2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[DarkestLight]

This debate is debatable.

[Jeff]

We need to get more people in here so we can make it a mass debate.

[Blademaster]

Popcorn and soda are ready. Bring it on losers.

[DarkestLight]

lololol

[mr_pikachu]

Interesting debate tonight. It sounds like most commentators are giving a slight edge to Romney (for the record, I'm watching PBS). I had a similar impression of a slight advantage for him through the debate, but I thought it may have been because I tend more toward his policies, so I was going to call it even. But hey.

In any case, even if this debate was even, I think it benefits Romney more than Obama. A lot of voters were doubtful that he could be a legitimate option, and I would say that simply by looking presidential, on par with Obama, he restored some faith in his ability to be a realistic alternative to the sitting president. That might turn the tide in some of the polls that had trended against him, so maybe in that sense you could call it a Romney "win."

[Oslo]

The dig at Big Bird was just downright unnecessary. LEAVE BIG BIRD ALONE.

[Roy Karrde]

CBS is also saying Romney won, I do not know about the other networks as I could only listen to CBS radio on the way home. But I will say this, when you have to say "I think we should move on to the next topic" when your opponent is kicking your ass, and it is over the Economy of all things! It is not a good night for you. And honestly I think that "We should move on" line will be the take away line for tonight.

Edit: Here are some reactions from tonight

Bill Maher: i can't believe i'm saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter

Vanity Fair: Has Obama ever been this off his game?

Piers Morgan: I don't have a horse in this race, but Romney's romping home a clear winner tonight

Chris Mathews: What Romney was doing? He was WINNING

CBS News instapoll: 46% said Romney won. 22% said Obama won. 32% said tie. Decisive win for Romney.

Andrew Sullivan: Look: you know how much I love the guy, and you know how much of a high information viewer I am, and I can see the logic of some of Obama’s meandering, weak, professorial arguments. But this was a disaster for the president for the key people he needs to reach, and his effete, wonkish lectures may have jolted a lot of independents into giving Romney a second look

[DarkestLight]

o.O I'm so glad I didn't watch the debates. But now Facebook sucks :/

[Roy Karrde]

CNN's poll is in: Romney won 67% to 25%

Who seemed to be the stronger leader: Romney 58% Obama 37%

CBS Poll of Uncommitted: Opinion changed better for Romney: 56% Opinion changed better for Obama: 13%

[Asilynne]

o.O I'm so glad I didn't watch the debates. But now Facebook sucks :/

Thats why I deleted my facebook, I only made a new one for Ben's family since they are so far away, facebook SUCKS! lol

I wasn't able to watch it as I was sleeping before work, but from what I read on various news sites, Romney "went for the jugular". I've read that even democrats are admitting he won that debate. Romney got first blood, but the game isn't over yet, Tune in next time on political bloodbath 2012!

[Dark Sage]

I didn't watch it, like I said, and I guess from what the experts say, Romney did better. But from what I've heard from people who did see, the clear losers were anyone who did watch it.

Most everyone I know who did say they regret not watching something else, or that it was the most boring thing they've seen in the whole campaign.

I can't give an opinion because I didn't watch it (althought Romney himself seems to have no problem giving an opinion of something he doesn't watch), but Brian is more than likely right.

[Roy Karrde]

So the swing state newspapers are proclaiming Romney the winner, that seems to be tacking well with the vast majority of people that watched it. Now Axelrod is forced to beg reporters to question Romney because Obama just could not pull it through last night.

Edit: 58 million tuned in last night to see Obama get his ass kicked, more than in 2008

[Dark Sage]

Roy, before you celebrate, I just checked the daily Rasmussen Report and Gallup Poll.

In the latter poll, Romney is up one point.

That was the only change to be seen on either poll.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, before you celebrate, I just checked the daily Rasmussen Report and Gallup Poll.

In the latter poll, Romney is up one point.

That was the only change to be seen on either poll.

