Obama gaining ground in Ohio and Florida

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
PapaG said:
The election is over. Why are you still posting about polls. Obama won. You already have called it.
Click to expand...

because it's fun to just randomly post things knowing how much it excites you? :P
 
julius said:
because it's fun to just randomly post things knowing how much it excites you? :P
Click to expand...

I haven't posted here in a few days. Nice to see I'm still not "liked", though. :)
 
I think Gov. Romney right now is trailing in OH by 1-3 percentage points.
 
MickZagger said:
You can't see the pretentiousness in 'wrapping my head around a concept'? You, are as delusional as I thought. Not a very good representation for the Republican party.
Click to expand...

I don't see it as pretentious. I see it as speaking directly. You haven't shown yourself to understand nuance.

As for being a representative of the GOP, since I'm not a member, I don't know why I should care.
 
maxiep said:
I think Gov. Romney right now is trailing in OH by 1-3 percentage points.
Click to expand...

He's up by a few points. There is no way Obama would be spending this much time there if he was confident of carrying the state again. 4k just laid off in the coal industry today, by the way, and that's not reflected in the OH polls.
 
1 in every 8 jobs in Ohio are associated with the auto industry. I think Obama has Ohio in his back pocket. Its Florida he has to worry about.
 
PapaG said:
He's up by a few points. There is no way Obama would be spending this much time there if he was confident of carrying the state again. 4k just laid off in the coal industry today, by the way, and that's not reflected in the OH polls.
Click to expand...

My buddy lives in Cleveland, is a registered Republican and told me that he's seen so much negative advertising by the Obama campaign, at times he actually thinks Romney may be the devil.

Obama is spending time in OH, because without it, Romney's road to 270 is very difficult.
 
Don't discount the fracking issue in OH. They have a couple of deposits in Central OH that could provide a TON of new jobs.
 
PapaG said:
I haven't posted here in a few days. Nice to see I'm still not "liked", though. :)
Click to expand...

who said anything about not being liked? Just because we disagree and joke around with each other means we don't like each other? I have no reason to dislike you

btw, yesterday morning (and I'm being generous and not counting the denny thread about not smoking) is not a 'few days'.
 
maxiep said:
I think Gov. Romney right now is trailing in OH by 1-3 percentage points.
Click to expand...

I think so, too.

(For those interested, Reagan intervened in labor disputes more than once, PATCO traffic controllers being the most famous).

http://articles.latimes.com/1987-01-29/news/mn-2213_1_long-island-rail-road-workers

Reagan Acts to Halt New York Rail Strike

WASHINGTON — President Reagan on Wednesday signed legislation ordering striking Long Island Rail Road workers back on the job, meaning service could be restored for the line's 112,000 commuters within 48 hours.

With some reservations, Reagan signed a resolution rushed through Congress a day earlier that requires the workers to return to their jobs for 60 days, a "cooling off" period that is designed to help union and railroad negotiators reach a settlement.

"The urgency with which this legislation was passed reflects the enormous hardship visited upon the communities served by the Long Island Rail Road that has been caused by the current strike," Reagan said in a written statement.

However, Reagan questioned whether the government should intervene in the labor dispute, noting that federal railway labor law was supposed to be invoked only if a strike threatened "essential transportation services."

"Characterizing the shutdown of the Long Island Rail Road as a threat to essential transportation services could have the undesirable effect of requiring federal involvement in the future in a multitude of local disputes which should be settled by collective bargaining," Reagan said.

(this last sentence being pretty important, IMO)
 
Thought I read today that Romney down about 10 percentage points in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania? Guess it depends what poll you look at.

Can't say I'm surprised. Etch-a-Sketch Romney is about as flakey as they come, this coming from a non-affiliated voter who's voted for Republicans in the past.
 
I can't remember... were democrats acting the same way about the polls in 2004 when Kerry was about to lose? Making up reasons to disbelieve the polls? Insisting that the pollsters were biased, were applying the wrong filters, were talking to the wrong people? Denying statistical reality?

I don't know. Maybe I was one of those people complaining about the polls back then. I'm sure if I was it felt (to me) more hopeful than desperate at the time.

barfo
 
barfo said:
I can't remember... were democrats acting the same way about the polls in 2004 when Kerry was about to lose? Making up reasons to disbelieve the polls? Insisting that the pollsters were biased, were applying the wrong filters, were talking to the wrong people? Denying statistical reality?

I don't know. Maybe I was one of those people complaining about the polls back then. I'm sure if I was it felt (to me) more hopeful than desperate at the time.

barfo
Click to expand...

