Don't Fact Check Me, Bro: The Politics Thread

by **The Nightman Cometh** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:34:52

No, I said that because the RCP average is back above three and has been hovering between 3-3.5 for quite some time. And yes, I really thought my ten word post was deep. Wasn't it?

by **jeff2sf** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:36:30

In fairness, he's been touting Romney's chances in direct opposition to what Nate says.

by **JFLNYC** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:37:26

There is an enormous difference between the fact that the Bush administration lied to the world about WMD as a pretext for war versus partisan conjecture that the Obama administration might be less than forthcoming about a consulate attack.

by **slugsrbad** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:39:26

jamiethekiller wrote:its the fucking echo chamber

If only we had intelligent conservatives to talk to instead of jh the knuckle-dragger.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:42:20

mozartpc27 wrote:
JFLNYC wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:

Is the administration lying to us about Libya? Sure seems like it!

Find out after you decide whether or not to reelect Obama

Next they'll be claiming the Libyans have WMD and starting a war right before an election! No, no. No administration would be so irresponsible and craven.

Serious question jersey - why do you think the Obama camapign would lie about this if it were a coordinated attack? Obama could just have turned it around and looked presidential and used it to rally the country around himself a la 9/11. No serious person can claim that Obama has been in any way "soft" on terrorism, so it's not like an attack on a U.S. Embassy could be legitimately painted to be the result of Obama trying to appease terrorists.

Because Stevens was reportedly concerned about the security conditions in Benghazi before the attack and felt he might be a target. And Libyan officials say they met with people at the consulate three days before the attack to warn them they couldn't control the militias and that they feared for western targets.

If they died due to inadequate security against a preplanned attack when concerns were made known, that would raise a lot of questions about whether the consulate should have either been reinforced or evacuated, and whether the deaths were preventable. If it all came out of some spontaneous protest about a video spiraling out of control, the State Department and administration aren't in line for blame.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:44:29

JFLNYC wrote:The Republicans forced an up or down vote on the Iraq war authorization in 2002 right before the elections.

We have federal elections every two years. The process leading up to the Iraq War took a long damn time. It almost had to overlap with an election or occur directly before one in some way.

by **JFLNYC** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:47:30

Please let's not insult anyone's intelligence by suggesting that the timing of the Iraq war vote was not politically motivated.

by **jeff2sf** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:49:01

jerseyhoya wrote:Because Stevens was reportedly concerned about the security conditions in Benghazi before the attack and felt he might be a target. And Libyan officials say they met with people at the consulate three days before the attack to warn them they couldn't control the militias and that they feared for western targets.

If they died due to inadequate security against a preplanned attack when concerns were made known, that would raise a lot of questions about whether the consulate should have either been reinforced or evacuated, and whether the deaths were preventable. If it all came out of some spontaneous protest about a video spiraling out of control, the State Department and administration aren't in line for blame.

Feel like there's a hell of a lot of gray there jersey. Not to mention the Bushies weathered the "didn't do enough to prevent 9/11 storm" pretty well. I think there's a much better chance that terrorism could rally everyone than ratcheting down the rhetoric.

by **kimbatiste** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:53:05

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Starting to think Obama's bounce didn't recede after all.

Nate Silver wrote:But just as a thought experiment: if you exclude the Gallup and Rasmussen Reports tracking polls, it isn’t clear at all that Mr. Obama’s bounce is decaying.

by **RichmondPhilsFan** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:55:36

jamiethekiller wrote:its the #$!&@ echo chamber

Totally and 100% agreed

(See what I did there?)

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 13:01:39

JFLNYC wrote:There is an enormous difference between the fact that the Bush administration lied to the world about WMD as a pretext for war versus partisan conjecture that the Obama administration might be less than forthcoming about a consulate attack.

Of course there's an enormous difference. They're not comparable situations. I didn't bring up Iraq, you did. You seem to think one absolves the other or makes it irrelevant in some way.

JFLNYC wrote:Please let's not insult anyone's intelligence by suggesting that the timing of the Iraq war vote was not politically motivated.

Politicians voting on things is always politically motivated in some fashion.

by **The Nightman Cometh** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 13:06:36

kimbatiste wrote:
The Nightman Cometh wrote:Starting to think Obama's bounce didn't recede after all.

Nate Silver wrote:But just as a thought experiment: if you exclude the Gallup and Rasmussen Reports tracking polls, it isn’t clear at all that Mr. Obama’s bounce is decaying.

