2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Dark Sage]

If there's a "smoking gun" that's been revealed on Fast and Furious, then the CBS Evening News would be reporting it, not Univision.

Univision, in case you didn't know, is a Spanish-speaking network whose audience is almost 100% Latino, a demographic that heavily supports the Democrats. If you want to hold onto false hopes that this special will sway the Latino vote towards Romney, be my guest.

Btw, Roy, here's an article that I want to show you folks who keep saying that the polls are skewed and don't matter:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion...0d52e5732.html

[Roy Karrde]

If there's a "smoking gun" that's been revealed on Fast and Furious, then the CBS Evening News would be reporting it, not Univision.

Because CBS Evening News is known for their indepth and highly funded operations in Mexico right?

Univision, in case you didn't know, is a Spanish-speaking network whose audience is almost 100% Latino, a demographic that heavily supports the Democrats. If you want to hold onto false hopes that this special will sway the Latino vote towards Romney, be my guest.

They do not have to be swayed toward Romney, they just do not have to vote.

Btw, Roy, here's an article that I want to show you folks who keep saying that the polls are skewed and don't matter:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion...0d52e5732.html

Here is the thing, polls are weighted to what is believed to be the result of election day, if not they are largely useless. Even the article hints that the polls will be reweighted the closer we get to election day as a kind of cover your ass. The reality is that anyone believing that the weighting of polls now that give Dems some kind of +8 or +9 advantage, is kidding themselves, as that will not happen at election day.

[mr_pikachu]

Roy, I agree with your overall point, except that all the polls use slightly different weighting schemes -- so unless there's a major systematic skew like the Bradley effect, something in the middle is probably accurate -- and right now Obama's winning all of them. There's room for debate about how large the lead is; personally, I'd put it around 3-4 points nationally.

This isn't the sort of insurmountable gap that McCain faced in the last weeks of the 2008 campaign, but if Romney wants any chance of winning, he needs to hit a home run at the debates. There's no room for an unconvincing showing like the rather scattered RNC program. There remain a lot of voters who remain unconvinced by either candidate, based on Obama's record over the last four years and Romney's ambiguous policies throughout the campaign. With that in mind, I'd say a clear victory in the debates could be enough to totally turn the tide, or to put the election completely out of reach.

[Dark Sage]

I was in a restaurant today after work taling to a friend of mine - let's call him Fred. I won't say what Fred does for a living, but he makes more money than I do.

Me: So... A guy on some chat room I go on says there's going to be a special on Univision tomorrow about Fast and Furious...

Fred: Uh, Fast and Furious.

Me: You know, Fast and Furious, the botched gun running sting operation?

Fred: Sorry, do you know where I can look this up?

Me: You know, what the House is after Holder for?

Fred: Oh, right, that...

Then he started talking about the Yankees game that was held today. And it's not that Fred doesn't care about politics, he's even more committed to getting his vote out than I am.

I'm not kidding, that's how the conversation went. What I'm getting at is, folks in the GOP think people care more about this than they do. They're trying to make this look like the Iran-Contra Scandal when it's not even as big as Whitewater.

[Roy Karrde]

I'm not kidding, that's how the conversation went. What I'm getting at is, folks in the GOP think people care more about this than they do. They're trying to make this look like the Iran-Contra Scandal when it's not even as big as Whitewater.

It is sad that he is so under informed about Fast and Furious.

However... a couple more images like this



And the blood running in the streets because of what they did, and suddenly it drives things home.

By the way that was from Univision's report tonight

[mr_pikachu]

It's definitely a tragedy, but I do think voters are going to be especially self-centered this election. I suspect that over the next five weeks, the vast majority are going to be concerned about a maximum of two issues:

1. The economy. Because food costs money, and people don't have money right now.

2. Obvious anti-American threats (Egypt, Libya, Iran, Yemen, etc.) and outright wars that could drag in U.S. troops (the Middle East and elsewhere).

