2012 US Election -- Round 2

[kiki5711]

Aren't they different ways of serving?

One is going into actual combat.

The other one is spreading your religion. What do you think they do as missionaries?

[Ian]

Ian and CES, I love the fact that you two can't even agree on an interpretation of the polls

I like to think I'm far more objective about them.

Case in point: after the first debate, I said that we'd have to wait about a week to see the full extent of how much Obama would take a hit in the polls. After the 2nd debate on Tuesday, Coito was on the next morning discussing how they polls didn't seem to have budged.

Ding! Ding! Next round

Except that isn't accurate.

Me, after the first debate: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1283662 (see the last sentence)
You, after the 2nd debate: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 5#p1293572 http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 5#p1293549

[Coito ergo sum]

Aren't they different ways of serving?

One is going into actual combat.

The other one is spreading your religion. What do you think they do as missionaries?

Well, if you heard the interview on the View where that came from, you would see that it was Whoopi Goldberg acting like an ass. First, she stated that what she read was that Mormons can't serve in the military because of their religion. Ann Romney went on to explain that they can, and that many Mormons do. However, Mitt did not, and instead went "on Mission" and so did her sons, and that one of her sons is a doctor who treats veterans. She did not "equate" missions and military service at all.

But, the bottom line is -- so what? Obama didn't serve. Biden didn't serve. Both Biden and Romney got deferments. So what?

[Coito ergo sum]

Ian and CES, I love the fact that you two can't even agree on an interpretation of the polls

I like to think I'm far more objective about them.

Case in point: after the first debate, I said that we'd have to wait about a week to see the full extent of how much Obama would take a hit in the polls. After the 2nd debate on Tuesday, Coito was on the next morning discussing how they polls didn't seem to have budged.

Ding! Ding! Next round

Except that isn't accurate.

Me, after the first debate: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1283662 (see the last sentence)
You, after the 2nd debate: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 5#p1293572 http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 5#p1293549

Let's look at what I actually wrote:

Meh -- 46% to 39% - not much of a comeback from the 67% drubbing Obama took last time.
CBS News did a post-debate poll that showed Obama winning the overall debate 37-30% among uncommitted voters, but in the most important area -- the economy -- Romney massacred the president by over 30 points, 65-34%.
Among undecided voters, the economy is the only question that matters; it's a question that matters a whole lot more than who won the debate. Moreover, if all Obama could muster was 37%, he didn't even capture his base. http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfiel ... e-economy/

Poll of 5 New Polls -- Romney ahead nationally and in all swing states -- http://www.examiner.com/article/poll-of ... ates-polls

The CBSNews poll was a poll about who won the debate -- not who is winning the election. Huge difference.

And, the Poll of 5 New Polls was from just PRIOR TO the debate, and was not advanced by me as being RESULTING FROM the debate.

So, where did I jump the gun again? You post polling and electoral college links all the time. Now I'm not supposed to do so? And, none of that had contained any allegation that the polls had shifted as a result of the second debate.


And, in your second link I posted:

MSNBC's panel of undecided voters swayed toward Romney: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/msn ... 54728.html

Gallup Poll of likely voters: R 51% O 45% http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/elect ... omney.aspx

University of Colorado prediction says 77% likely that R wins popular vote: http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4435

The MSNBC panel of undecided voters WERE WATCHING THE DEBATE and gave their immediate results. You're going to make the ludicrous claim that my reference to the timely focus group is non-objective? Dude - any objective analysis of the events has to include the focus group panels that the media set up to review the debate. Why else do they have the focus group panels? To be ignored?

The Gallup Poll nationally came out that day, and the University of Colorado prediction was from the day before, and not a prediction of any swing that resulted from the debate. Nothing I wrote there said that that it was.

So stop your bullshitting.

[Ian]

Coito - Actually, I DON'T post polling links nearly as often as you do. Post them as often as you like, just be prepared for a discussion on context.

My point of the last couple posts was about keeping the proper perspective. What's the point of posting the Poll of 5 New Polls immediately after the 2nd debate if you knew they were all taken just prior to the debate, except to show how they were favorable for Romney? Unless you think the 2nd debate was not going to alter those much at all, in which case I disagree. But we're still not going to know much about how the 2nd debate shifted things for a few more days, by which time we'll be seeing a 3rd debate. Let's talk about the nuances of polls around a week from now. That will be 4 days after the final debate with nothing left to the campaigns but ad-buys and speeches.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito - Actually, I DON'T post polling links nearly as often as you do. Post them as often as you like, just be prepared for a discussion on context.

