jerseyhoya wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Bucky wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Bucky wrote:how about GHWB??

He wasn't reelected

oh, OK. "on a re-elect" i took to mean a "re-elect bid". damn 140 characters

He should've just said incumbent. I was confused too.

Incumbent isn't what you're going for either because incumbents serving out terms got reelected along the way (TR, Truman, LBJ).

His prior tweet was asking who was the last incumbent reelected with less EVs than in his first election. SHOULD OF INCLUDED BOTH.

MoBettle wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Wonder how long it's going to take the CW to catch back up to the fact that Obama's bounce is gone and we're back to a 1-2 point race in spite of everything that's happened the past three weeks

Are these polls reflecting response to the video yet?

jerseyhoya wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Wonder how long it's going to take the CW to catch back up to the fact that Obama's bounce is gone and we're back to a 1-2 point race in spite of everything that's happened the past three weeks

Are these polls reflecting response to the video yet?

Really have a hard time seeing the video affecting national poll numbers. Who the heck was voting for Romney before that and isn't anymore? Tempest in a teapot.

dajafi wrote:Before W, nobody who'd prev lost popular vote had been reelected.

Maybe more to the point, the closest thing I see as an absolute rule in presidential elections is "better candidate wins." Wasn't true in '68, otherwise always has been, at least in the media age.

jamiethekiller wrote:i agree with jerz though.

these two parties are so far apart that no matter what dumb comment comes out of romneys mouth its not going to change the mind of a republican voter. between racism and the illusion that a poor republican is going to end up rich one day; romney could shit on the declaration of independence and it wouldn't matter

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Wonder how long it's going to take the CW to catch back up to the fact that Obama's bounce is gone and we're back to a 1-2 point race in spite of everything that's happened the past three weeks

Are these polls reflecting response to the video yet?

Really have a hard time seeing the video affecting national poll numbers. Who the heck was voting for Romney before that and isn't anymore? Tempest in a teapot.

You don't think there's some mildly conservative suburban housewife who was kinda sorta leaning towards voting for Romney but now won't because he's been further exposed as a jackass? She might just not vote at all.

I mean, by that rationale, Romney could get busted with a bag of coke in his pocket and he wouldn't lose any significant national numbers because it's not like any of those people are switching to Obama.

More importantly for Romney, it precludes him from making gains. He's the trailing candidate who needs nearly all of the battleground states. Obama should be content with running out the clock.

Old Man Potter‏@HenryFPotter

Good to see President Mitt following my strategic advice. The 47% lazy rabble ... bah! Who needs them? Next step: The White House.

jeff2sf wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Wonder how long it's going to take the CW to catch back up to the fact that Obama's bounce is gone and we're back to a 1-2 point race in spite of everything that's happened the past three weeks

Are these polls reflecting response to the video yet?

Really have a hard time seeing the video affecting national poll numbers. Who the heck was voting for Romney before that and isn't anymore? Tempest in a teapot.

You don't think there's some mildly conservative suburban housewife who was kinda sorta leaning towards voting for Romney but now won't because he's been further exposed as a jackass? She might just not vote at all.

I mean, by that rationale, Romney could get busted with a bag of coke in his pocket and he wouldn't lose any significant national numbers because it's not like any of those people are switching to Obama.

More importantly for Romney, it precludes him from making gains. He's the trailing candidate who needs nearly all of the battleground states. Obama should be content with running out the clock.

Absolutely not. If they haven't made up their mind yet, they aren't well informed and they probably don't see that Romney said anything wrong. My dad's voting for Obama and he said he was glad Romney said what he did. Then I go through some charts (he was in a hospital bed), show him that the 47% doesn't mean what he thinks it means, etc. and he backed off glad. But it didn't change anything.

jeff2sf wrote:breakdown of the 47%, that it includes people at the poverty level that are working, that it includes a lot of old people on social security (that resonated with him as he's 2 years away from ss), etc.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:breakdown of the 47%, that it includes people at the poverty level that are working, that it includes a lot of old people on social security (that resonated with him as he's 2 years away from ss), etc.