My guess is that most voters will react to the Fast & Furious tragedy with a collective "meh." Even those who know about it are apt to say, "Sure, it was horrific, and yes, we contributed some of the firearms, but haven't we already given firearms to dictators, terrorists, and so forth a bunch of times? The guy on American Dad said so! That's just business as usual for the government."

And they'll go about their days and whine about how the regular NFL refs still aren't getting the calls right, just because that's an issue that's closer to home. If it didn't happen here, and if there's no chance of it immediately spilling over and becoming an American problem, then most voters simply aren't going to care. Perhaps that's a sad reality, but we've seen it again and again over the past several years. Most voters don't pay attention until the issue is literally in their backyard.

[Roy Karrde]

You are probably right, but honestly I do not view this in terms of merely election politics. These tragedies are the fault of those in office, and they should be held responsible.

[Dark Sage]

And in news put forth by the more legitamate press yesterday, two Americans were killed in a terrorist attack in Afganistan, bringing American casualties in that eleven-year conflict to exactly two-thousand.

But, because you GOTPers can find no way to blame Mr. Obama for it, you think that this special on Univision (which from the look of it, did not have the "smoking gun" you thought it would) was more important.

I agree with Brian. Most voters are going to look at Fast and Furious with a collective "Meh" and turn towards other issues. And most folks watching TV last night, Latinos included, were probably watching the season premiers of Revenge and Once Upon a Time and the series premier of 666 Park Avenue on ABC, not this special on Univision.

After all... Once Upon a Time hit 3.0 on Neilsen last night... Nothing on Univision even made it onto the chart.

By the way, take note:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll

Obama now has the 50% mark in the Rasmussen Report. And from this point on, ALL their polls will automatically include "leaners".

[Roy Karrde]

And in news put forth by the more legitamate press yesterday, two Americans were killed in a terrorist attack in Afganistan, bringing American casualties in that eleven-year conflict to exactly two-thousand.

Notice the press is not portraying it as a big deal as they did with Iraq. By the way how is Univision not legitimate press? Or do you still maintain that it has to be American press to be legitimate like you did with the British press?

But, because you GOTPers can find no way to blame Mr. Obama for it, you think that this special on Univision (which from the look of it, did not have the "smoking gun" you thought it would) was more important.

Actually they are both important

I agree with Brian. Most voters are going to look at Fast and Furious with a collective "Meh" and turn towards other issues. And most folks watching TV last night, Latinos included, were probably watching the season premiers of Revenge and Once Upon a Time and the series premier of 666 Park Avenue on ABC, not this special on Univision.

After all... Once Upon a Time hit 3.0 on Neilsen last night... Nothing on Univision even made it onto the chart.

You have the break down of Latinos then for it do you?

By the way, take note:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll

Obama now has the 50% mark in the Rasmussen Report. And from this point on, ALL their polls will automatically include "leaners".

Well if we are going for Rasmussen then this is also important from yesterday's Rasmussen poll:

43% of voters certain they will vote for Romney. 42% certain they will vote for Obama. Remaining 15% either uncommitted or open to changing mind....

Race is still a tossup.

[Dark Sage]

Well if we are going for Rasmussen then this is also important from yesterday's Rasmussen poll:

43% of voters certain they will vote for Romney. 42% certain they will vote for Obama. Remaining 15% either uncommitted or open to changing mind....

Race is still a tossup.

Can I see the link, please?

[Roy Karrde]

Can I see the link, please?

It is in yesterday's Rasmussen Presidential Daily Tracking Poll, yet part of it remains in the Google Search preview if you put in: 43% of voters certain they will vote for Romney. 42% certain they will vote for Obama. Remaining 15% either uncommitted or open to changing mind.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, I can't find it.

I gave you a link to my poll. I'm asking for something that you constantly demand every time I make a claim: proof.

[Asilynne]

Roy, I can't find it.

I gave you a link to my poll. I'm asking for something that you constantly demand every time I make a claim: proof.