Umm dude, its been what 14 or 15 hours since the debate ended? Most people went to bed a hour or so afterwards, neither Rasmussen or Gallup are going to have polls that reflect what happened last night.

Edit: This is from Rasmussen's page today: It is important to note, however, that most of the interviews for this survey were conducted before last night’s first presidential debate between Obama and Romney.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, you amaze me...

Heald, take not... I did NOT do what you said both Roy and I would do, while Roy DID. I, in fact, admitted that Romney did better in the debate.

I'd like to add that there is no system that decides who "wins" a debate. You can say that whoever did the better job "won", it is only an honorary award. If the winner gains no real advantage, it is meaningless.

Just ask Kerry, who most pundits will say won all three of his debates with Bush. He was the winner then, but in the competition where there actually could be a true winner, he turned out to be a loser.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, you amaze me...

Thank you?

Heald, take not... I did NOT do what you said both Roy and I would do, while Roy DID. I, in fact, admitted that Romney did better in the debate.

Well to be fair man, even MSNBC is saying Romney did better in the debate.

I'd like to add that there is no system that decides who "wins" a debate. You can say that whoever did the better job "won", it is only an honorary award. If the winner gains no real advantage, it is meaningless.

Well if the snap polls are any indication last night then he did gain a advantage.

Just ask Kerry, who most pundits will say won all three of his debates with Bush. He was the winner then, but in the competition where there actually could be a true winner, he turned out to be a loser.

That is a rather incorrect interpretation of the Kerry debates. Kerry and Bush largely tied in the debates, and Kerry won because he was the challenger able to make himself stay on level with the President ( Debates are largely the first test to see a candidate positioned against the President ). Kerry did not do as good as Romney did last night, nor did Bush do as piss poor as Obama did last night.

[Dark Sage]

You like to say how "piss poor" Obama does, don't you?

I didn't use such a disrespectful term to describe how badly they did at the RNC, even though they clearly deserved it.

[MToolen]

Gentlemen, a different perspective.

I personally didn't watch the debate. I feel myself no worse for the (non)wear (I go to church on Wednesdays, and politics always leave me angry no matter who's talking, which is unnatural for me). But I did find this to be an interesting question: is it less of what Messrs. Obama and Romney said and more of how they said it?

[Heald]

Barack Obama is black.

Discuss.

[Roy Karrde]

You like to say how "piss poor" Obama does, don't you?

If the word fits...

I didn't use such a disrespectful term to describe how badly they did at the RNC, even though they clearly deserved it.

No it really did not, to put this in perspective, CNN today said that in their 32 years of polling Presidential Debates, they never had one seen this big as a lop sided victory. THAT alone should show you how bad Obama has done.

[Dark Sage]

Barack Obama is black.

Discuss.

That's the whole reason why lunatics like Orly Taitz make outrageous claims about his elligibilty, even though they refuse to admit it.

[Roy Karrde]

Here is a link to both the MSNBC and the Fox News focus groups, both of which say that Romney won. And it is worth noting that the Fox News focus group had a majority of 2008 Obama voters.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/0...ate-from-2008/

Watching the dials and how people reacted to the debate really is telling.

[Oslo]

I think Romney's victory speaks more to optics than a superior command of fact/rhetoric. I've always been a fan of Obama's reserved strength of presence; however, last night Romney presented himself with a kind of straight-talking practicality that was undeniably appealing. Moreover, he kept things in digestible terms.

Take Romney's plan to fix the economy, for example. He was smart to keep the phrase "five steps" in the audience's head even though "five areas of focus" would be infinitely more accurate. The phrase "five steps" implies linearity and sequentiality: by compartmentalizing messy, gargantuan and intersecting (perhaps interdependent?) projects into clean, straightforward and discrete steps, he makes the end goal sound already within reach. (I mean, how long could it take if we're only five steps away, right?) Nevermind that every "step" will have to be worked on concurrently (alinearly, in a non-step-like fashion) for the better part of the next decade... or that there are no clear benchmarks for success along the way (you can never cross a "step" off the list and move on)... or that Romney deliberately deemphasized particularities for the lion's share of debate. All Romney has to do is repeat the phrase "five steps" and none of that is gonna matter to the audience. Toss in an easy dig at China and how could the audience not eat that up?