I'm a bit confused. Why would you need to show him a chart? Did he not believe you that the statistic includes people other than lazy, dirty rabble? Or that not all of the aforementioned lazy, dirty rabble vote Democratic?

jeff2sf wrote:It's so negligible as to be kind of pointless. Would I have said it? No, of course not. But Nate Silver had a pretty reasonable take on it specifically and gaffes in general. They just don't matter as much as people who follow this stuff think they do. I mean the Libya stuff was brutal last week, and if anything Romney's polls have ticked up. "Yeah but this is different"... "No, it's really not".

The second major reason for the shift is that the model is designed to take a skeptical view of the polls conducted for a candidate who just held his convention. Typically, the polling bounce that a candidate receives from his convention does not evaporate immediately, but can persist for a couple of weeks. We are still close enough to the Democratic convention that this adjustment applies to Mr. Obama’s numbers in the polls.

The downward adjustment to Mr. Obama’s numbers will gradually fade out over the next week or so. Thus, if he holds his current position in the polls, he will begin to regain ground in the FiveThirtyEight forecast.

jeff2sf wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:breakdown of the 47%, that it includes people at the poverty level that are working, that it includes a lot of old people on social security (that resonated with him as he's 2 years away from ss), etc.

I'm a bit confused. Why would you need to show him a chart? Did he not believe you that the statistic includes people other than lazy, dirty rabble? Or that not all of the aforementioned lazy, dirty rabble vote Democratic?

Charts are more visual and help people wrap their brains around issues. Again, you live in Virginia, there have to be a few smart conservatives that you work with. I suggest you engage with them. And then there have to be a lot of dumb rednecks you live near... I suggest you talk to them. Finally, talk to the muddled middle or even those who are leaning Democrat.

My wife is a nurse practitioner who I suggested read a couple of articles to form her opinion on the candidates. She said she didn't need to, she's voting Obama. She is driven up a wall by some of her patients who are on welfare and have nicer toys (iPhones being the primary one) than she does. It drives her absolutely crazy. She thinks there is a sizeable portion of America that is living off the teat of hard workers like herself. There is no way that in a vacuum she would buy that the people not paying income tax are mostly the working poor or the retired.

But again, she's going to vote for Obama. So if even a liberal can see a grain of truth in what Romney said, when there is none, it's hard to believe it's going to shift a conservative

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:breakdown of the 47%, that it includes people at the poverty level that are working, that it includes a lot of old people on social security (that resonated with him as he's 2 years away from ss), etc.

I'm a bit confused. Why would you need to show him a chart? Did he not believe you that the statistic includes people other than lazy, dirty rabble? Or that not all of the aforementioned lazy, dirty rabble vote Democratic?

Charts are more visual and help people wrap their brains around issues. Again, you live in Virginia, there have to be a few smart conservatives that you work with. I suggest you engage with them. And then there have to be a lot of dumb rednecks you live near... I suggest you talk to them. Finally, talk to the muddled middle or even those who are leaning Democrat.

My wife is a nurse practitioner who I suggested read a couple of articles to form her opinion on the candidates. She said she didn't need to, she's voting Obama. She is driven up a wall by some of her patients who are on welfare and have nicer toys (iPhones being the primary one) than she does. It drives her absolutely crazy. She thinks there is a sizeable portion of America that is living off the teat of hard workers like herself. There is no way that in a vacuum she would buy that the people not paying income tax are mostly the working poor or the retired.

But again, she's going to vote for Obama. So if even a liberal can see a grain of truth in what Romney said, when there is none, it's hard to believe it's going to shift a conservative

Man, you're really on the "go talk to smart conservatives" train lately. (I'll ignore the rest of the condescending part of that.)

That wasn't what I was asking you. I was merely surprised that you had to show your FATHER charts and that he didn't take your word for it that the 47% includes senior citizens. Or that there wasn't a straight correlation between the rabble and Democratic vote. It was a weird thing to say, and I expressed my surprise. That is all.

BTW, there is absolutely a grain of truth to Romney's comments in that a portion of the country is lazy and dependent. That doesn't make him less of a dick for the manner in which he phrased or that he essentially applied that to every single person who has ever received a government benefit. So I'm not sure what your point about your wife is even supposed to mean.