about Harry Reid, or Obama's stupidity in "You didn't build it" gaffe.

[Dark Sage]

Occupy Wall Street? That's yesterday's news.

And see above.

[Roy Karrde]

Honestly Dark Sage, even reporters in the past tended to sensationalize things and allow their bias to slip, they just were not called out on it and we took what they said as fact. One only has to look back at Walter Conkrite's declaring the Vietnam War a stalemate after Tet to see that.

Edit: Hell I would say reporters got away with ALOT worse back in the day than they ever would today.

Mike Wallace said that he would allow American Soldiers to be attacked if he was traveling with the North Vietnamese, so he could report it. That would never have been allowed today.

Walter Conkrite engaged in bugging campaign rooms, and even persuaded Kennedy to run secretly, so that he could get a exclusive with him afterwards.

[Dark Sage]

Yeah, well, he was still one of my idols... He had a few faults, but for the most part, he knew that the news was supposed to report fact... Not the claptrap you see today...

I still miss him...

[Roy Karrde]

John Stewart really really ripped Harry Reid.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewa...ible%E2%80%99/

Yeah, Harry Reid is really a stinking pathetic cunt, or as Stewart calls him "Two bit trash talking, Son of a Bitch".

[Blademaster]

If any of you want to eat popcorn while politics are discussed, I say, choke on it.

Funny enough, I actually WAS eating popcorn before I signed on to TPM a few minutes ago. Good thing I put it away or I might be dead right now.

Go to Hell, Heald.

How very Christian of you.

Did I ever tell you how stupid I think the whole think with My Little Pony is?

No, I don't have any animosity towards a cartoon that little girls watch, I simply think that the fad of using it to mock people is stupid.

Just so you know, oh intelligent one, that isn't the point of 'the whole think[sic] with My Little Pony' at all. If you really knew anything like you claimed:

Me? I talk to real people. I listen in on internet chat rooms, message boards, on facebook, and any other public forum.

...Then you'd know that 4chan, Reddit, and a metric fuckton of other sites have been sticking multipurpose memetic texts on pictures for years, of everything from movies to cartoons to photographs to crudely drawn MSPaint comics. Ponies have just become a commonly used medium common because little girls aren't the only ones watching it anymore.

Don't get me wrong. If you want to get on that soapbox that your generation just loves to stand on and pretend to have a clue about what you're talking about, I won't stop you: There's plenty of other people in this thread that'll remind you of how reality works in my stead. Just don't try to extend that pseudointellectual umbrella over our singing pastel-colored horses work, or I'll have to step in. And I'll do so with more than just a few snarky one-liners or grammar Nazisms, I can guarantee that.

(Spoiler:) Incidentally, I feel a bit bad being this stern with someone that seems to be trying to cope with a loss. How recently was this?

[Heald]

- gets unnecessarily aggressive when presented with facts
- posts nothing but hollow rhetoric
- makes up straw-men and then rages against them
- gets upset when people post pictures of ponies or people eating popcorn

Well done Dark Sage for providing us with so much comedy in this thread.

Anyway, Republicans are shit, Democrats are shit, Fox News is shit. Enjoy the next few months. Love and tolerance y'all.

[Dark Sage]

Fox News is shit.

THAT is something I can agree on.

[Heald]

THAT is something I can agree on.

I'll give you some credit, even apes flinging shit at each other at the zoo wouldn't lower themselves to take it seriously.

The rest of US network news isn't really that much better though, but at least none of them have ever gone to court to claim they have the constitutional right to lie and call it fact/news.

[Roy Karrde]

Well the manufacturing numbers are coming out, ahead of tomorrow's unemployment numbers and from the looks of it the economy will continue to be crap for the rest of the year.

New orders for U.S. factory goods unexpectedly fell in June, a fresh sign that the slowdown in the country’s manufacturing sector likely would stretch into the second half of the year. …

The trend in U.S. manufacturing has appeared softer and has added to concerns the economic recovery is losing steam. The decline in new orders in June likely means softer output down the road, which could weigh on economic growth.

Thursday’s report showed broad weakness across industries making everything from machinery and appliances to cars and electronics. New machinery orders dropped 2.1 percent and orders for motor vehicles and parts gave up 0.7.

The overall decline was tempered by a 14.2-percent increase in new orders for civilian aircraft. Outside transportation, orders were down 1.8 percent.

As the numbers continue to trend downward, signs pointing to a Obama loss in November grow greater.

Political scientist Douglas Hibbs looks at two factors when forecasting presidential elections: a) per capita real disposable personal income over the incumbent president’s term, and b) cumulative U.S. military fatalities in overseas conflicts.

