US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
Only read the social security one.
Um, isn't the problem with social security that the republicans used all the cash that was paid into it to fund their wars and tax cuts? The actual program runs at a surplus, but there is a shortfall of cash coming up because of raids on it's capital.
Obama's come out with the predicted fact check vid, trouble is not many are going to watch it.
the media will be talking about it because it is a big thing where you run away from your own tax plans.
they better.
The Four Most Misleading Moments in Romney's Debate Performance
http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/10812...icare-pre-existing-contradictions-deceptions#
The pundits are unanimous. Mitt Romney had more energy, offered more specifics, and may even have come across as more empathetic. I agree and polls suggest voters saw it the same way.
The debate may not change the dynamics of the election. But if I knew nothing about the candidates and this was my first exposure to the campaign, I’d think this Romney fellow has a detailed tax plan, wants to defend the middle class and poor, and will take care of people who can’t find health insurance.
Problem is, this isn’t my first exposure to the campaign. I happen to know a lot about the candidates. And I know that those three things aren’t true. Romney has made promises about taxes that are mathematically incompatible with one another. He’s outlined a spending plan that would devastate the middle class and (particularly) the poor. And his health care plan would leave people with pre-existing conditions pretty much in the same perilous situation they were before the Affordable Care Act became law.
My standard for candor in politics is whether candidates have offered the voters an accurate portrait of what they’ve done and what they are proposing. Tonight, Romney did precisely the opposite. And that really ought to be the story everybody is writing, although I doubt it will be.
Some details:
1. Taxes. President Obama repeatedly described Romney’s tax plan as a $5 trillion tax plan. Romney repeatedly took exception. The figure is correct. Romney has not given many details about his tax plan, but it’s possible to extrapolate from his promises and the Tax Policy Center, a project of the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, did just that. Crunching the numbers, they determined that his proposed rate cut would cost… $5 trillion.
Romney has said he would offset those cuts by closing loopholes. The Tax Policy Center has analyzed that promise and found that it is mathematically impossible, unless Romney raises taxes on the middle class or lets his tax plan increase the deficit—neither of which Romney has said he's willing to do. Romney has challenged the Tax Policy Center conclusion and did so again tonight, referring mysteriously to “six studies” that supposedly prove he’s right. He's also been cryptic about what deductions he'd cut and, tonight, even suggested maybe he'd back away from some of the cuts if the numbers didn't add up—although, as always, he was so vague that the statements could mean absolutely nothing.
I wish Obama had pressed him on this inconsistency even more directly than he did: “OK, governor, you say you can offset the $5 trillion cost of your tax plan. Tell us how, with real numbers. Are you getting rid of the home mortgage deduction? The exclusion for health insurance? Be straight with the American people about what you are proposing.” Obama didn’t do that, but it's a question Romney has never been willing to answer.
2. The deficit and spending cuts. Asked by moderator Jim Lehrer how he’d cut the deficit, Romney outlined his plan for cutting spending. It included three main provisions.
First, Romney said, he’d repeal the Affordable Care Act. He’s serious about that, I presume. The problem is that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the health care law reduces the deficit. Repeal it and the deficit goes up. Then Romney said he’d review programs and cut all that are non-essential, singling out PBS. Well, fine. That’s pennies on the budget. It wouldn’t be nearly enough to make a meaningful dent in the deficit.
After that, Romney mentioned “turning programs over to the states.” Here there is real money, particularly if Romney includes Medicaid, which will soon eclipse Medicare as the government’s most expensive health insurance program. But Romney suggested this would work because the states are more efficient. This is what he usually says. The implication is that the states can spend a lot less on the programs without dramatically reducing services.
That’s nonsense. Medicaid already pays less than every other insurance program, private and public. Cutting more from the program would inevitably force states to reduce whom or what the program covers. A year ago, when the House Republicans proposed a similar scheme, a Kaiser Family Foundation report by Urban Institute researchers crunched the numbers and determined that the Medicaid cut would mean between 14 and 27 million people would lose health insurance.
By the way, the researchers assumed states would deal with declining Medicaid money exclusively by cutting eligibility for the able-bodied and non-elderly. In fact, most of the program’s money goes to the disabled and elderly. Most likely, they’d feel at least some of the pain.
3. Medicare: Over and over again, Romney attacked Obama because the Affordable Care Act reduces Medicare spending by $716 billion. As you probably know by now, Paul Ryan’s budget made the exact same cut. And less than a year ago, Romney was praising this budget to the hilt.