Anyway, this is a minor example. I'm not saying Romney was misleading; he just knew how to speak a language the audience would recognize and appreciate.

[Telume]

As far as swing states go, I don't think Obama's gonna win here in Florida.

He's made too many enemies because of things he's said in the past and the grand majority down here are more concerned with the DREAM Act and Immigration reform.

Economy is a thing, but the fact of the matter is that a huge portion of the population is Hispanic here and sons/daughters/whatevers of immigrants.

Obama's what we've got so, we may as well stick with it.

Romney winning the debate is simply an opinion, they papers here were (surprisingly) neutral. Plus, there's 2 more debates so there's still plenty of time for Obama to take swings of his own.

Plus, are you sure this is what we want as prez?

[Dark Sage]

I should add that this debate has not made Obama's supports less enthusastic. Quite the opposute. It has done nothing but make Obama's supporters support him even more.

In the past twelve hours, I've seen no less than twelve online petitions with the same basic message for him: "Give Romney Hell!"

This sentiment is being echoed everywhere, in fact. I've seen it on the news and in online chatrooms.

[mr_pikachu]

Well, I wouldn't have expected Romney to suddenly have 90% of the vote after the debate, unless Obama sprouted horns and started shrieking "Death to America!" or something. Likewise for Obama suddenly swiping the majority of Romney's supporters. Neither party's base is going to jump ship that easily; the question is how this will affect swing voters (if at all). We should get a clearer answer to that question over the next few days.

On a side note, I've been getting a lot of calls from solicitors lately -- as well as debt collection calls for the guy who owned my cell phone number almost four years ago -- so lately I've taken to screening my calls. Over the past few days I've avoided answering quite a few calls from an unlisted "Private Caller," and I even willfully ignored the phone when I got three such calls yesterday alone. Today, within five minutes of walking in the door after teaching, "Private Caller" called again, so I decided to answer it just to get the solicitor off my back. It wasn't a solicitor, though; it was a pollster who had been trying to contact me for days, apparently.

It does make me wonder a little more about those polls... how many people are like me and just let the phone ring? Whose voices are silent in the phone polls?

[Dark Sage]

It does make me wonder a little more about those polls... how many people are like me and just let the phone ring? Whose voices are silent in the phone polls?

Probably a lot. I don't answer those calls either. In fact, I'm on the Do Not Call List.

[mr_pikachu]

I registered for the Do Not Call list over a year ago. It doesn't seem to have made a difference. Meh.

Anyway.

It seems like the public consensus is that Romney won the debate (and yes, I know there are dissenters; I'm talking about the majority here). Obviously Obama is going to be reworking his strategy for the second debate. But aside from trying to avoid playing defense for so long, what do you think he'll do differently to avoid losing two in a row?

I'm expecting him to try to play the experience game in terms of foreign policy ("I've dealt with these guys for four years, you've done it for zero days"), and to invoke the name "Bush" at least a dozen separate times. Osama bin Laden is also a key achievement that he's sure to use, and that's an item that Romney will have some trouble refuting. I don't think he can retort by saying the campaign was started by Bush, because that's exactly what Obama wants Romney to do: associate himself with George W. Bush.

As for the domestic side of debate #2, I'm honestly not sure about his gameplan. It seemed like he was trying to challenge Romney on various points last night but just couldn't get any traction, so maybe that's just an issue where assertiveness will really come into play. He definitely needs to drop the professorial tone, though... and this is coming from someone who's one dissertation away from being a professor, so read into that what you will. Romney's biggest gaffe this campaign was arguably the "47%" line, and Obama needs to use that against him. That's an area where Obama can try to create a rift between Romney and the voters. But as long as he sounds like he's giving a seminar, I don't think he can do that, because he'll be distancing himself from the voter base, too.

[Blademaster]

My popcorn got cold and my soda went flat.