And he’s predicting a near-landslide win for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama, with Obama losing by about as big a margin in 2012 as he won back in 2008. Under Hibbs Bread and Peace model, Romney wins 52.5% to Obama’s 47.5%.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, I looked over Hibbs' "Bread and Peace" model, and it is interesting (Hibbs is certainly an expert in mathematics) but it has one serious flaw.

Hibbs only takes Obama into account. His prediction does not include Romney in any way, shape, or form. It does not factor in anything that Romney has done, or any of his promises. (Or as I would say, the lack thereof.)

If the election was simply a choice between "Obama" and "Not Obama", maybe Hibbs would have something. But if he truly believes that Democrats, as bad off as they are, think that they'd rather have Romney as President, he is dead wrong.

And before you tell me that they'll stay home, please don't. I hear that all the time from GOTPers, only for responses to pour in by the dozens from Democrats saying that they'll prove such people wrong. Like I said, I go to places where I talk to real people.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, I looked over Hibbs' "Bread and Peace" model, and it is interesting (Hibbs is certainly an expert in mathematics) but it has one serious flaw.

Hibbs only takes Obama into account. His prediction does not include Romney in any way, shape, or form. It does not factor in anything that Romney has done, or any of his promises. (Or as I would say, the lack thereof.)

If the election was simply a choice between "Obama" and "Not Obama", maybe Hibbs would have something. But if he truly believes that Democrats, as bad off as they are, think that they'd rather have Romney as President, he is dead wrong.

And before you tell me that they'll stay home, please don't. I hear that all the time from GOTPers, only for responses to pour in by the dozens from Democrats saying that they'll prove such people wrong. Like I said, I go to places where I talk to real people.

Well you can hear that from "Dozens" of Democrats, but facts do not lie, and the facts right now are that Democratic enthusiasm is down to 38%, in the past two Presidential elections that enthusiasm was up in the 60s.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...-falls-sharply

Enthusiasm drives turn out, and with out it, people honestly do stay home.

Also if you may not have noticed this election may just be a referendum on Obama, which means in the end it is the Obama vs the Not Obama.

[Dark Sage]

The poll you quoted says that there's a drop in Democrats that are "more enthusiastic than usual". It doesn't say anything about a rise in Democrats who are less enthusiastic.

And you're doing it again. Relying on statistics and the media.

Let me tell you something, Roy. Statistics don't lie, but liars do use statistics. It's easy to make a poll go the way you want.

Let me give you an example. One infamous poll during the 1932 campaign predicted that Hoover would win re-election - by a landslide. No-one believed it, of course, and when F.D.R won hands-down, the magazine that took the poll insisted that it had done a thorough and honest poll.

Actually, they hadn't. The poll had been conducted by telephone, using car registration numbers to choose the participants. In 1932, the height of the Great Depression, nearly everyone who owned a car and a phone was rich, white, and a Republican.

Starting to see what I mean about how statistics don't lie, but liars do use statistics?

[Roy Karrde]

The poll you quoted says that there's a drop in Democrats that are "more enthusiastic than usual". It doesn't say anything about a rise in Democrats who are less enthusiastic.

And you're doing it again. Relying on statistics and the media.

Let me tell you something, Roy. Statistics don't lie, but liars do use statistics. It's easy to make a poll go the way you want.

Let me give you an example. One infamous poll during the 1932 campaign predicted that Hoover would win re-election - by a landslide. No-one believed it, of course, and when F.D.R won hands-down, the magazine that took the poll insisted that it had done a thorough and honest poll.

Actually, they hadn't. The poll had been conducted by telephone, using car registration numbers to choose the participants. In 1932, the height of the Great Depression, nearly everyone who owned a car and a phone was rich, white, and a Republican.

Starting to see what I mean about how statistics don't lie, but liars do use statistics?

Remember we have had a talk about how polls can be turned and used with specific demographics, but your example is a failed one here. The poll goes with just democrats, and then just Republicans, instead of combining them together as your 'infamous poll' does.

By the way I don't know if you are being serious or joking, but a rise in Democrats being "Less Enthusiastic than usual" means that they are less enthusiastic to go to the polls for Obama.

[Dark Sage]

No Roy, I'm not joking. I'm just amazed at how you still try to convince me with a bunch of statistics after I've already told you that I don't walk that route.

Honestly, do YOU ever actually talk to people?

Edit: Another thing Roy... I know a lot of folks who were around when Nixon won re-election by a landslide. Some of them still don't know how he won. They say things like, "I certianly don't know anyone who voted for him".

Well, I can think of many reasons why he won, but the point is... People like YOU are like those people, who simply can't see how the incumbent President could have a chance when he actually has a very GOOD chance.