2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[mr_pikachu]

That's another story which should be big news and which won't get any play in the mainstream media.

Here's an article that's at least garnered a (very low) headline on Google News. Apparently the Obama campaign's new advertisement, which shows NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell fact-checking the $5 trillion claim (among other debate claims made by both candidates), was devised without NBC's consent. NBC is asking the Obama campaign to cease using their footage, since they haven't given either side permission to do so.

The thing is, the Obama team still benefits from it. A lot of people saw the commercial itself, while comparatively few will see them getting called out over it. That's the same reason why I try to avoid paying any attention to campaign advertisements over the last few days of any election cycle: a candidate can pretty much say whatever he or she wants, and the polls will close long before any retraction can actually be compelled. By the time voters hear the "Oh, yeah, that was a complete lie" admission, they've already voted.

In any case, RealClearPolitics now has Obama's lead at 1.1%. The Rasmussen and Gallup polls taken after the debate both have the election tied, while Politico's Oct. 1-4 poll has Obama by 1%. Two of the remaining three polls that are still in the moving average, all of which ended on Sept. 30, give Obama a 3% edge; the third called it a tie at that point.

[Dark Sage]

It's just like Whitewater, Brian, it's something that the President's detractors are making a big deal about, only to find that no-one really cares.

[Roy Karrde]

Speaking of Obama's $5 Trillion dollar lie, the person who's original analysis that Obama is using to peddle their lie is now attacking Obama for misusing his words.

"I can’t tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work. It might be that they assume that Governor Romney wants to keep the taxes from the Affordable Care Act in place, despite the fact that the Governor has called for its complete repeal. The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral. "

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...an_653917.html

Meanwhile it seems like Voter Enthusiasm for Democrats is quickly falling off again...

A new POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Tracking Poll of likely voters shows ahead of Mitt Romney 49 percent to 48 percent nationally, a statistical tie and a percentage point closer than a week ago.

The head-to-head numbers have held remarkably steady through the past three weeks, but there’s been a notable shift of intensity from the Democrats to the Republicans since the party conventions over a month ago. Most of the poll’s calls were made before Romney’s strong performance at the first presidential debate in Denver.

Only 73 percent who support Obama say they are “extremely likely” to vote, compared to 86 percent who back Romney. Likewise, 84 percent of Republicans say they are extremely likely to vote, compared to 76 percent of Democrats.

Among those extremely likely to vote, Romney actually leads Obama 52 percent to 46 percent. That’s up from a 2-point lead last week. Obama led 50 percent to 47 percent among this group three weeks ago.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...122.html?hp=f2

Why this matters? Chuck Todd of NBC news pretty much makes the point

Well, it’s simply an enthusiasm gap. And we’re seeing it across the board. Look at here in this first one. 79% of Republicans call themselves extremely interested in this election. On a scale of one to ten, that means they said they’re a nine or a ten on interest in the election. 73% of Democrats.

Look at four years ago. It was a 13 point gap in favor of the Democrats. Let me go through some various voting groups. This is an important voting group. Seniors are an important voting group to Mitt Romney now. He leads them by about 10 points in our NBC Wall Street Journal poll. Look at this in engagement in the election. Four years ago was 81%, pretty higher. Even higher this time at 87%. And Romney’s doing better among seniors than McCain did.

Let me go to an important voting group for the president, young voters. Look at this engagement level: 52% now they call themselves, voters 18 to 34, call themselves extremely interested in this election. Four years ago it was 72%. That 20 gap. The president wins young voters by huge margins. He’s winning them by some 20-plus points. But if you don’t have this kind of enthusiasm, they’re not going to show up to the polls.

And then let me give you this last one here, because this is, I think, the most important one. And that’s Hispanics. The President’s winning Hispanics by 50 points. He hit the 70% mark. However, look at this in terms of interest in the election. 59% now, it was 77%. What does that mean? President got 65%, I believe, of Hispanics four years ago.