Fuck all of you.

[MToolen]

My popcorn got cold and my soda went flat.

Fuck all of you.

I know flat soda's not the best, but I find cold popcorn to be just fine.

Oh right, politics. Uh... How 'bout them local sports teams? (Actually, Cards in the playoffs and Rams leading late on Arizona, so doing pretty well here in the STL)

[Roy Karrde]

I should add that this debate has not made Obama's supports less enthusastic. Quite the opposute. It has done nothing but make Obama's supporters support him even more.

In the past twelve hours, I've seen no less than twelve online petitions with the same basic message for him: "Give Romney Hell!"

This sentiment is being echoed everywhere, in fact. I've seen it on the news and in online chatrooms.

So the low what 22% that thought Obama won comes to rally around their fallen leader.

Good for them

But at the end of the day it does not matter about the wing nuts on MSNBC or in the online chat rooms, or on the twelve online petitions.

What matters is those tens of millions of independents that watched last night and saw the biggest difference between a strong candidate and a weak one since Kennedy v Nixon.

Edit: BTW the perfect picture for last night...

It does make me wonder a little more about those polls... how many people are like me and just let the phone ring? Whose voices are silent in the phone polls?

The pollsters are able to reach just 9% now.

I'm expecting him to try to play the experience game in terms of foreign policy ("I've dealt with these guys for four years, you've done it for zero days"), and to invoke the name "Bush" at least a dozen separate times. Osama bin Laden is also a key achievement that he's sure to use, and that's an item that Romney will have some trouble refuting. I don't think he can retort by saying the campaign was started by Bush, because that's exactly what Obama wants Romney to do: associate himself with George W. Bush.

Notice George W Bush was not mentioned last night, why? Because after 4 years Bush is seeing a uptick in the polls, and the last thing Obama wants is to associate his opponent with some one who is slowly growing more popular. Furthermore I doubt too many people would react favorably to Obama pulling out the old Bush card, especially when Romney's team no doubt has planned for that many times over.

But he can mention Osama Bin Laden. And Romney will congratulate him. Romney will then turn around and say something like "But Mr. President, there are four innocent Americans that also died under your watch, they trusted you to protect them in the Benguazi embassy, and you failed them sir." And suddenly any advantage Obama gets for Osama's death goes down the toilet.

Romney's biggest gaffe this campaign was arguably the "47%" line, and Obama needs to use that against him. That's an area where Obama can try to create a rift between Romney and the voters.

He can go there, and no doubt Romney's team is well prepared for it, but I am wondering if Obama's own team thinks that bringing that out will seem un presidential.

[ChobiChibi]

Surely the polls don't mean all that much if they only reach 9% of the people they attempted to contact?

A lot of this thread has had arguments based on polls, that's why I find it so amusing.

[Jeff]

Yeah, but if that 9% represents a fairly random sample then the results should be an accurate enough representation of the big picture. If there were research to suggest that Republicans are more likely to answer polls than Democrats, then we'd have a problem.

Yay, statistics!

[kurai]

there can be systematic bias in the representativeness of a given sample

but there are a few ways to counter this and validate the field of opinion polling/electoral prediction:

1) look at polling on the aggregate. is all polling incorrect? perhaps it is true that a certain kind of person will never answer the phone, but the expectation is that most kinds of people will eventually be part of the overall sample.

2) compare polling to actual results. historically, this can only be done subsequent to the actual election, but luckily there were just a long series of primaries and their attendant polls. let's look at that:


Clinton, Joshua D., and Steven Rogers. "Robo-Calls: Taking Cues From Traditional Sources?" Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions Working Paper 4-2012.

we can see a wide spread between different kinds of polls, performed by different institutions, and as occurring over time. some polling operations are just terrible, but accuracy tightens up significantly in the 2 days before the actual event. you might notice that the actual absolute polling error tended to pool around the typical figure for reported margin of error, between 3 and 5 percent - their model of representativeness is pretty close to matching their ability to represent public opinion.

