The media needs to stop pushing this film BS. This is isn't happening because of the film. They are using the film as the excuse.

Take a look at the next-to-last question. We all know our country is polarized but, even to the most cynical among us, the extent of that polarization is remarkable.

So basically Mitt is banking on the notion that his fiery rhetoric about the attack will go over the heads of detached independent voters but fire up the portion of the base that would otherwise vote third-party instead of vote for him?

If so, he's missing an important factor... a lot of the Libertarian/Tea Party base is isolationist. They're not excited about Mitt's foreign policy bluster (which reeks of W's first term) either, so he's not going to benefit much there, if at all.

JFLNYC wrote:Take a look at the next-to-last question. We all know our country is polarized but, even to the most cynical among us, the extent of that polarization is remarkable.

I think you are misinterpretting that question. It is only natural that those who think the country is going the right way would support the incumbent, while those that think it is going the wrong way would support the challenger. There is not demographic involved in this question.

its absolutely insane. my mom is in that demographic. i called her out on it and she just responded with a bunch of racist drivel

JFLNYC wrote:Take a look at the next-to-last question. We all know our country is polarized but, even to the most cynical among us, the extent of that polarization is remarkable.

Is it really that remarkable? Wouldn't pretty much anyone in any presidential election who thinks the country is worse off than it was four years ago be voting for the challenger?

I mean, the raw numbers would be more telling, but if an Obama supporter is iffy on whether the country is "better," then they'll say it's the same. They're never going to say it's worse, if only due to cognitive dissonance. And a Romney supporter isn't going to say it's better... they'll say it's the same, but it COULD be better. I'd be interested in seeing comparable historical data, but I'd expect that 2004's polling would be identical, albeit a mirror image.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:Desperate.

isn't it like a 2 point difference right now?

In the popular vote. Electoral maps look pretty firmly Obummer.

Thanks to both A-Town and Rich for proving the point.

Youseff wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:Desperate.

isn't it like a 2 point difference right now?

In the popular vote. Electoral maps look pretty firmly Obummer.

Popular is almost 4% according to Silver.

^ I enjoyed that

that being Dorn's video

JFLNYC wrote:Thanks to both A-Town and Rich for proving the point.

No, my point is that I'd expect this to be the case in every reelection situation--why vote for the challenger unless you think the country is worse off or moving in the wrong direction--so I'm not sure that the data in that form can demonstrate a change in polarization without historical data showing same.

if Obama could have gotten Girls Generation to perform at the convention, this thing would be wrapped up

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:Thanks to both A-Town and Rich for proving the point.

No, my point is that I'd expect this to be the case in every reelection situation--why vote for the challenger unless you think the country is worse off or moving in the wrong direction--so I'm not sure that the data in that form can demonstrate a change in polarization without historical data showing same.

I think the extent of the polarization is remarkable. You think it's not. I know I'm not going to convince you it is and that you're not going to convince me it's not. IOW, we're even polarized about polarization.

JUburton wrote:

Youseff wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:Desperate.

isn't it like a 2 point difference right now?

In the popular vote. Electoral maps look pretty firmly Obummer.

Popular is almost 4% according to Silver.

Yeh, popular has moved strongly towards Obama after Mitt getting almost no post-convention bounce. Silver has it like 80% Obama at this point, though that strikes me as too high. It's an attempt to change the narrative, something we saw earlier from Mitt in the primary. Too late, everyone knows he''s a dick and a robot who can't understand regular Americans.

JFLNYC wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:Thanks to both A-Town and Rich for proving the point.

No, my point is that I'd expect this to be the case in every reelection situation--why vote for the challenger unless you think the country is worse off or moving in the wrong direction--so I'm not sure that the data in that form can demonstrate a change in polarization without historical data showing same.

I think the extent of the polarization is remarkable. You think it's not. I know I'm not going to convince you it is and that you're not going to convince me it's not. IOW, we're even polarized about polarization.

Actually, I asked you for historical data, which demonstrates that I'm open-minded on my position regarding polarization. So apparently we're less polarized on polarization than you think.

Which now means we're polarized on polarization about polarization. Joseph Heller must be smiling somewhere.

Wheels Tupay wrote:The media needs to stop pushing this film BS. This is isn't happening because of the film. They are using the film as the excuse.

To further my point Sudan attacked the German embassy "because of the film".

JFLNYC wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:Thanks to both A-Town and Rich for proving the point.

No, my point is that I'd expect this to be the case in every reelection situation--why vote for the challenger unless you think the country is worse off or moving in the wrong direction--so I'm not sure that the data in that form can demonstrate a change in polarization without historical data showing same.

I think the extent of the polarization is remarkable. You think it's not. I know I'm not going to convince you it is and that you're not going to convince me it's not. IOW, we're even polarized about polarization.

The polarization is extreme, but the answer to that question doesn't prove that point. You do realize that the color of the bars has nothing to do with the registration of the person responding?

Houshphandzadeh wrote:I don't think it's online so this will probably fall on deaf eyes, but Thomas Frank (who is awesome) really blasted Obama in Harper's this month. it's not a new case that Obama is more status quo politician than the revolutionary some of us bought into in 2008, but he clarifies it pretty well

the president steers the ship, but the ship has a tremendously huge turning circle.

signs point to: not turning