So even though he’s going to get more Hispanics, if less of them turn out, it’s a net zero. And yet, you look at Republican enthusiasm, up, senior enthusiasm, up. It’s a huge problem. And by the way, all of this, pre-debate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1946586.html

This looks to be a huge problem for Democrats, and if it doesn't change in the next few weeks.. Republicans will win decisively.

[Dark Sage]

You heard it here, folks. Roy has just quoted a news agency that he has, numerous times in the past, debunked as biased, now that it has printed a story that seems to favor the GOP.

Mr. Pikachu, I implore you, lock or delete this thread you started to end this run of blatant hypocrisy.

[Roy Karrde]

You heard it here, folks. Roy has just quoted a news agency that he has, numerous times in the past, debunked as biased, now that it has printed a story that seems to favor the GOP.

And what is that Huffington Post? I am merely using them because they had a transcript of what Chuck Todd said. Mind you, you are engaging in a Ad Hominem fallacy, just because they have been biased in the past does not mean this article is biased.

Mr. Pikachu, I implore you, lock or delete this thread you started to end this run of blatant hypocrisy.

The mods have ruled the thread stays open, give it up man.

[mattbcl]

I ping this subject every so often because the debate between conservative vs. liberal mindsets interests me, but I rarely speak up because I see a lot of vitriol happening between primarily the two of you, and I find that annoying. You keep it civil most of the time, which is good, and the way it ought to be, but sometimes your complaints step a bit out of bounds, and I think this is one of those times.

Sage, you've repeatedly asked for a shutdown of this thread, and it would seem to be for no other reason than you don't like what other people (read: Roy) have to say. On the other hand, I'm sure you've said a lot of things Roy hasn't liked one bit, yet I have not yet seen him ask for a lock on the subject (but I could just as easily be wrong and you may feel free to correct me on that in a most harsh manner, if you so desire). I very much doubt any mod is going to shut down a thread simply because someone says something one person finds to be objectionable (this thread wasn't shut down even after a number of rude remarks directed specifically at certain members of this site, which in fact, and not just in opinion, WERE objectionable). Besides, I thought politics was all about a combination of hypocrisy and using anecdotal evidence to support your own conclusions. So in that spirit, I honestly think you're better off seeking out a conservative site that carries an article describing why Obama has a better chance to win. I'm sure there's one out there somewhere.

In any case, closing this thread won't stop raging hypocrites from visiting and posting on this site. I should know. I'm one of them.

[ChobiChibi]

Only the misc mods, global mods and admins can lock threads here. As Mr Pikachu mods fanfic, you're asking the wrong person.

I hate politics... But you still have the option of ignoring this thread, like I have for the past few weeks. *toddles away*

[Asilynne]

Just weighing in on the fact that I was surprised Huffington Post, which is notoriously liberal (that actually feels like an understatement) would even post an article that made Obama look like he wasn't the end all be all of creation, let alone that he was in trouble. Rather than latch on to the one link he posted with a conservative site, consider huffington post. If THEY are willing to admit that Obama is in a bit of trouble, then you can pretty much be assured it isn't just a bias against Obama.

In fact I'll be surprised if the writer of that article isn't sacked considering how most of the articles on that site are ridiculously skewed in favor of Obama. He/she will probably be in trouble for posting it even though it happens to be true.

[Roy Karrde]

New if not even more disturbing facts from CBS, just like with the Huff Post I am merely using this site as the transcript

ATTKISSON: Do you feel like there was a disconnect between what you saw on the ground and what the State Dept. folks thought was going on in Libya?

WOOD: There was certainly no disconnect in our transfer of information to them. They were getting the information on the situation on the ground. We sent it up through State Dept. cables and I sent it up to the military side on the D.O.D. side. So, there was awareness of what the situation in Libya was about.

ATTKISSON: How did you get the word that your team would not be allowed to stay?

WOOD: We knew that was coming through the cables and the draft cables that were going back and forth. The requests were being modified to say ‘don’t even request for D.O.D. support’.

ATTKISSON: So State Dept. was telling the folks on the ground in Libya ‘don’t continue to ask for this help’?