But there’s another problem here: Romney’s own budget numbers don’t add up. Remember, he’s promised to cap non-defense spending at 16 percent of GDP. And he’s said he won’t touch Social Security. If he walls off Medicare, too, that would mean even sharper cuts across the board. How sharp? The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities ran the numbers. If Medicare is getting that $716 billion back, he’d have to cut other programs by an average of a third by 2016 and in half by 2022. Non-discretionary defense spending, which “has averaged 3.9 percent of GDP and never fallen below 3.2 percent,” would fall to 1.7 percent.
That’s simply not realistic. I have no problem believing Romney would cut domestic program deeply; his willingness to endorse the kinds of cuts he has specified, to Medicaid and food stamps, tell you everything you need to know about his priorities. But these figures are the stuff of fantasy. Either Romney can’t restore the Medicare dollars as he says or he’s not living up to his promises on deficit reduction.
The real shame of the exchange was that Romney's own plan got so little attention. Again, I wish Obama could have pressed Romney harder, or explained more clearly, why the voucher scheme he proposes would likely end the guarantee Medicare now makes to seniors—and why current retirees, as well as future ones, would feel the impact.
4. Health care and pre-existing conditions. Yeah, this was the part when I jumped out of my chair. Obama said that Romney’s alternative to Obamacare wouldn’t protect people with pre-existing conditions. Romney said it would. Sorry, but Romney is just plain wrong here. I’ve written about this before, so I’m just going to quote something I wrote previously:
Romney, like most Republicans, has long favored “continuous” coverage protection. But, for complicated reasons ... this protection is relatively weak unless it includes the sort of substantial regulation and subsidies that Romney, like most Republicans, has opposed. As a result, such protection would do very little for many of the people who need it most. Among other things, as Sarah Kliff points out ... “There are tens of millions of Americans who lack continuous coverage.” (A typical example would be somebody who lost a job, couldn’t keep making premium payments, and let coverage lapse.)
For people in this situation, Romney and the Republicans have traditionally said they favor coverage through “high-risk pools.” But high-risk pools are basically substandard policies: Although they cover catastrophic expenses, they leave people exposed to huge out-of-pocket costs. They also tend to be underfunded, because they cost a lot of money but serve only a small number of people. ...
So what would this mean in practice? Imagine for a second that you have cancer, diabetes, or Parkinson’s. With the coverage you’re likely to get form a high-risk pool, chances are that you’ll continue to struggle with medical bills. You’ll end up going into financial distress, just to cover your health are costs, unless you decide to start skipping treatment. And that’s obviously not a very good idea. These policies are better than nothing, for sure. But what you really need is comprehensive insurance and way to pay for it—in other words, the kind of protection that the Affordable Care Act will provide, starting in 2014, unless Romney and the Republicans repeal it.
I don’t want to pretend Obama was always as forthright as he could have been, any more than I want to suggest he was the more adept debater tonight. At one point, Obama talked about letting tax rates on higher incomes return to Clinton-era levels as essential to reducing the deficit. That’s true. But a truly serious approach to deficit reduction would let all taxes, even those on more modest incomes, return to Clinton-era levels (albeit after the economy is on sounder footing). Obama decried Romney’s plan to leave seniors “at the mercy of the private insurance system” but those are strong words from a guy whose own health care plan relies heavily on insurance plans, albeit with a lot more regulation than most conservatives like.
Still, these are tiny transgressions compared to Romney’s, which also included misleading statements about the origins of the deficit and claims of a jobs plan that is, if anything, even more unspecific than his tax plan. And I worry that nobody will call him on it.
As part of its post-debate analysis, ABC News asked correspondent Jonathan Karl to play the role of fact-checker. He picked out one statement from each side and rated it “mostly false.” But the Obama statement Karl picked was the description of Romney’s tax plan as costing $5 trillion—a figure, again, that comes straight from the Tax Policy Center. That’s not “mostly false.” If anything, it’s “mostly true.” Then Karl talked about Romney’s pre-existing condition promise, which really is “mostly false.” Sigh.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/10812...icare-pre-existing-contradictions-deceptions#
The pundits are unanimous. Mitt Romney had more energy, offered more specifics, and may even have come across as more empathetic. I agree and polls suggest voters saw it the same way.
The debate may not change the dynamics of the election. But if I knew nothing about the candidates and this was my first exposure to the campaign, I’d think this Romney fellow has a detailed tax plan, wants to defend the middle class and poor, and will take care of people who can’t find health insurance.