It is in yesterday's Rasmussen Presidential Daily Tracking Poll, yet part of it remains in the Google Search preview if you put in: 43% of voters certain they will vote for Romney. 42% certain they will vote for Obama. Remaining 15% either uncommitted or open to changing mind.

https://www.google.com/search?q=43%2...ient=firefox-a

Look at the second link down You're welcome!

[Dark Sage]

Clicked on it.

It took me to the poll I linked to.

Apparently, Roy's poll is out of date, because it is no longer being posted on the site.

[Asilynne]

Clicked on it.

It took me to the poll I linked to.

Apparently, Roy's poll is out of date, because it is no longer being posted on the site.

....

It is in yesterday's Rasmussen Presidential Daily Tracking Poll, yet part of it remains in the Google Search preview if you put in: 43% of voters certain they will vote for Romney. 42% certain they will vote for Obama. Remaining 15% either uncommitted or open to changing mind.

I know you don't like Roy or anything he says but do try and pay attention, he was unable to link you directly because they don't keep each day's polls on their site so he told you where he got it from. Read the preview of the second link to see what the polls were like yesterday.

BTW, just like weighing yourself every day when you're trying to lose weight is a stupid idea, so is basing your arguments on checking the polls every day for a change, it will naturally fluctuate. You have to look at the big picture and the trends over time to see where its going, and even then something can always happen to change it >.>

[Dark Sage]

Roy just refuses to admit that the polls show that Obama is winning, and that he can't find a single nationwide or swing state poll that shows Romney with a lead. When confronted with the polls, he says that they're meaningless, although I'm sure that if they said Romney was winning, he'd treat them as holy documents.

He also refuses to acknowledge the update of the poll on Democrat voter enthusiasm as legit. He was beating me over the head with it in July, but now that the September version of the exact same poll shows a vast improvement in Democrat voter enthuiasm, it's suddenly not so legit.

Long story short, Roy seems to think that polls are only accurate when they're good news for his side, a typical opinion for the GOP.

[Asilynne]

Roy just refuses to admit that the polls show that Obama is winning, and that he can't find a single nationwide or swing state poll that shows Romney with a lead. When confronted with the polls, he says that they're meaningless, although I'm sure that if they said Romney was winning, he'd treat them as holy documents.

He also refuses to acknowledge the update of the poll on Democrat voter enthusiasm as legit. He was beating me over the head with it in July, but now that the September version of the exact same poll shows a vast improvement in Democrat voter enthuiasm, it's suddenly not so legit.

Long story short, Roy seems to think that polls are only accurate when they're good news for his side, a typical opinion for the GOP.

But, you both do that...

Personally I don't put much stock in polls simply for that reason, they are just tools for argument and change constantly.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy just refuses to admit that the polls show that Obama is winning, and that he can't find a single nationwide or swing state poll that shows Romney with a lead. When confronted with the polls, he says that they're meaningless, although I'm sure that if they said Romney was winning, he'd treat them as holy documents.

I freely admit Obama is leading in Gallup and is within the margin of error however due to how close it is, it largely does not matter, as Mr. Pikachu said it will be the debates that largely turn this.

He also refuses to acknowledge the update of the poll on Democrat voter enthusiasm as legit. He was beating me over the head with it in July, but now that the September version of the exact same poll shows a vast improvement in Democrat voter enthuiasm, it's suddenly not so legit.

Yet you fail to admit that vast improvement is largely based on a bubble from the convention, one that is already starting to fall.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/0...-independents/

Long story short, Roy seems to think that polls are only accurate when they're good news for his side, a typical opinion for the GOP.

Dude lower the whining.

[Dark Sage]

Let me explain how debates truly work...