So an offhand opinion of mine happens to be one of a number of possibilities that Silver has laid out over the past 2 days? Scandalous.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 13:08:11

jeff2sf wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Because Stevens was reportedly concerned about the security conditions in Benghazi before the attack and felt he might be a target. And Libyan officials say they met with people at the consulate three days before the attack to warn them they couldn't control the militias and that they feared for western targets.

If they died due to inadequate security against a preplanned attack when concerns were made known, that would raise a lot of questions about whether the consulate should have either been reinforced or evacuated, and whether the deaths were preventable. If it all came out of some spontaneous protest about a video spiraling out of control, the State Department and administration aren't in line for blame.

Feel like there's a hell of a lot of gray there jersey. Not to mention the Bushies weathered the "didn't do enough to prevent 9/11 storm" pretty well. I think there's a much better chance that terrorism could rally everyone than ratcheting down the rhetoric.

There's a lot of gray area that will presumably be cleared up as more information comes to light. As more info comes out, the initial explanation looks increasingly implausible.

The threats and actions that would have been required to respond to the threats are considerably more specific than anything surrounding 9/11. The protection or evacuation of one building vs. an entire country.

by **kimbatiste** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 13:11:40

The Nightman Cometh wrote:
kimbatiste wrote:
The Nightman Cometh wrote:Starting to think Obama's bounce didn't recede after all.

Nate Silver wrote:But just as a thought experiment: if you exclude the Gallup and Rasmussen Reports tracking polls, it isn’t clear at all that Mr. Obama’s bounce is decaying.

So an offhand opinion of mine happens to be one of a number of possibilities that Silver has laid out over the past 2 days? Scandalous.

Separated by an hour or so?

by **The Nightman Cometh** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 13:15:14

Yes, really shocking isn't it? Completely implausible even.

Although I do have a long history of not giving credit or linking to Silver. Wait.

by **kimbatiste** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 13:17:17

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Yes, really shocking isn't it? Completely implausible even.

Although I do have a long history of not giving credit or linking to Silver. Wait.

Actually, you do. Off the top of my head, I recall after the Akin gaffe that "you" predicted a swing in the polls of 5-10%, a few hours after Silver can to the same exact conclusion after looking at similar instances in the past.

by **The Nightman Cometh** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 13:23:42

Yes, you got me. One time in the middle of a conversation about Akin I forgot to credit Silver. I clearly presented that number as a product of my own research and this board certainly read it that way. Please go easy on me Dean Wormer.

by **Soren** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 13:24:35

I swear vox implored us to play nice at some point

by **The Nightman Cometh** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 13:25:18

I also clearly regurgitate Silver as we both hold a sense of pessimism towards the probability of an Obama reelection. Very true. I have no defense.

by **kimbatiste** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 13:27:32

Soren wrote:I swear vox implored us to play nice at some point

You're correct and, with my apologies to Vox, I'm done with it. I return to my usual ignore tactic.

Archived

Don't Fact Check Me, Bro: The Politics Thread

Re: Don't Fact Check Me, Bro: The Politics Thread

Re: Don't Fact Check Me, Bro: The Politics Thread

Re: Don't Fact Check Me, Bro: The Politics Thread

Re: Don't Fact Check Me, Bro: The Politics Thread

Re: Don't Fact Check Me, Bro: The Politics Thread

Re: Don't Fact Check Me, Bro: The Politics Thread

Re: Don't Fact Check Me, Bro: The Politics Thread

Re: Don't Fact Check Me, Bro: The Politics Thread

Re: Don't Fact Check Me, Bro: The Politics Thread

Re: Don't Fact Check Me, Bro: The Politics Thread

Re: Don't Fact Check Me, Bro: The Politics Thread

Re: Don't Fact Check Me, Bro: The Politics Thread

Re: Don't Fact Check Me, Bro: The Politics Thread

Re: Don't Fact Check Me, Bro: The Politics Thread

Re: Don't Fact Check Me, Bro: The Politics Thread

Re: Don't Fact Check Me, Bro: The Politics Thread

Re: Don't Fact Check Me, Bro: The Politics Thread

Re: Don't Fact Check Me, Bro: The Politics Thread

Re: Don't Fact Check Me, Bro: The Politics Thread

Re: Don't Fact Check Me, Bro: The Politics Thread