Problem is, this isn’t my first exposure to the campaign. I happen to know a lot about the candidates. And I know that those three things aren’t true. Romney has made promises about taxes that are mathematically incompatible with one another. He’s outlined a spending plan that would devastate the middle class and (particularly) the poor. And his health care plan would leave people with pre-existing conditions pretty much in the same perilous situation they were before the Affordable Care Act became law.
My standard for candor in politics is whether candidates have offered the voters an accurate portrait of what they’ve done and what they are proposing. Tonight, Romney did precisely the opposite. And that really ought to be the story everybody is writing, although I doubt it will be.
Some details:
1. Taxes. President Obama repeatedly described Romney’s tax plan as a $5 trillion tax plan. Romney repeatedly took exception. The figure is correct. Romney has not given many details about his tax plan, but it’s possible to extrapolate from his promises and the Tax Policy Center, a project of the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, did just that. Crunching the numbers, they determined that his proposed rate cut would cost… $5 trillion.
Romney has said he would offset those cuts by closing loopholes. The Tax Policy Center has analyzed that promise and found that it is mathematically impossible, unless Romney raises taxes on the middle class or lets his tax plan increase the deficit—neither of which Romney has said he's willing to do. Romney has challenged the Tax Policy Center conclusion and did so again tonight, referring mysteriously to “six studies” that supposedly prove he’s right. He's also been cryptic about what deductions he'd cut and, tonight, even suggested maybe he'd back away from some of the cuts if the numbers didn't add up—although, as always, he was so vague that the statements could mean absolutely nothing.
I wish Obama had pressed him on this inconsistency even more directly than he did: “OK, governor, you say you can offset the $5 trillion cost of your tax plan. Tell us how, with real numbers. Are you getting rid of the home mortgage deduction? The exclusion for health insurance? Be straight with the American people about what you are proposing.” Obama didn’t do that, but it's a question Romney has never been willing to answer.
2. The deficit and spending cuts. Asked by moderator Jim Lehrer how he’d cut the deficit, Romney outlined his plan for cutting spending. It included three main provisions.
First, Romney said, he’d repeal the Affordable Care Act. He’s serious about that, I presume. The problem is that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the health care law reduces the deficit. Repeal it and the deficit goes up. Then Romney said he’d review programs and cut all that are non-essential, singling out PBS. Well, fine. That’s pennies on the budget. It wouldn’t be nearly enough to make a meaningful dent in the deficit.
After that, Romney mentioned “turning programs over to the states.” Here there is real money, particularly if Romney includes Medicaid, which will soon eclipse Medicare as the government’s most expensive health insurance program. But Romney suggested this would work because the states are more efficient. This is what he usually says. The implication is that the states can spend a lot less on the programs without dramatically reducing services.
That’s nonsense. Medicaid already pays less than every other insurance program, private and public. Cutting more from the program would inevitably force states to reduce whom or what the program covers. A year ago, when the House Republicans proposed a similar scheme, a Kaiser Family Foundation report by Urban Institute researchers crunched the numbers and determined that the Medicaid cut would mean between 14 and 27 million people would lose health insurance.
By the way, the researchers assumed states would deal with declining Medicaid money exclusively by cutting eligibility for the able-bodied and non-elderly. In fact, most of the program’s money goes to the disabled and elderly. Most likely, they’d feel at least some of the pain.
3. Medicare: Over and over again, Romney attacked Obama because the Affordable Care Act reduces Medicare spending by $716 billion. As you probably know by now, Paul Ryan’s budget made the exact same cut. And less than a year ago, Romney was praising this budget to the hilt.
But there’s another problem here: Romney’s own budget numbers don’t add up. Remember, he’s promised to cap non-defense spending at 16 percent of GDP. And he’s said he won’t touch Social Security. If he walls off Medicare, too, that would mean even sharper cuts across the board. How sharp? The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities ran the numbers. If Medicare is getting that $716 billion back, he’d have to cut other programs by an average of a third by 2016 and in half by 2022. Non-discretionary defense spending, which “has averaged 3.9 percent of GDP and never fallen below 3.2 percent,” would fall to 1.7 percent.
That’s simply not realistic. I have no problem believing Romney would cut domestic program deeply; his willingness to endorse the kinds of cuts he has specified, to Medicaid and food stamps, tell you everything you need to know about his priorities. But these figures are the stuff of fantasy. Either Romney can’t restore the Medicare dollars as he says or he’s not living up to his promises on deficit reduction.
