[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-October-19, 10:32, said:

i feel obligated to point out, right back atcha

No doubt...

Here's the difference:

I'm not the "joke" on this board.
I'm not the one who has people laughing about their (serious) posts...

[lalldonn]

Nate Silver has Obama back over 70% to win, skyrocketing up 5% from a day earlier. I think (?) that is based on new polls that came out of Iowa and Wisconsin showing Obama with leads in those states. It's clear his slide from after the first debate has ended.

http://fivethirtyeig...ytimes.com/?8qa

[PassedOut]

lalldonn, on 2012-October-19, 11:07, said:

Nate Silver has Obama back over 70% to win, skyrocketing up 5% from a day earlier. I think (?) that is based on new polls that came out of Iowa and Wisconsin showing Obama with leads in those states. It's clear his slide from after the first debate has ended.

I found Nate's comments about the Gallup poll interesting also. The Gallup results seemed puzzling until I saw that Gallup has Romney ahead by 22 points in the South, but trailing by 4-6 points everywhere else. Could be an argument in favor of the electoral college vs. straight popular vote.

[Winstonm]

Quote

It seems wierd the Republicans basically target the top 1% or so of the population

Weirder still is that about 40% of non-1% U.S. population is too stupid to understand this and votes GOP anyway.

[kenberg]

It is often said, here and elsewhere, that debates do not change votes. I am not so sure that this is so, but even if that is granted I am thinking that debates can focus the collective mind of the country on matters of importance. The third debate is to be on foreign policy, and it seems to me that we are desperately in need of some serious thinking here. Let me pose a point perhaps provocatively. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor a little before my third birthday. We went to war against a clearly defined enemy and our objectives were clear. Then there was the long cold war against the Soviet Union (allied with China for part of it). More complex, but still comprehensible. But now? Does anyone understand just what our policy, our plans, our objectives are in the Middle East? We want access to oil, I get that part. And certainly we do not want people flying hijacked planes into our buildings.But what else? As near as I can tell, the peoples of the Middle East plan to go on killing each other until they are all dead. I have no idea how to distinguish an Alewite from a Shiite or either one from a Sunni. I'm not sure why I should. I can't distinguish a Lutheran from a Baptist either, but they aer no longer killing each other. Can we, should we, somehow extract ourselves from all of this? I can't see that getting mired in a conflict that shows no sign of ever ending can be in our interest. The idea that they will be ever so grateful for our intervention does not seem to hold up very well.

Perhaps the candidates will address this?

[hrothgar]

PassedOut, on 2012-October-19, 11:21, said:

I found Nate's comments about the Gallup poll interesting also. The Gallup results seemed puzzling until I saw that Gallup has Romney ahead by 22 points in the South, but trailing by 4-6 points everywhere else. Could be an argument in favor of the electoral college vs. straight popular vote.

The following chart may be of interest



Taken from: http://www.motherjon...obama-just-fine

[lalldonn]

PassedOut, on 2012-October-19, 11:21, said:

I found Nate's comments about the Gallup poll interesting also. The Gallup results seemed puzzling until I saw that Gallup has Romney ahead by 22 points in the South, but trailing by 4-6 points everywhere else. Could be an argument in favor of the electoral college vs. straight popular vote.

Interesting...

Quote

[Gallup's] results are deeply inconsistent with the results that other polling firms are showing in the presidential race, and the Gallup poll has a history of performing very poorly when that is the case.
...
The context is that [Gallup's] most recent results differ substantially from the dozens of other state and national polls about the campaign. It’s much more likely that Gallup is wrong and everyone else is right than the other way around.

luke warm, on 2012-October-17, 13:52, said:

i take solace that nobody has been abouve 50% in a gallup poll in october and lost the election, and romney is at 51%... barring some major as yet unknown development, i'll stick w/ my prediction of a romney landslide

Well, everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion! But I'll go with Nate on this one.

[luke warm]

kenberg, on 2012-October-19, 11:31, said:

Can we, should we, somehow extract ourselves from all of this? I can't see that getting mired in a conflict that shows no sign of ever ending can be in our interest. The idea that they will be ever so grateful for our intervention does not seem to hold up very well.