First, no Presidential race has been truly decided by the Presidential debates. They are a critical factor in helping voters understand the candidates, but in the end, their impact has always been minimal with their main effect being to either reinforce or cast doubt on the current perceptions of the candidates. Certainly a poor performance by either candidate cannot help their cause and may even cause a slight erosion in support, but to say a great performance would somehow reverse the entire course of the campaign and erase an opponent's nine-point lead in the polls is a stretch beyond imagination. The most that Romney can hope for is to avoid making any major gaffes on his part, adequately defend his positions (which are ambiguous at best right now), and cast some realistic doubts about the President's policies. If successful, all that might chip away a point or two from the President's lead in the polls. Short of that, Mitt will see a continued erosion in his position (which, as I've said, is ambiguous). Thus the President is the one with the least to lose in these debate contests, and Romney has to do well just stop his downward slide.

And as I've said before, I will NOT read anything from Hotair.com

[Roy Karrde]

Let me explain how debates truly work...

First, no Presidential race has been truly decided by the Presidential debates. They are a critical factor in helping voters understand the candidates, but in the end, their impact has always been minimal with their main effect being to either reinforce or cast doubt on the current perceptions of the candidates. Certainly a poor performance by either candidate cannot help their cause and may even cause a slight erosion in support, but to say a great performance would somehow reverse the entire course of the campaign and erase an opponent's nine-point lead in the polls is a stretch beyond imagination. The most that Romney can hope for is to avoid making any major gaffes on his part, adequately defend his positions (which are ambiguous at best right now), and cast some realistic doubts about the President's policies. If successful, all that might chip away a point or two from the President's lead in the polls. Short of that, Mitt will see a continued erosion in his position (which, as I've said, is ambiguous). Thus the President is the one with the least to lose in these debate contests, and Romney has to do well just stop his downward slide.

You may want to ask Jimmy Carter about how much a President has to lose in debates, many attribute Reagan's "Are you better off" as largely helping him win a race he was losing at the moment. The same can also be said for Gerald Ford with his "There is no Soviet Domination in Eastern Europe". Or even Gore in 2000 with his snottiness to Bush.

And as I've said before, I will NOT read anything from Hotair.com

To paraphrase your previous post: Long story short, Dark Sage seems to think that news sites are only accurate when they're good news for his side, a typical opinion for the GOP.

[Dark Sage]

Hotair is a conservative website. If Mr. Obama said that the sky was blue, they'd find fault in it. Don't deny it.

[Roy Karrde]

Hotair is a conservative website. If Mr. Obama said that the sky was blue, they'd find fault in it. Don't deny it.

They are also referencing a Washington Post/Politico poll which found that Democratic Enthusiasm is now on the decline now that the convention bubble has popped. But Dark Sage, honestly I can only ask if you would please give weight to what is said on the site, and not strictly the site's politics. So far you have put down Hot Air, Univision, Fox News, and any British Newspaper with out any real cause. That is just poor debating.

[Dark Sage]

And you have put down much bigger, far more respected news agencies, including the CBS Evening News, CNN, and MSNBC, accusing them of bias.

I just read that link, and I note that they are also quoting PolitiFact, a website that you recently accused of being inaccurate and biased. Which is it, Roy? You can't have both.

[Roy Karrde]

And you have put down much bigger, far more respected news agencies, including the CBS Evening News, CNN, and MSNBC, accusing them of bias.

Yet I would ask for you to find examples in which I outright dismissed the information presented. Based solely on the site.

I just read that link, and I note that they are also quoting PolitiFact, a website that you recently accused of being inaccurate and biased. Which is it, Roy? You can't have both.

Here is the relevant text.

Democratic intensity has slipped slightly to 75 percent. A week before last, still in the afterglow of their convention, 81 percent of Democrats called themselves “extremely likely” to vote. Republican enthusiasm, meanwhile, held steady around 80 percent.

And you mind showing where the quote is from PolitiFact?

[Dark Sage]

I apologize. I was Politico.

That poll may, indeed, be accurate, but voter turnout may not be that high for either condidate. The turnout in the 2004 U.S. presidential election, wasn't that high for either Bush or Kerry; it was close to 60%. Even so, it resulted in a record number of popular votes for both candidates; despite losing the election, Kerry even surpassed Ronald Reagan's 1984 record in terms of the number of popular votes received.