The real shame of the exchange was that Romney's own plan got so little attention. Again, I wish Obama could have pressed Romney harder, or explained more clearly, why the voucher scheme he proposes would likely end the guarantee Medicare now makes to seniors—and why current retirees, as well as future ones, would feel the impact.
4. Health care and pre-existing conditions. Yeah, this was the part when I jumped out of my chair. Obama said that Romney’s alternative to Obamacare wouldn’t protect people with pre-existing conditions. Romney said it would. Sorry, but Romney is just plain wrong here. I’ve written about this before, so I’m just going to quote something I wrote previously:
Romney, like most Republicans, has long favored “continuous” coverage protection. But, for complicated reasons ... this protection is relatively weak unless it includes the sort of substantial regulation and subsidies that Romney, like most Republicans, has opposed. As a result, such protection would do very little for many of the people who need it most. Among other things, as Sarah Kliff points out ... “There are tens of millions of Americans who lack continuous coverage.” (A typical example would be somebody who lost a job, couldn’t keep making premium payments, and let coverage lapse.)
For people in this situation, Romney and the Republicans have traditionally said they favor coverage through “high-risk pools.” But high-risk pools are basically substandard policies: Although they cover catastrophic expenses, they leave people exposed to huge out-of-pocket costs. They also tend to be underfunded, because they cost a lot of money but serve only a small number of people. ...
So what would this mean in practice? Imagine for a second that you have cancer, diabetes, or Parkinson’s. With the coverage you’re likely to get form a high-risk pool, chances are that you’ll continue to struggle with medical bills. You’ll end up going into financial distress, just to cover your health are costs, unless you decide to start skipping treatment. And that’s obviously not a very good idea. These policies are better than nothing, for sure. But what you really need is comprehensive insurance and way to pay for it—in other words, the kind of protection that the Affordable Care Act will provide, starting in 2014, unless Romney and the Republicans repeal it.
I don’t want to pretend Obama was always as forthright as he could have been, any more than I want to suggest he was the more adept debater tonight. At one point, Obama talked about letting tax rates on higher incomes return to Clinton-era levels as essential to reducing the deficit. That’s true. But a truly serious approach to deficit reduction would let all taxes, even those on more modest incomes, return to Clinton-era levels (albeit after the economy is on sounder footing). Obama decried Romney’s plan to leave seniors “at the mercy of the private insurance system” but those are strong words from a guy whose own health care plan relies heavily on insurance plans, albeit with a lot more regulation than most conservatives like.
Still, these are tiny transgressions compared to Romney’s, which also included misleading statements about the origins of the deficit and claims of a jobs plan that is, if anything, even more unspecific than his tax plan. And I worry that nobody will call him on it.
As part of its post-debate analysis, ABC News asked correspondent Jonathan Karl to play the role of fact-checker. He picked out one statement from each side and rated it “mostly false.” But the Obama statement Karl picked was the description of Romney’s tax plan as costing $5 trillion—a figure, again, that comes straight from the Tax Policy Center. That’s not “mostly false.” If anything, it’s “mostly true.” Then Karl talked about Romney’s pre-existing condition promise, which really is “mostly false.” Sigh.
Biden should use his debate on Oct 7th to attack Romney on his lies....
I think he will.
I think he will.
That's a devastating article.
As part of its post-debate analysis, ABC News asked correspondent Jonathan Karl to play the role of fact-checker. He picked out one statement from each side and rated it “mostly false.” But the Obama statement Karl picked was the description of Romney’s tax plan as costing $5 trillion—a figure, again, that comes straight from the Tax Policy Center. That’s not “mostly false.” If anything, it’s “mostly true.” Then Karl talked about Romney’s pre-existing condition promise, which really is “mostly false.” Sigh.
I saw this too, and it pissed me off.
Oh yeah, the whole attempting to be unbiased by 'presenting both sides' bullshit.
Manchester United say they beat Arsenal 8-2 at Old Trafford, Arsenal says they won 2-1, you decide.
One positive from the shitty debate could be they foolishly pump money back into the presidential race when it's realistically still over.. although I think the republicans will see a massive upsurge in the other races anyway because Obama didn't do a good job defending democratic positions. It's also going to motivate the Republican base again, after they looked like they were getting disenchanted.
Will one of these guys seriously just go on MTV and play a saxophone?
One good guitar solo and Romney is back in this!
One good guitar solo and Romney is back in this!
Tbf the media are likely to be giddy about Romney winning the debate. More things to talk about equals better ratings.