WOOD: Correct.

http://www.therightscoop.com/cbs-new...Right+Scoop%29

[mr_pikachu]

I think everyone else pretty much said it for me... I'm not going to delete the thread I created over a year ago now that the event the thread is all about is just four weeks away. The Misc mods can make the call on whether or not the argument gets out of hand; they don't need me to do their job for them.

Anyway. The real reason I'm posting is that this is the first time since October 11 of last year that Romney is leading RealClearPolitics' nationwide poll average. (The race was tied just over a month ago, but Romney never actually moved into the lead then.)

Rasmussen's latest daily tracking poll has the race even, while Romney holds a 4% lead in the Pew Research poll and 2% leads in the Gallup and IBD surveys. Obama is up 1% according to Politico, and he leads by 3% in CNN's survey. Thus, Romney holds an average of an 0.7% lead.

The latter polls, it should be noted, are the most outdated of the bunch. CNN's poll, for instance, was taken from Sept. 28-30, so all of its responses were from before the fateful first debate. It's possible that this poll, as well as the Politico survey (collected Oct. 1-4), will follow the others in swinging toward Romney when they are updated next. This seems especially likely with the CNN poll, since they were also responsible for the Pew Research survey that has already swung toward Romney.

In short, Obama needs to make some kind of move to get back in the election. A stronger second debate might do just that, provided that the first impression he made last Wednesday doesn't linger in voters' minds. If you follow the Intrade "market" on the election, most are still betting on Obama winning a second term, but the odds they've given Romney almost doubled in the past week. That shift shows no signs of stopping in the near future, signaling dwindling confidence in Obama's ability to shut down his Republican challenger.

On a side note, I'm totally getting oversampled in these political polls. I got another call yesterday afternoon, which took up a fair bit of my time. The real concern was that the lady was barely able to speak English, so I never was able to make out several of her questions. She also incorrectly recorded at least one of my responses, which I only know because she asked a follow-up question that made no sense given my response. (I corrected her, and I presume that she fixed her mistake, but it still makes you wonder how many other improper responses might be skewing some of these polls.)

[Roy Karrde]

You are lucky Mr. Pikachu, here in Texas we are not getting sampled at all.

By the way the Daily Mail said they believe they have found out why Obama lost the debate.

"The Democrat said that Obama's inner circle was dismayed at the 'disaster' and that he believed the central problem was that the President was so disdainful of Romney that he didn't believe he needed to engage with him.

'President Obama made it clear he wanted to be doing anything else - anything - but debate prep,' the Democrat said. 'He kept breaking off whenever he got the opportunity and never really focused on the event.

The Democrat, who is aligned with the Obama campaign and has been an unofficial adviser on occasions, said that David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, was stunned that the President left the stage feeling that he had won the debate."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ice-aides.html

The entire article is a pretty good if not scary read at how overconfident Obama was.

[Roy Karrde]

Alrighty guys tonight is the VP debate, I figured I would start it off with videos to get everyone ready and you guys can decide what you think will happen.

Here is the 2008 Vice Presidential debate for Biden



Biden came off as likeable in this one and did not hit too hard as he was going after Palin's charm.

Here is the 2010 clip of Ryan going after Obama



I choose that clip as it is the closest I can see of Ryan going directly after a President/Vice President

I believe Biden will come out hard tonight, he has been prepping for 4 weeks now, and he will obviously feel he needs to make up for Obama's shortcomings. That leads to the possibility he will overplay his hand and come off as a "Mean Old Guy" as opposed to the warm friendly Biden we saw in 2008.

[Dark Sage]

Palin has charm? That's a new one.

[Roy Karrde]

Palin has charm? That's a new one.

Umm dude that was one of the biggest positives anyone can name with Palin as she did have a certain amount of folksy charm that connected with people.

By the way I noticed you did not mention the House hearing yesterday on Benguazi.

[Dark Sage]

By the way I noticed you did not mention the House hearing yesterday on Benguazi.

I didn't care.

Edit: Tell you what, Roy, when Boehner grows enough of a spine to demand Clinton's resignation, THEN I'll care.