3) now that we have a consideration of recent institutional accuracy and are looking at polling on the aggregate, models can be constructed to weight the outcome of a given poll (based on its historical house bias, its polling methodology, its sample characteristics, its recent accuracy, the amount of time that has passed since the poll occurred) in order to determine which polls are the best. some people will also include data from other sources (e.g. GDP figures, job growth, oil prices, CPI) which they have found to correlate to overall outcomes in order to boost the potential accuracy of their overall claim. this is then taken in aggregate to produce a unified electoral projection (fivethirtyeight is the popular example).

thus, is any single poll right? yes, but also no. a wildly non-representative result will likely be obvious when compared to other professional polls performed at the same time - as such, every worthwhile poll represents something and contributes to the overall sample. but if you are focusing on a 3 to 5 point margin on a specific random poll, it is probably not the reliable basis for an argument.

alternately, some campaigns will conduct non-random polls based on a pre-evaluated representativeness model - if their model is correct (and if they are relying on the results, they will hope it is), then they could claim accuracy without any particular aggregation. but such polls are not available to the public.

[Dark Sage]

New jobs report is out.

It's MUCH better than the last one.

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/10...6pLid%3D215880

[Roy Karrde]

New jobs report is out.

It's MUCH better than the last one.

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/10...6pLid%3D215880

How is it better? We are still below natural growth, and the U6 number did not drop at all. The only reason the unemployment rate dropped was because of mid year adjustment, not from people getting their jobs back this month.

Here is a pretty good run down of why the Unemployment rate dropped.

The BLS conducts two surveys each month to determine employment data. The first is the establishment survey, which polls 410,000 businesses each month. The second is the household survey, which polls 60,000 households each month. As one might expect, the larger survey provides a more stable series and more reliable data. The smaller one is still a very significant sample, but in a nation of around 150 million households, it’s hardly an exact science.

Any poll series can produce an outlier result. That’s true even of larger sample surveys, even when the sample is properly balanced, and even without malicious intent to tweak the results. It’s more likely to happen with smaller samples than larger samples, but can happen any time in surveys. That’s why it’s important to look at trending more than a single result within polling series, although some applications (jobless rates, elections) are intended more for single-result reporting.

In today’s case, the establishment survey showed a result that corresponds closely to other economic trends and that doesn’t deviate much from the intraseries trend. The household survey, from which the jobless rate is derived, showed a very large deviation from its own trending and from the growth data in the economy. The last time we had that many added in the household survey, the GDP growth rate was around 9%, and it’s currently 1.5%.

That’s why people who understand data and surveys look skeptically at the result of the household survey. It doesn’t mean a conspiracy is in place; it does strongly suggest that this month’s sample of 60,000 households threw an outlier, especially when compared with the establishment survey and other economic data. If so, it will likely correct itself in the next report. That’s not “trutherism” or denial, but straightforward data analysis.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/0...data-analysis/

If the Household survey is a outlier, then more than likely it will correct itself in the next survey which will be right... before election day.

[mr_pikachu]

Much like your common pyromaniac, I enjoy lighting fuses. So here's an explosive tidbit of poll analysis for you, courtesy of American Thinker:

New swing state polls are out today from Rasmussen and We Ask America, all taken yesterday after the first presidential debate. In Rasmussen surveys, Romney is up 1 in Virginia (he had been down 1), up 2 in Florida (he had been down 2) and down 1 in Ohio (same as before).

We Ask America has Romney up 3 in Virginia (last survey had Obama up 3), up 1 in Ohio (first survey in this cycle for the state), and up 3 in Florida (last survey had Obama up 3).

The average of the surveys from the two polls in each of the three most critical swing states puts Romney up 2 in Virginia, up 2.5% in Florida, and even in Ohio.

A new Gravis poll has Obama up 1 in Nevada, another swing state.

Discuss.

*tosses stick of political dynamite... after correcting obvious typos in the quotation because they were annoying*

[Roy Karrde]

I am going to be fair and call bull shit on the Florida poll, the internals say the Republicans will have a better turn out by 2 than they did in 2010, I just do not see that happening. The other two polls however look right in terms of internals.

