2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[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.

[Roy Karrde]

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?

Yes I do talk to people, and if you cannot handle statistics or information why the hell are you even here? Polls play a major part of any political debate.

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.

Actually I would say you have a good chance of being one of those people, as looking at polls and information before hand would have probably told them Nixon was going to win ( Although I do not have that information right off the hand, so I am only guessing ).

Those who are unable to take it in more than likely lived in a cocoon talking to like minded people and basing their opinion like that. Sounds familiar?

[Dark Sage]

I do NOT "live in a cocoon"! Do you think I spend my whole life in front of this computer?

Here's something else to consider: Obama has history on his side.

Only five incumbent Presidents have lost re-election, and only one of those has been a Democrat.

I'll show you:

George H.W. Bush, Republican, lost to Bill Clinton in 1992.
Jimmy Carter, Democrat, lost to Ronald Reagan in 1980.
Gerald Ford, Republican, lost to Jimmy Carter in 1976.
Herbert Hoover, Republican, lost to Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932.
William Taft, Republican, lost to Woodrow Wilson in 1912.

All of these incumbents lost for VERY good reasons, reasons that are absent now. Romney does not have the charisma of Reagan or Clinton. He can't blame something as big as the Great Depression on Obama, the reason Hoover lost; Obama didn't pardon a guy who everyone wanted to see go to jail like Ford did. And seeing as the reason Taft lost was because Theodore Roosevelt was running as a third candidate, that option is out the window too.

Obama may have problems, but none that even comes close to the ones that these incumbents had in their re-election campaigns.

Romney needs a new way to accomplish this diffcult task, and he has less than 100 days to find one.

Edit: And by the way. The polls are indeed showing that Obama is going to win. The Electoral map shows him with 290 votes if the election were held today, compared to 190 for Romney, and he is leading slightly in all of the swing states.

[Roy Karrde]

I do NOT "live in a cocoon"! Do you think I spend my whole life in front of this computer?

Here's something else to consider: Obama has history on his side.

Only five incumbent Presidents have lost re-election, and only one of those has been a Democrat.

I'll show you:

George H.W. Bush, Republican, lost to Bill Clinton in 1992.
Jimmy Carter, Democrat, lost to Ronald Reagan in 1980.
Gerald Ford, Republican, lost to Jimmy Carter in 1976.
Herbert Hoover, Republican, lost to Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932.
William Taft, Republican, lost to Woodrow Wilson in 1912.

All of these incumbents lost for VERY good reasons, reasons that are absent now. Romney does not have the charisma of Reagan or Clinton. He can't blame something as big as the Great Depression on Obama, the reason Hoover lost; Obama didn't pardon a guy who everyone wanted to see go to jail like Ford did. And seeing as the reason Taft lost was because Theodore Roosevelt was running as a third candidate, that option is out the window too.

Obama may have problems, but none that even comes close to the ones that these incumbents had in their re-election campaigns.

Romney needs a new way to accomplish this diffcult task, and he has less than 100 days to find one.

If history is on Obama's side then Obama is going to lose. No modern President has won reelection with a economy above 7.6% unemployment. Further more when we look a consumer sentiment, Obama ranks incredably low on the chart compared to other Presidents who won reelection.



The same can be said for real disposable income.



If Obama has history on his side, that history says he will lose.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, never mind the fact that FDR was in office for twelve years with unemployment much higher than that. (I guess maybe you don't consider him a "modern President", even though many consider him the first "modern President".)

But I have better things to do, and I'm sick of looking at your dumb charts and graphs. They'll be good for nothing but toilet paper after November. So I'm just going to leave.

And if you even think about lying and say I'm running away from an arguement that I'm losing, my next message to you is going to be...

Well, let's just say you're going to see a side of me I don't like to show.