The poll may show 80% for Republicans and 75% for Democrats, but that would be a stretch for either of them if it happened.

[Roy Karrde]

I apologize. I was Politico.

That poll may, indeed, be accurate, but voter turnout may not be that high for either condidate. The turnout in the 2004 U.S. presidential election, wasn't that high for either Bush or Kerry; it was close to 60%. Even so, it resulted in a record number of popular votes for both candidates; despite losing the election, Kerry even surpassed Ronald Reagan's 1984 record in terms of the number of popular votes received.

The poll may show 80% for Republicans and 75% for Democrats, but that would be a stretch for either of them if it happened.

Honestly I see voter turnout being ever so slightly higher on the Republican side than the Democrats if not them being largely even. Republicans have been aching to get rid of Obama ever since the Tea Party and Obamacare. The 2010 elections were a example of that with turnout even, but Republicans overwhelming winning. That is why polls in many of these swing states are so flawed by weighting Democrats with such high turn outs. There is no basis in reality for Democrats to have such higher turn out over Republicans in this election.

[Dark Sage]

2010 left us with the Worst Congress in History. (And I capitalized that on purpose.)

I rest my case.

[Roy Karrde]

2010 left us with the Worst Congress in History. (And I capitalized that on purpose.)

I rest my case.

Really? Worse than 1998 with the Clinton Impeachment? Worse than the whole Terri Schiavo case in 2005? Worse than the 1930s with the unwillingness to aid Europe against Nazi Germany? Worse than the 1850s and 1840s when we were at the verge of war with eachother? What honestly makes this Congress so much worse than any of those?

[Dark Sage]

Really? Worse than 1998 with the Clinton Impeachment? Worse than the whole Terri Schiavo case in 2005?

You just quoted two of the worst examples of the GOP's poor judgment and incompetance to govern in recent history. Ironic, isn't it?

Cases like that make you not want them running things, IMOHO.

[Roy Karrde]

You just quoted two of the worst examples of the GOP's poor judgment and incompetance to govern in recent history. Ironic, isn't it?

Yes and I could post many of the Democrats such as the 2008 - 2010 Congress which spent time on Obamacare and Cap and Trade as the economy burned, or how poorly the Democrats treated the Iraq war in 2006, or how Democrats ignored the warnings of the economy in 2003, but I was willing to be bipartisan.

Cases like that make you not want them running things, IMOHO.

And that is why the Republicans were voted out and essentially cleaned house between 2006 and 2010.

[Dark Sage]

Look Roy, I'm willing to admit that Washington is a veritable dungheap nowadays, and that both sides have very few redeemable qualities... But you have to remember that a lot of places have it worse off than we do.

Like I tell everyone who slanders Mr. Obama by claiming he's a tyrant and a Muslim, go to Iran if you want to know what a country run by tyranical Islam is like. It never fails to shut them up.

Basically, however, I think that the Democrats are the lesser evil in this mess. Mr. Obama has his faults, but we can't replace him with someone who may well be worse.

[Roy Karrde]

Basically, however, I think that the Democrats are the lesser evil in this mess. Mr. Obama has his faults, but we can't replace him with someone who may well be worse.

But we can replace him with some one who may well be better. Lets be honest Romney isn't the type that would spend time on Terri Schivo, and on the other hand Romney isn't the type that would spend time on Obamacare while the economy burns. Romney has shown through his pick with Ryan that he is willing to address the two biggest issues facing our country: Out of Control Debt, The failing of Medicare. Obama has shown no willingness to address either, that alone should be enough to get Obama out of office, ignoring the fact that he was a horrible President wishing to pass a wish list of Democratic programs over fixing the economy.

[Dark Sage]

So... Romney doesn't intend to cut taxes for the rich by raising them for the middle class?

Because that's the only way his plan will work... What we know about it, anyway.

Ryan said today that Romney's fiscal plan "would take too long" to explain.