[Roy Karrde]

Edit: Tell you what, Roy, when Boehner grows enough of a spine to demand Clinton's resignation, THEN I'll care.

Why should it be up to Boehner, shouldn't it be Obama that demands it? Does Boehner have to do the President's job for him?

[Dark Sage]

Why should it be up to Boehner, shouldn't it be Obama that demands it? Does Boehner have to do the President's job for him?

Because the House is in charge of this investigation, and he's the House Speaker!

And off the record, IMOHO, because the House is looking for every reason to discredit the Obama Administration that they can possibly find.

Tell me, Roy, what role did Reagan play in punishing the ones involved in the Iran-Contra scandal? He was on vacation for most of the hearings, to make people think he wasn't concerned about it.

[Roy Karrde]

Because the House is in charge of this investigation, and he's the House Speaker!

And Hillary serves at the pleasure of the President, not the House.

And off the record, IMOHO, because the House is looking for every reason to discredit the Obama Administration that they can possibly find.

They do not need much, the Obama Administration is doing their best to discredit themselves in this.

Tell me, Roy, what role did Reagan play in punishing the ones involved in the Iran-Contra scandal? He was on vacation for most of the hearings, to make people think he wasn't concerned about it.

Reagan did not have to, a federal court judge punished Oliver North for his crimes at the end of the day. Should Hillary go to jail as well for this?

[Dark Sage]

No, she shouldn't, but if the House feels that the Obama Administration did something seriously wrong, they should appoint an independent prosecutor to find out what happened...

(Shakes my head.)

They won't do that, now will they? Why? Because they remember the complete disaster that happened the last time they tried to do something like that, which made the GOP a laughingstock. Not a mistake they're gonna make a seond time.

[Roy Karrde]

No, she shouldn't, but if the House feels that the Obama Administration did something seriously wrong, they should appoint an independent prosecutor to find out what happened...

(Shakes my head.)

They won't do that, now will they? Why? Because they remember the complete disaster that happened the last time they tried to do something like that, which made the GOP a laughingstock. Not a mistake they're gonna make a seond time.

How about the Obama Administration just take responsibility for their own actions? That they lied to the American people over and over again on TV, and they purposely had security levels lowered in the hopes of making Libya appear secure.

But Libya aside I believe we can both agree on that Obama's "Big Bird" attack reeks of desperation and patheticness.

[Dark Sage]

He's not the one who's planning to cut the funding to PBS, Roy.

What the heck did they ever do to him?

When I heard that Romney was planning to do it, it reminded me of old cartoons where villains wanted to fight the PTA. The difference is, those cartoons were funny.

[Roy Karrde]

He's not the one who's planning to cut the funding to PBS, Roy.

What the heck did they ever do to him?

You do realize that Big Bird and Sesame Street are worth more than Mitt Romney and that the money that they take in from Merchandise and Advertising deals could fund PBS all by itself with out either Government Help or Money Drive Marathons.

The thing is the President focusing on this stupidity while he is losing, only makes him look worse.

[Dark Sage]

Same thing with the Red Cross. Why don't you cut their funding too?

The point is, Roy, cutting the funding of a non-profit organization, whether it's successful or not, is not justified.

[Roy Karrde]

Same thing with the Red Cross. Why don't you cut their funding too?

The point is, Roy, cutting the funding of a non-profit organization, whether it's successful or not, is not justified.

It is when they can fund their own organization with the profits one of their programs make. How unserious the President is about even cutting PBS funding even though they would do fine on their own, just only amplifies how unserious this President is about the debt, and how pathetic he has come in knowing that right now he is losing the election.

Edit: It is worth pointing out Sesame Street and Big Bird are in the top 10 list of best selling entertainment franchises world wide.

[Dark Sage]

Odd. You once critised the President for making a joke about the Special Olympics, an event that tends to be televised on - guess where?

I'm sorry Roy, but when it's a choice between a charity organization and a politician who wants to cut its funding, I'm siding with the charity organization.

[Roy Karrde]

Odd. You once critised the President for making a joke about the Special Olympics an event that tends to be televised on - guess where?