Deleted my old post in the face of very damming information

"Lt. Col. Wood has told CBS News and congressional investigators that his 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force called a Mobile Security Deployment team left Libya in August, just one month before the Benghazi assault. Wood says that's despite the fact that US officials in Libya wanted security increased, not decreased.

Wood says he met daily with Stevens and that security was a constant challenge. There were 13 threats or attacks on western diplomats and officials in Libya in the six months leading up to the September 11 attack."

http://www.ktvq.com/news/congress-to...bya-diplomats/

So a month before September 11th, the State Department pulls out a sixteen man security force despite attacks targeting diplomats and officials.

Obama and Clinton need to pay for this.

[mr_pikachu]

Jeez, that is big news. But the one question I would ask is whether Obama or Clinton had any responsibility (or awareness) of that decision. That's a matter which may not have been within either individual's scope of authority.

If one of them made the call, and the State Department funneled it downward from that decree, then yes, that was a catastrophic blunder which cost four Americans their lives, and they should be taken to task for it (just as a Republican would have to answer for a similar gaffe, in case anyone wants to accuse me of playing partisan politics here).

If they had no knowledge of this obvious stroke of stupidity (and no responsibility for a security force decision, as I suspect, since it's really more a matter of military strategy than political diplomacy), then we need to know what idiot in the State Department decided that dropping security right before the 9-11 anniversary was a good idea. We also need to know why that person still has a job in which he or she is responsible for human lives.

[Roy Karrde]

And so the big scandal that has been hinted at since last Thursday finally broke...

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...money_loophole

The Non Partisan Government Accountability Institute shows that the Obama Campaign possibly violated the Election Law by not better protecting themselves from the use of foreign donations.

ecause of the lack of a CVV code requirement, the door is opened for OFA to accept robo-donations, or in other words, large numbers of small and automatic donations made online to evade FEC reporting requirements. Although it isn’t illegal to decline the use of a secure CVV credit card code for campaign donations, it is illegal to accept campaign donations from foreign sources. Campaigns are required under criminal code not to solicit, accept or receive foreign donations in any amount. The Federal Elections Commission doesn’t require campaigns to disclose the names of donors making contributions of less than $200 unless audited. In addition, FEC rules don’t require campaigns to keep records of those giving less than $50. These rules combined with the lack of a CVV numbers make it easy for campaigns to get away with taking foreign donations.

According to GAI, it is the duty of the campaign to “ensure compliance with the law. Indeed, they risk criminal prosecution for the conscious failure to do so. This means that whether or not the FEC requires it to be reported, campaigns have an independent duty under the law to discover and protect against criminal campaign contributions.” Protecting against criminal campaign contributions is easily accomplished by requiring a CVV code on the campaign donation page.

“As GAI points out, if a campaign is truly seeking to do all it can to prevent illicit contributions, there is no reason not to employ these basic fraud prevention tools. First, these tools are easily installed, and once set up, operate with a minimum of administrative oversight by the vendor. They are fully automated, but can be easily re-calibrated as called for. “

“Under these circumstances, a campaign’s decision to turn off either of these systems despite the increased fees raises legitimate questions as to a campaign’s knowing failure to use its best efforts to comply with the laws prohibiting foreign contributions. Indeed, it’s reasonable to ask why any campaign would ever opt to pay card issuers more for less information and less security. More importantly, why pay card issuers more when doing so lessens a campaign’s ability to comply with the law? It’s hard to imagine any campaign would pay extra for less security and marketing intelligence, unless it stood to benefit in some way from doing so.”

“Because a campaign’s decision to opt out of the standard security measures and to pay more to receive less information about their contributors defies all conventional campaign logic, and because it is difficult to identify a more plausible motive, there is reason to suspect that such decisions may be motivated by the belief that more money could be raised through foreign contributions than lost in added fees by declining security tools designed to stop them.”