You can see why they are spinning it that way.
You can see why they are spinning it that way.
Another one:
Need more of those and for Obama to prepare for them next time round, because Mitt obviously thinks it's now a winning strategy.
Need more of those and for Obama to prepare for them next time round, because Mitt obviously thinks it's now a winning strategy.
Factcheck.org lists Obama's $5 trillion tax cut claim as a false claim. They're completely missing the points, the Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime:
The dumb cnuts are completely missing Obama's point, which is that offsetting those cuts isn't mathematically possible without either a) raising taxes on the middle class, or b) adding to the deficit. They even said so themselves in an article two months ago!
We need a factchecker for the factcheckers.
The dumb cnuts are completely missing Obama's point, which is that offsetting those cuts isn't mathematically possible without either a) raising taxes on the middle class, or b) adding to the deficit. They even said so themselves in an article two months ago!
We need a factchecker for the factcheckers.
It is stunning, CNN did the same thing last night.
DENVER -- A fired-up President Barack Obama spoke to a crowd of more than 12,000 at a Denver campaign event Thursday and seemed to exude the energy and aggressiveness that many of his supporters felt was missing at last night's presidential debate.
Trying to rebound from what many called a listless performance last night, Obama argued today that the Mitt Romney who appeared at the debate was not the “real Mitt Romney.”
“When I got on stage, I met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney,” the he said. “But it couldn’t have been Mitt Romney, because the real Mitt Romney has been running around the country for the year, promising $5 billion dollars in tax cuts that favor the wealthy. The fellow on stage last night didn’t seem to know anything about that.”
The president dedicated the first part of his speech to retroactively rebutting Romney’s debate talking points.
Last night, Romney said his plans to trim the deficit wouldn’t mean teacher cuts: “I reject the idea that I don’t believe in great teachers or more teachers. Every school district, every state should make that decision on their own.”
Romney had the final word on the matter last night, but today Obama told his supporters: “The real Mitt Romney said we don’t need anymore teachers in our classrooms ... But the fellow on stage last night, he loves teachers, can’t get enough of them.”
Last night, Obama also missed an opportunity to highlight his opponent’s personal tax records after Gov. Romney said, “I’ve been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you’re talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant ... but the idea that you get a break for shipping jobs overseas is simply not the case."
Today, Mr. Obama fired off this retort: “We know for sure it was not the real Mitt Romney because he seems to be doing just fine with his current accountant.”
And while Romney drew a lot of public criticism for suggesting his deficit reductions would include stripping federal funding for PBS -- and by extension “Big Bird” -- Obama did not challenge him on the point until today: “He said he’d eliminate funding for public television... I mean thank goodness someone is finally getting tough on ‘Big Bird’ ”
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...tries-to-rebound-after-wednesdays-debate?lite
Trying to rebound from what many called a listless performance last night, Obama argued today that the Mitt Romney who appeared at the debate was not the “real Mitt Romney.”
“When I got on stage, I met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney,” the he said. “But it couldn’t have been Mitt Romney, because the real Mitt Romney has been running around the country for the year, promising $5 billion dollars in tax cuts that favor the wealthy. The fellow on stage last night didn’t seem to know anything about that.”
The president dedicated the first part of his speech to retroactively rebutting Romney’s debate talking points.
Last night, Romney said his plans to trim the deficit wouldn’t mean teacher cuts: “I reject the idea that I don’t believe in great teachers or more teachers. Every school district, every state should make that decision on their own.”
Romney had the final word on the matter last night, but today Obama told his supporters: “The real Mitt Romney said we don’t need anymore teachers in our classrooms ... But the fellow on stage last night, he loves teachers, can’t get enough of them.”
Last night, Obama also missed an opportunity to highlight his opponent’s personal tax records after Gov. Romney said, “I’ve been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you’re talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant ... but the idea that you get a break for shipping jobs overseas is simply not the case."
Today, Mr. Obama fired off this retort: “We know for sure it was not the real Mitt Romney because he seems to be doing just fine with his current accountant.”
And while Romney drew a lot of public criticism for suggesting his deficit reductions would include stripping federal funding for PBS -- and by extension “Big Bird” -- Obama did not challenge him on the point until today: “He said he’d eliminate funding for public television... I mean thank goodness someone is finally getting tough on ‘Big Bird’ ”
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...tries-to-rebound-after-wednesdays-debate?lite
The town hall debate will be tougher for Romney where he has to actually talk to people. He'll also be hit with Obama zingers based on all his bullshit from last night.