I'm sorry Roy, but when it's a choice between a charity organization and a politician who wants to cut its funding, I'm siding with the charity organization.

Except the "Charity Organization" makes enough money to fund itself, something you refuse to address. Why should we continue to give the "Charity Organization" money when it is self sufficient? Can you answer me that?

[Dark Sage]

Again, I'll compare it to the Red Cross, which is also successful enough to support itself.

Should we cut it's funding too?

Just because it's successful doesn't mean we should penalize them.

And tell it to all the voters who are parents of five-year-old children who watch Sesame Street, a show that has been one of the most wholesome shows for children since even I was that age, one of the few genuinely educational shows for such children still around. They may have a different view of Romney's idea than you do.

[Roy Karrde]

Again, I'll compare it to the Red Cross, which is also successful enough to support itself.

Should we cut it's funding too?

Umm...

"Despite this close relationship with the federal government, the American Red Cross is not a federal agency, nor do we receive federal funding on a regular basis to carry out our services and programs. We receive our financial support from voluntary public contributions and from cost-recovery charges for some of our services, such as the provision of blood and blood products and health and safety training courses. Under limited circumstances, however, it sometimes becomes necessary for us to seek appropriations for certain programs when the funding requirements are beyond that supported by the charitable public."

http://www.redcross.org/about-us/his...ederal-charter

Just because it's successful doesn't mean we should penalize them.

How is that penalizing it? The Government helped them get successful through funds, and once they got there, they no longer need Government assistance. It would be like giving Welfare checks to some one who has gone from being poor to the middle class.

And tell it to all the voters who are parents of five-year-old children who watch Sesame Street, a show that has been one of the most wholesome shows for children since even I was that age, one of the few genuinely educational shows for such children still around. They may have a different view of Romney's idea than you do.

Except that has nothing to do with anything, Sesame Street is not going anywhere, it makes half a billion dollars alone! To act like taking Government funding away from it will suddenly cut off the program is pure dishonesty on your part.

[ChobiChibi]

Sat here watching Russell Howard's Good News.

Vermin Supreme for president! Free ponies for all Americans!

[Roy Karrde]

Sat here watching Russell Howard's Good News.

Vermin Supreme for president! Free ponies for all Americans!

He is awesome, I mean it takes alot of balls to walk around with a shoe on your head. Personally I want a President that scares the shit out of every other country in the world!

Also for more laughs, John Stewart is attacking Obama for the use of Big Bird and Sesame Street. He ends it perfectly: LET IT GO!!!!!!!!!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...gh-on-big-bird

[Dark Sage]

On a more serious note, here's something to consider going into the VP debate. I found this:

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/...nd-2008-palin/

Apparently, Palin's approval rating was actually better at this point in the 2008 campaign than Ryan's is right now.

And we all know what Palin's approval rating is now, seeing as she wasn't even invited to the RNC.

It's something to think about.

[Roy Karrde]

On a more serious note, here's something to consider going into the VP debate. I found this:

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/...nd-2008-palin/

Apparently, Palin's approval rating was actually better at this point in the 2008 campaign than Ryan's is right now.

And we all know what Palin's approval rating is now, seeing as she wasn't even invited to the RNC.

It's something to think about.

And? Palin was a charismatic unknown commodity that burst onto the scene. The Democrats have been trying to destroy Ryan for two years.

[kurai]

CHOOSE YOUR DESTINY



versus



2 hours remain...

[Dark Sage]

I'd like to tell Roy that I stand by what I said about PBS, and I am, in fact, adding this to prove my point:

Oh, and another thing... Seems the GOP screwed up with their investigation into the consolate attacks... Royally.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...2a7_story.html

[mr_pikachu]

In my view, Biden won this debate. The moderator started arguing back against Ryan in the second half of the debate (and did the same against Biden, but to a lesser extent), but Biden clearly overpowered Ryan for the first 45 minutes, consistently getting in the last word and making it look like Ryan was dancing around without actually responding to his challenges. Regardless of the moderator's influence during portions, Ryan clearly lost the periods in which the playing field was level.