We were a bit; lots of concern about how the voting machines were going to steal the election in swing states and hand-wringing over the swift boat thing. Regardless of the flavor though, what links Democrats in 2004 to Republicans of 2012 is a sense of delusion.
 
barfo said:
I can't remember... were democrats acting the same way about the polls in 2004 when Kerry was about to lose? Making up reasons to disbelieve the polls? Insisting that the pollsters were biased, were applying the wrong filters, were talking to the wrong people? Denying statistical reality?

I don't know. Maybe I was one of those people complaining about the polls back then. I'm sure if I was it felt (to me) more hopeful than desperate at the time.

barfo
Click to expand...


http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/wisconsin-dems-dispute-the-marquette-poll.php
 
BlazerCaravan said:
We were a bit; lots of concern about how the voting machines were going to steal the election in swing states and hand-wringing over the swift boat thing. Regardless of the flavor though, what links Democrats in 2004 to Republicans of 2012 is a sense of delusion.
Click to expand...

Delusion how? There is a statistical basis for my skepticism of the polling data. You tell me if you expect 2012 Democratic/Republican turnout to exceed 2008 (which was at a record level for the Democrats). Because that's what the models are predicting in those polls.
 
maxiep said:
Delusion how? There is a statistical basis for my skepticism of the polling data. You tell me if you expect 2012 Democratic/Republican turnout to exceed 2008 (which was at a record level for the Democrats). Because that's what the models are predicting in those polls.
Click to expand...

You have more knowledge on this subject than the pollsters. I forgot...
 
MickZagger said:
You have more knowledge on this subject than the pollsters. I forgot...
Click to expand...

Probably not, but I'm almost certainly better with statistics. Mostly, I have analytical skills equal to or greater than a 7th grader.

It's ironic, actually. Just yesterday you were telling me that I shouldn't believe what everyone writes about themselves on the Internet yesterday, that I should be skeptical. Now, I'm the one saying you should be skeptical while you apparently believe everything you read on the Internet whole hog, as long as it's a poll.
 
max darns his own socks and saves his used tinfoil, true story
 
maxiep said:
Probably not, but I'm almost certainly better with statistics. Mostly, I have analytical skills equal to or greater than a 7th grader.

It's ironic, actually. Just yesterday you were telling me that I shouldn't believe what everyone writes about themselves on the Internet yesterday, that I should be skeptical. Now, I'm the one saying you should be skeptical while you apparently believe everything you read on the Internet whole hog, as long as it's a poll.
Click to expand...

I didn't read it on the internet. I heard it on the radio and watched it on the news. These aren't average Joe Schmoes making up these stats on an internet forum either.
 
MickZagger said:
I didn't read it on the internet. I heard it on the radio and watched it on the news. These aren't average Joe Schmoes making up these stats on an internet forum either.
Click to expand...

I'll remember how you heard it on the radio as an authoritative source the next time you bring up Rush Limbaugh.
 
maxiep said:
I'll remember how you heard it on the radio as an authoritative source the next time you bring up Rush Limbaugh.
Click to expand...

well, I would suspect that NPR is slightly more reliable and authoritative than Rush Limbaugh is.
 
julius said:
well, I would suspect that NPR is slightly more reliable and authoritative than Rush Limbaugh is.
Click to expand...

I suppose that used to be true. These days, I'm not so sure. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, but he sounds bombastic when I hear clips of him. NPR tells complete falsehoods with that smooth, reasoned, soft tone. It doesn't make their words any more credible. I would furthermore argue that NPR is at least as biased as right wing talk radio.
 
maxiep said:
I suppose that used to be true. These days, I'm not so sure. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, but he sounds bombastic when I hear clips of him. NPR tells complete falsehoods with that smooth, reasoned, soft tone. It doesn't make their words any more credible. I would furthermore argue that NPR is at least as biased as right wing talk radio.
Click to expand...

I disagree about them being as biased, but Rush Limbaugh (Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage) all tell flasehoods with loud, abrupt and angry tones and NEVER admit they're wrong.

At least NPR admits they get something wrong.
 
maxiep said:
I suppose that used to be true. These days, I'm not so sure. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, but he sounds bombastic when I hear clips of him. NPR tells complete falsehoods with that smooth, reasoned, soft tone. It doesn't make their words any more credible. I would furthermore argue that NPR is at least as biased as right wing talk radio.
Click to expand...

I take it you listen to a lot of NPR?
 
julius said:
I disagree about them being as biased, but Rush Limbaugh (Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage) all tell flasehoods with loud, abrupt and angry tones and NEVER admit they're wrong.

At least NPR admits they get something wrong.
Click to expand...

NPR's most conservative regular commentator these days is David Brooks, who barely qualifies as one. Meanwhile, people like EJ Dionne represent their "sensible middle". The fact you can't see the bias in NPR says something about your point of view. By the way, I say this as a long time listener/supporter of public radio. It's a damn shame; NPR used to be worth listening to for politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top