I always am. Just stop pretending you're objective. You're embarrassing yourself.

My point of the last couple posts was about keeping the proper perspective. What's the point of posting the Poll of 5 New Polls immediately after the 2nd debate if you knew they were all taken just prior to the debate, except to show how they were favorable for Romney?

Err, because it was the most recent polling data and was published that day. I have also posted polling data unfavorable to Romney. The thing is, I'm one of the only ones here posting anything to give perspective to you pro-Obama folks. If it wasn't for me, there would only be one side offered. Warren contributes some links too.

You guys act like there is some underrepresentation of Obama supporters here. This place is overwhelmingly pro-Obama. And, that's fine. But what that means, Ian, is that I am presenting the "perspective" on what would otherwise be a one-sided discussion.

Unless you think the 2nd debate was not going to alter those much at all, in which case I disagree. But we're still not going to know much about how the 2nd debate shifted things for a few more days, by which time we'll be seeing a 3rd debate. Let's talk about the nuances of polls around a week from now. That will be 4 days after the final debate with nothing left to the campaigns but ad-buys and speeches.

I have no problem talking about the current information. Why wait? If a new poll comes out, there will always be an argument that it hasn't fully factored in that day's or the day before's results. If we wait for the poll that reflects all the most current events, then it's like waiting for the newest technology. As soon as you buy it, it's obsolete. That is in the nature of these things. The best we can do is discuss the most current stuff.

[Ian]

Today's polls are important today. I have more patience.

And I think that fact alone gives me more objectivity than you. So neener neener neener.

[Coito ergo sum]

Today's polls are important today. I have more patience.

And I think that fact alone gives me more objectivity than you. So neener neener neener.

Are you insane?

The only thing we ever have are today's polls and yesterday's polls. When next week's polls come out, you'll be saying "let's wait, because it's too close to the third debate." That's not "patience," that's obfuscation.

[Coito ergo sum]

Romney's favorability ratings top Obama's: http://washingtonexaminer.com/for-first ... IF1w8XNaSq

Rasmussen has Romney ahead 50 to 47 in Virginia: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... _president

[Coito ergo sum]

The $831,000,000,000 economic “stimulus” that President Obama spearheaded and signed into law requires his administration to release quarterly reports on its effects. But “the most transparent administration in the history of our country” is now four reports behind schedule and has so far not released any reports whatsoever in 2012. Its most recent quarterly report is for the quarter than ended on June 30, 2011.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ahe ... 54968.html

[Gerald McGrew]

Too easy. It only took 10 seconds to come up with this example:

http://www.examiner.com/article/democra ... o-kill-him

She was a delegate to the convention and the Democrats made no attempt to keep her out.

Not even close to the same thing.

You do understand the difference between, "Obama is intentionally destroying the country as part of a secret communist/Muslim/UN plot", and "Romney's policies will destroy the country", don't you?

[Gerald McGrew]

LOL - so, real clear politics, not good anymore?

LOL! You honestly don't know that RCP is a right-wing site?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClearPolitics

"They have described themselves as frustrated with what they perceive as anti-conservative, anti-Christian media bias,".

Why else do you think they have Pennsylvania as a tossup? Sheesh.

[Ian]

Romney's favorability ratings top Obama's: http://washingtonexaminer.com/for-first ... IF1w8XNaSq

Rasmussen has Romney ahead 50 to 47 in Virginia: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... _president

Washington Examiner, Rasmmussen and Weekly Standard - they're all right-wing crap.

Now, before you get all defensive, I'm going to point out a couple other things. I rarely if ever post stories from Huffington or Salon or other left-biased sites like them simply because I know people like you (well, you) will call them biased, like you did when Kiki dared post something from HuffPo earlier. So don't go calling foul about how "you" people are hypocrites who put a double standard on poor Coito.

Maybe the Examiner is just reporting a non-partisan poll, maybe not. But when you cherry-pick articles from that newspaper you're not doing yourself any favors when you try to claim that you're more objective about analyzing polls than I am. I would have found a different source.
As for Rasmussen, if they're reporting Romney up by 3% in Virginia it's pretty safe to assume that Obama is still up by a point or two there.

[Gerald McGrew]

Funny as hell to see CES now defending Mormon missions. Further and further up the GOP's ass he goes...

[Wumbologist]

Funny as hell to see CES now defending Mormon missions. Further and further up the GOP's ass he goes...

Gotta wonder what the view's like from that side of the magic underpants.