Yep, I think Obama learned a lot from last night, and that he'll be back with a vengeance.
Well done Barack, you've just done the childhood equivalent of muttering a comeback to yourself on the way home after having an argument at school.
I think people have really underestimated Romney; if he had only been half competent last night it would have been a story. The surprise factor of him clearly besting Obama has understandably got people wondering if this is the start of something.
Do you think he bested him by accurately depicting his own policies, out of interest?
I don't know if Romney deserves much credit for lying through his teeth and getting away with it.
I always said the surprise was how poorly ran his campaign has been. He's a solid politician, but Obama was the surprise- he was awful on the night. Looked timid and like he was whiling the clock away.
One or two of the answers he gave was borderline Palinesque, bouncing between subjects with no coherent message. The only reason it wasn't quite as bad as Palin is that with Palin she is just regurgitating talking points without a fundamental understanding of the subject, whereas Obama was just scrambling for a point of attack.
One or two of the answers he gave was borderline Palinesque, bouncing between subjects with no coherent message. The only reason it wasn't quite as bad as Palin is that with Palin she is just regurgitating talking points without a fundamental understanding of the subject, whereas Obama was just scrambling for a point of attack.
That CNN poll that showed 67-25 win for Romney? Something funny there:
N/A doesn't mean they interviewed no one fitting that description, but it does mean the number is so low it can't be considered statistically significant. This is shockingly dishonest on CNN's part.
N/A doesn't mean they interviewed no one fitting that description, but it does mean the number is so low it can't be considered statistically significant. This is shockingly dishonest on CNN's part.
Where did you find that?
Was that undecideds, or a general poll of who won?
Was shown to me (with circles) on Facebook, but here's the whole thing from CNN's site.
It was the "snap poll" CNN went live on the air with shortly after the debate ended. Apparently they just went to a bunch of old folks' homes in and around Atlanta.*
*I'm joking here, but feck me I can't think of any way CNN could get such a bizarrely skewed demographic without trying for it.
That is bizarre. Skewed Polls: The Sequel.
That surely can't be right. How bizarre. It's something one would expect from Fox.
I can only think of three possible conclusions:
1) CNN was somehow unable to reach many people who weren't old white southerners quickly enough, and went on the air with what they had.
2) CNN was incredibly lazy, didn't bother to properly to check their work, and went on the air with tremendously flawed poll.
3) CNN deliberately skewed their demographics towards Romney to push the horse-race and increase their ratings, because a close election makes them more money than a blow-out.
1) CNN was somehow unable to reach many people who weren't old white southerners quickly enough, and went on the air with what they had.
2) CNN was incredibly lazy, didn't bother to properly to check their work, and went on the air with tremendously flawed poll.
3) CNN deliberately skewed their demographics towards Romney to push the horse-race and increase their ratings, because a close election makes them more money than a blow-out.
Now that I expect much people to be interested, but in case anyone is, this is a debate involving Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson:
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/20..._watch_democracy_nows_full_three_hour_special
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/20..._watch_democracy_nows_full_three_hour_special
Apparently CBS' poll of undecideds resulted in Romney 46, Obama 22, tie 32...
Other option is that the data is incomplete when they went to press with the poll. They had the totals and some of the breakdown but not all the break down data available. Whether through miscommunication with the polling agency or just rushing to get something out there.
Obivously it is possible they had a horribly skewed group that they polled, but my guess is that they just did not received all the break down data and that N/A might mean NOT AVAILABLE as oppsed to NOT APPLICABLE.
Obivously it is possible they had a horribly skewed group that they polled, but my guess is that they just did not received all the break down data and that N/A might mean NOT AVAILABLE as oppsed to NOT APPLICABLE.
Romeny's team would have loved the 'angry black man' last night.
Now Romney is seen to be the liar all right wingers love.
Too true, sadly.
Mate, I want Obama to win too, that doesn't mean I have to try to make every Obama blunder a stroke of genius. Romney won the debate. The majority of the people who watched last night who didn't know that he was lying a lot of the time aren't going to be the type of people who look up fact-checks and Obama ads and speeches that make comebacks after the event.
Why in the world do you consider it more likely that a polling agency was unable to calcluate basic crosstab information in some but not all of the categories then that those crosstabs were too small a sample?
Bad tactics, it seems:
Thanks to Saliph, I have that cheesy-ass Hermain Cain campaign song on autoloop in my head everytime im on this thread...
" I am americaaaaa"
" I am americaaaaa"
- Status