Honestly, Ryan, I have nowhere to go.

Actually, I do, I have to go to work. But I'll be back tomorrow.

[Roy Karrde]

So... Romney doesn't intend to cut taxes for the rich by raising them for the middle class?

Because that's the only way his plan will work... What we know about it, anyway.

No Romney plan is to close tax deductions to pay for that. As Chris Christie explained to George Stephonopolis yesterday when he correctly said "Stop Lying Mr President".

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/0...-mr-president/

Ryan said today that Romney's fiscal plan "would take too long" to explain.

Honestly, Ryan, I have nowhere to go.

It probably would, Ryan is a policy wonk, some one who spends days getting into the nuts and bolts of things. For him to go into it would take time not only explaining it, but also explaining the fiscal math behind it that he has studied for decades.

[Dark Sage]

Chris Christie? I stopped listening to that loudmouth a long time ago. It's a mystery to me how he became governor of New Jersey in the first place.

[Heald]

On a related note, I just took a rather broad, 12 question test on a reputable news site, apparently I'm equally likely to vote for either Obama or Romney.

Apparently I agree with Obama on cutting the Defence budget and taxing the wealthy more, as well as not drilling for more oil in areas of environmental and natural importance.

However I agree with Romney that Iran's nuclear program needs to be stopped, that there should be no federal mandate to purchase health insurance and that there needs to be greater controls on the granting of citizenship to illegal immigrants.

I only agreed with each candidate on 40% of the issues, and given that there are a few issues both Obama and Romney agree on (at least according to the quiz) this indicates that there are quite a few issues I disagree with both candidates on.

Anyway I still think Obama is going to win, even though I don't particularly want an Obama win, but I don't really see Romney as a preferable alternative. I want to see Romney in the White House mainly to see what he would do differently.

[Asilynne]

On a related note, I just took a rather broad, 12 question test on a reputable news site, apparently I'm equally likely to vote for either Obama or Romney.

Apparently I agree with Obama on cutting the Defence budget and taxing the wealthy more, as well as not drilling for more oil in areas of environmental and natural importance.

However I agree with Romney that Iran's nuclear program needs to be stopped, that there should be no federal mandate to purchase health insurance and that there needs to be greater controls on the granting of citizenship to illegal immigrants.

I only agreed with each candidate on 40% of the issues, and given that there are a few issues both Obama and Romney agree on (at least according to the quiz) this indicates that there are quite a few issues I disagree with both candidates on.

Anyway I still think Obama is going to win, even though I don't particularly want an Obama win, but I don't really see Romney as a preferable alternative. I want to see Romney in the White House mainly to see what he would do differently.

Link? hehe ;D

Seriously though I want to take it too

[Heald]

Link? hehe ;D

Seriously though I want to take it too

Knock yourself out

Personally I don't think it's a particularly good indicator of who you actually want to vote for but it only takes 2 minutes to do which is a major plus.

[Blademaster]

My best matches are Jill Stein and Gary Johnson.

(Spoiler:) Who the fuck are Jill Stein and Gary Johnson?

[Roy Karrde]

CNN Money: White House telling Contractors to break the law, and will pay legal costs for doing so.

The White House on Friday told government contractors worried about fiscal cliff spending cuts to hold off on warning employees about possible layoffs.

The government said it would cover legal costs if contractors are forced to slash their payrolls because of the looming $109 billion in automatic cuts next year and are alleged to have violated the WARN Act.

The federal WARN Act requires businesses with more than 100 employees to notify workers at least 60 days in advance of a mass layoff or plant closing. Some states require more notice.

"Any resulting employee compensation costs for WARN Act liability as determined by a court, as well as attorneys' fees and other litigation costs (irrespective of litigation outcome) would qualify as allowable costs and be covered by the contracting agency, if otherwise reasonable and allocable," the Office of Management and Budget said in its guidance.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/28/news...iff/index.html

Congrats guys, the American Tax Payer will be paying for a company breaking the law, after being told to do so by the White House.