I would guess that Biden also controlled most of the speaking time despite his complaints about not having equal time, largely due to the interruptions -- and that's a charge against Ryan for not standing up for himself in the debate forum. I don't think that Ryan was prepared for Biden's aggressiveness in this format. Much of the debate felt like the first Romney-Obama clash, but with Biden claiming the upper hand. Ryan's a smart guy, but he didn't show it tonight.

[Dark Sage]

I gotta agree with Brian.

Biden did something that no-one has yet done while speaking to Ryan. Stand up to him and call him out for the liar he is. Biden proved tonight that he will not take the crap that Ryan tries to give everyone.

[Roy Karrde]

I'd like to tell Roy that I stand by what I said about PBS,

Is that why you backed away and have not yet responded since the point about the Red Cross was torpedoed?

and I am, in fact, adding this to prove my point

Except that is as incorrect as saying that with out Government funding Sesame Street would fail. Romney was throwing out PBS as one example of programs that did not need the money because the moderator was a member of PBS. To act like it is the only thing Romney would cut is patently false.

I gotta agree with Brian.

Biden did something that no-one has yet done while speaking to Ryan. Stand up to him and call him out for the liar he is. Biden proved tonight that he will not take the crap that Ryan tries to give everyone.

But does that work well? Biden was acting like a smirking ass hole, Biden may have held his own on Ryan, but his demeanor was ugly and could very well come off as rude and a cranky old man debating a polite young man.

[mr_pikachu]

But does that work well? Biden was acting like a smirking ass hole, Biden may have held his own on Ryan, but his demeanor was ugly and could very well come off as rude and a cranky old man debating a polite young man.

I actually think it does, for two reasons. First, contrary to what we might like to believe, negative campaigns in general work. We keep seeing ads that bash the other candidate, in greater proportions year after year, because attacks on the opponent tend to be more effective than glowing commendations for oneself. It's a lot easier to win when you're on offense, scoring points against the opponent, rather than backing into a defensive corner.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, Ryan spent a substantial portion of the debate focusing on foreign policy. Specifically, he preached strength. Yet Biden overpowered him. It looks bad to argue that you're going to take a stronger stance in the international community, then allow your opponent to steamroll you. It makes it look like your claim of strength is invalid.

[Roy Karrde]

I actually think it does, for two reasons. First, contrary to what we might like to believe, negative campaigns in general work. We keep seeing ads that bash the other candidate, in greater proportions year after year, because attacks on the opponent tend to be more effective than glowing commendations for oneself. It's a lot easier to win when you're on offense, scoring points against the opponent, rather than backing into a defensive corner.

But usually in those attack ads they tend to avoid the face of the candidate that is putting them out and focus on their opponent. You don't have a split screen with one side being the ad, the other having Obama look like a smug bastard. Infact one could say those kind of camera pictures, of a candidate looking rude or smug, is something the opponents use.

Let me put up three examples

A: 2000, Al Gore frequently sighed audibly on air while Bush was talking, and in the Town Hall meeting, began walking up close to Bush. Now this may come off as being negative against your opponent as you suggest, but at the end of the day the public saw it as rude.

B: 1992 George H.W. Bush Sr. was caught checking his watch out of annoyance during a debate between Perot and Clinton. Again this type of attitude played horrible with the audience.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, Ryan spent a substantial portion of the debate focusing on foreign policy. Specifically, he preached strength. Yet Biden overpowered him. It looks bad to argue that you're going to take a stronger stance in the international community, then allow your opponent to steamroll you. It makes it look like your claim of strength is invalid.

And... what does that have to do with his demeanor?

[mr_pikachu]

Well, I'm speaking more toward Ryan's inability to make the point about the Obama-Biden ticket lacking strength, because in my view, Biden showed substantially more strength than Ryan tonight. I do think Biden started to look bad with some of the scoffing while Ryan was still speaking (a separate issue from the interruptions themselves). But while those were a minor black mark against Biden, Ryan's lack of force tonight rendered his "strength" argument impotent.

This is just my take on things, not really a statement of fact. I'm just calling it how I saw it, from my perspective.