Perhaps the candidates will address this?

i can sympathize with that sentiment... i don't think we can completely abandon israel to that environment, though... i also think that part of our presence has to do with the impossibility of preventing further attacks here w/out gathering intel there... we could also save a bunch of money if we only gave to countries that don't actively hate us (though that number seems to be shrinking)

Quote

Quote

i take solace that nobody has been abouve 50% in a gallup poll in october and lost the election, and romney is at 51%... barring some major as yet unknown development, i'll stick w/ my prediction of a romney landslide

Well, everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion! But I'll go with Nate on this one

i guess time will tell

[PassedOut]

Jack Welch might blow a gasket: In U.S., Unadjusted Unemployment at 7.3% in Mid-October

Quote

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, is 7.3% in mid-October, down considerably from 7.9% at the end of September and at a new low since Gallup began collecting employment data in January 2010. Gallup's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate is 7.7%, also down from September. October's adjusted mid-month measure is also more than a percentage point lower than October 2011.

Wonder if the Gallup cheerleaders will wave their pom-poms for this report!

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2012-October-19, 14:23, said:

Wonder if the Gallup cheerleaders will wave their pom-poms for this report!

speaking of polls, realclear has romney ahead electorally for the first time (map) and the examiner even has him ahead in PA (which i predicted, just not this early or by this much)... rasmussen has him up by 3 in VA, and by 5 in florida... oh, and i don't think you should count MI for obama quite yet... or WI, or MN, or IA, or NH

don't know what to say about the gallup, except 6% is 6%

yep, bad news for obama if those hold... 'course, it's possible the FL, PA, & VA polls are what they are because someone over counted the southern states, but i doubt it

seriously though, i don't think this is over yet... being the political savant that i am, i foresee one, maybe two, october surprises still to come... the easy one is drones taking out the libyan murderers (you know, the ones pissed about a video)... the tough one is obama getting iran to stop enriching in exchange for the easing of sanctions... i don't recall how many electoral votes iran has, but that should help obama

[mike777]

Nate has the lead for the President increasing.

Hard to see how Romney can win with women, gays, minorites and the 47% not voting for him.

[lalldonn]

luke warm, on 2012-October-19, 15:38, said:

seriously though, i don't think this is over yet...

I don't disagree. Even believing Nate as I do that means Romney currently has nearly a 30% chance of winning. I'm not as comfortable as I was with Obama against McCain. That one felt in the bag the whole time. But one thing I'll say is I don't think the general public cares about Libya nearly as much as you and Romney seem to believe. What percentage of Americans do you suppose can even point it out on a map, or name the capital city, or heck even say for sure what continent it's on?

[mike777]

lalldonn, on 2012-October-19, 16:07, said:

I don't disagree. Even believing Nate as I do that means Romney currently has nearly a 30% chance of winning. I'm not as comfortable as I was with Obama against McCain. That one felt in the bag the whole time. But one thing I'll say is I don't think the general public cares about Libya nearly as much as you and Romney seem to believe. What percentage of Americans do you suppose can even point it out on a map, or name the capital city, or heck even say for sure what continent it's on?

gd pt.

[PassedOut]

lalldonn, on 2012-October-19, 16:07, said:

Even believing Nate as I do that means Romney currently has nearly a 30% chance of winning. I'm not as comfortable as I was with Obama against McCain.

I'm quite uncomfortable that it's this close too. 70% is not a lock by any means. (I guess all bridge players know that for sure.)

[lalldonn]

Now at 66.9%, maybe due to the CNN Florida poll that just came out.

[luke warm]

lalldonn, on 2012-October-19, 16:59, said:

Now at 66.9%, maybe due to the CNN Florida poll that just came out.

does he say anything about PA or VA? no matter what, i see a nearly impossible road for romney w/out ohio

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-October-19, 18:46, said:

does he say anything about PA or VA? no matter what, i see a nearly impossible road for romney w/out ohio

Silver lists PA as 89.2% chance of Obama win
VA as 53.1% chance of Romney win
MI as 96% chance of Obama win
WI as 79.8% chance of Obama win
FL as 68.9% chance of Romney win

[luke warm]

He evidently doesn't believe the latest polls

[TimG]

lalldonn, on 2012-October-19, 16:07, said:

What percentage of Americans do you suppose can even point it out on a map, or name the capital city, or heck even say for sure what continent it's on?

3 for 3! But, I was far from confident about the capital.

I bet the percentage of Americans that can point to Iraq, Iran, and Israel on a map is also rather small, but that doesn't mean Americans don't have strong opinions about all three.

Many opinions are not based upon a foundation of knowledge. (Mine included.)

[Chas_P]

lalldonn, on 2012-October-19, 16:07, said:

But one thing I'll say is I don't think the general public cares about Libya nearly as much as you and Romney seem to believe.

That's certainly borne out in some quarters.