We're doing it, POLITICS style

by **CalvinBall** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 17:11:04

quinniapiac just called my house. was too lazy to get off the couch and answer the phone though.

by **JFLNYC** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 18:00:23

They filter for that.

by **TenuredVulture** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 18:45:51

His mom answered.

by **drsmooth** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 20:06:13

TenuredVulture wrote:His mom answered.

game, set, snap

by **CalvinBall** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 20:21:44

no one answered

by **The Dude** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 21:41:42

your mom didn't answer

by **Werthless** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 22:12:22

She was busy raking leaves.

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 01:32:37

WaPo/ABC has Obama up 3%, the first national poll with him winning in a while. Sample was D+9 on the registered voter front...if we're looking at a D+9 electorate (or D+7 or whatever it shook out to for the LV portion) on Election Day we're gonna lose. Seemed sorta like the WaPo was downplaying the results in their article, talking up the statistical tie/closeness of the race. If their sample is in the neighborhood, they're picking up something others are missing. If they're off the mark, then the focus on the statistical tiedness of their poll is probably worthwhile.

by **Monkeyboy** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 04:34:30

I think I remember talk of this in '10, but what does D+9 mean? Does it mean that they think 9% more dems are going to vote or the other way around? Or is it that they think the populace is about +9 dems. I think it's the latter, but can't quite recall. And how realistic is +9? That seems pretty high, regardless of what it means.

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 09:39:45

It means 9% more respondents are self identifying Democrats than Republicans (34-25-36). Three possible explanations are Democrats are going to turn out in much higher numbers than Republicans, more members of both parties (but disproportionately Republicans) are now identifying as independents rather than members of parties (that 36% number his pretty high), or it's a shitty sample. The first two explanations aren't impossible, but it's not what the other polls are finding.

In 2004 the partisan breakdown was even, in 2008 Dems were +7. So it's happened before. It's just this doesn't much feel like 2008.

by **jamiethekiller** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 09:40:50

so

are we doing it or not

by **JUburton** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 09:47:01

Silver tweeted that that poll put Obama at 66% but he's waiting for the rest of the polls today before he updates fully. If today's polling is decent for Obama you could say the Romney bounce is receding a little. Tomorrow is going to be pretty important.

by **dajafi** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:06:25

I read over the weekend that Ron Paul refused to endorse Romney. Was a bit surprised as they were all bromantic during the primaries.

I'd still love to see Johnson, the Green Party woman, and some Christianist freak in one of the debates. Never gonna happen, I suppose.

by **Monkeyboy** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:12:49

jerseyhoya wrote:It means 9% more respondents are self identifying Democrats than Republicans (34-25-36). Three possible explanations are Democrats are going to turn out in much higher numbers than Republicans, more members of both parties (but disproportionately Republicans) are now identifying as independents rather than members of parties (that 36% number his pretty high), or it's a shitty sample. The first two explanations aren't impossible, but it's not what the other polls are finding.

In 2004 the partisan breakdown was even, in 2008 Dems were +7. So it's happened before. It's just this doesn't much feel like 2008.

Thanks. I remember you saying that certain districts were +5 or whatever, but couldn't recall exactly what it meant. I guess I have to hope the poll is correct.

by **RichmondPhilsFan** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:15:01

dajafi wrote:I read over the weekend that Ron Paul refused to endorse Romney. Was a bit surprised as they were all bromantic during the primaries.

That might be stretching it a bit. Paul didn't speak at the RNC, refused to "fully endorse" him back in August (or maybe that's the story to which you're referring), and Paul disagrees with him on many issues.

by **Monkeyboy** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:20:00

dajafi wrote:I read over the weekend that Ron Paul refused to endorse Romney. Was a bit surprised as they were all bromantic during the primaries.

I'd still love to see Johnson, the Green Party woman, and some Christianist freak in one of the debates. Never gonna happen, I suppose.

It really is a middle finger to democracy that the smaller parties are kept completely out of debates. I guess it helps to get more time to hear from the two likely candidates, but that could be fixed by just having a couple more debates. I wouldn't even mind a Ron Paul type guy to at least force the others to entertain the idea of not playing world policeman with all our money. Are we really the only country that has much to lose if international waters aren't kept clear, for example?

by **td11** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:31:36

When Mitt Romney faces off against President Obama on Tuesday night in the first of their debates to involve foreign policy, the Republican challenger will take a page from Ronald Reagan’s playbook by attempting to portray the Democratic incumbent as the second coming of President Carter, and himself as the champion of the Gipper’s “peace through strength” mantra.

With a confidence that seemed out of reach six months ago — when Mr. Obama enjoyed a hefty lead in the polls on foreign policy — Mr. Romney will point to the past month’s desecration of American flags and the killing of a U.S. ambassador in the Middle East as proof of the president’s failure to maintain American power abroad.

Read more: Romney will channel Reagan on world affairs in debate - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z29NVgLnpu
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

by **drsmooth** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:43:56

Rattle that saber, Mitt - you don't even know which end to hold on to

by **The Nightman Cometh** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:44:45

Romney did much better than I thought he would last debate, but I can't imagine that strategy being very effective.

That is if course unless Obama's balls are still tucked safely away in Michelle's purse like the last debate. Romney can call him Carter and Obama can just smile and nod politely.

by **Bucky** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:49:04

Barry is probably locked in a room with Biden for the next 36 hours taking laughing lessons

Archived

We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style