drsmooth wrote:... a soul, or whatever. well, if "it" enters at conception, what takes place at cell division? Does each little heap get 1/2 a soul?

Well, that /would/ explain all the voices in my head...

My first time was with Bill Clinton.

I'm not sure if Republicans are really offended by that ad or if that's a narrative Democrats are trying to spin.

gr wrote:

allentown wrote:

gr wrote:If Obama loses somehow, I assume he runs again in 4 years? Unless the party totally forgets about him in that time. I'm fascinated by what he'd do post-one-term since he's pretty young. I'm not hoping for that, mind you.

That's not going to happen. If Obama loses, Hilary is a likelier choice -- despite all the denials, in 2016 than Obama is. I'm trying to think when the Dems brought back a loser, post-FDR, as Republicans did with Nixon.

No way. She'll be almost 70. And out of a job as well. I'll take that bet.

If he loses, it will be by the slimmest of margins and I think you'd agree, Obama would be a unique candidate in a number of ways (race, age, experience, etc).

She'd be the same age as Reagan when he first took the WH (69). The question is, would she want to put up with the BS when she's 69-73+? I would guess no. Her time was 4 years ago. Obama would be in the land of ex-presidents. Have the "loser" tag like Carter, GHWB. If he loses, he's done, and the D candidate would probably be someone not on the current radar. Perhaps a new face rising in a well of enthusiasm, but more likely a dem or lib token candidate of the Kerry/Dukakis type (probably more Dukakis-ie) with no chance of winning (barring a Romney term of unmittigated* disaster).

* extra "t" intentional

i saw that ad yesterday and kinda chuckled and moved on but it seems to have really gotten the right riled up

Youseff wrote:I'm not sure if Republicans are really offended by that ad or if that's a narrative Democrats are trying to spin.

there have been at least a few republicans on my fb feed talking about it being the "worst political ad i have ever seen"

Youseff wrote:I'm not sure if Republicans are really offended by that ad or if that's a narrative Democrats are trying to spin.

No, I heard some nut preacher today on the radio going on and on about it.

Youseff wrote:I'm not sure if Republicans are really offended by that ad or if that's a narrative Democrats are trying to spin.

I've seen republican friends on Facebook say they are disgusted by it. Some of the conservative media people said the same thing.

I say get your fist of your ass.

They just have to be trolling though. People cannot get this upset over so many little things so often.

I think some on the right are just mad because their first time was with George Bush, father or son.

CalvinBall wrote:

I say get your fist of your ass.

goodness

yeah i hate talking politics in real life or facebook but i posted that chinese professor ad in one of the fb comment threads so now the only thing left for me to do is to sit quietly in a corner until my soul expires

Here's one more vote for Norah O'Donnell.

CalvinBall wrote:They just have to be trolling though. People cannot get this upset over so many little things so often.

Manufactured outrage should be counted as part of the GDP.

But since at least the 80s, people have devoted a great deal of energy looking for reasons to get upset about stuff.

The FiveThirtyEight forecast accounts for this property in its overall assessment of the Electoral College, and it is one reason why our forecast gives Mr. Romney slightly better Electoral College chances than other forecast models that might assume more independence in the state polling. However, we may be approaching the point where the state polls will have to be systematically biased toward Mr. Obama in order for Mr. Romney to have strong chances of prevailing on Election Day.

Apparently I am much more worried about the state polls having systematic bias (or just ineptness) than Mr. Silver is.

Doll Is Mine wrote:My first time was with Bill Clinton.

You're at least 34 years old? Really?

Does a primary vote count as your first time? If so, it was Jesse Jackson. Otherwise, it was Walter Mondale.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

The FiveThirtyEight forecast accounts for this property in its overall assessment of the Electoral College, and it is one reason why our forecast gives Mr. Romney slightly better Electoral College chances than other forecast models that might assume more independence in the state polling. However, we may be approaching the point where the state polls will have to be systematically biased toward Mr. Obama in order for Mr. Romney to have strong chances of prevailing on Election Day.

Apparently I am much more worried about the state polls having systematic bias (or just ineptness) than Mr. Silver is.

Your act is an odd one.

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

td11 wrote:Washington Post poll ‏@postpolls
Post-ABC tracking poll: National contest is back at 49% for Romney and 48%; was 50%-47% Romney-Obama yesterday

Kinda weird they say Romney is +18 among men and -13 among women. Would think that would point toward holding at 50-47%. Rounding is a hell of a thing. (both at the subgroup level and the topline)

MOE is much larger for subgroups than the population as a whole. What's the n size on the poll?

I'm not really talking about margin of error. Just that if Romney is up among men by 5% more than he's losing women, he should be winning by about 2.5%. But then rounding. What I'm saying is Romney's probably up about 49.3-47.7. And if it goes back to 50-47 tomorrow it's might be 49.6-47.3 or whatever.

The n was large, over 1300 I think.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:My first time was with Bill Clinton.

You're at least 34 years old? Really?

I'm 50.