Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/18/12 07:25 AM, Korriken wrote: VP Debate: Moderator was playing Obama cheerleader, Biden won... not much changed.

Debate 2: Moderator was playing Obama cheerleader, Obama slightly won. Even after getting the last work in 8 out of 11 times, and was allowed to go over the time limit every time, he only barely won.

lulz "ROMNEY/RYAN LOST MODERATOR WAS BIASED!!" Did you actually watch the debates live and that was the conclusion you made or did you just watch Fox news? Because the none of the moderators were Obama's Cheerleaders.

I don't expect Bob Schieffer to be neutral either. I have no doubt he'll try to sway things for Obama on the 3rd debate too. After the Crowley debacle, I don't think he'll try the same tactics she used. Course, I have no faith in the people who set up the debates either, given they selected 4 liberals to be moderators, 2 of which actively steered things in Obama's (and Biden's) favor. Having Candy Crowley moderate, the only way to offset that would be to have someone like Sean Hannity moderate the 3rd one.

Tactics you mean like criticize both candidates? Because if they were truly unbiased then they'd criticize only Obama because Conservatives are always right.

At 10/19/12 05:00 PM, TheMason wrote: Okay...I understand that to you 40 years seems like a long time and that things are changed and now they are Forever BFFs...but that's naive. 40 years is nothing in the sweep of history.

Time doesn't matter as much as what happens in that period. The simple fact is that since the Soviet Union collapsed many of the conflicts went away. You can go for hundreds of years of little to no change for everything to change in a couple years. For example, the fall of Communism, it had been planted firmly for half a century only to fall after a couple years of reform, or better yet, how much changed between 1910-1950? Hint; everything.

Yes...because the Han, Mongolians and Russians haven't been swapping territories going back all the way to Ghengis Khan. Just so you know...Ghengis Khan lived in 1200 and set-up a dynasty that would include all of China and a good part of Russia.

But you're absolutely right...these are tensions that suddenly erupted when Mao Tse Tung took over after WWII.

Yes, nothing happened in the 90's. Like at all. In fact nothing has changed.

May I suggest you disengage? You've continually shown that you're pretty ignorant in regards to the region's history and politics.

You appear to be the one who is ignorant, not me. You're still stuck in a Sino-Soviet split mentality, you are completely ignorant of changing relations. You have failed to cite any current tensions between Russia or China, all you've cited are Sino-Soviet split conflicts all the serious ones being solved. In fact your entire argument is "Not enough time has elapsed for things to have changed". I know about these conflicts you're referencing, you don't need to tell me, but you've completely ignored all these resolutions and don't seem to know of their existence.

To answer this point: There is nationalism and ethnic tensions between Russia and China. In his book on his involvment with Biological Weapons ex-Soviet Doctor-Colonel Ken Alibek wrote in the book I just linked about how 'white' Russians treated people of Han/Mongolian descent.

Russians have ethnic tensions with pretty much every Asian country within their reach, but that is more the far right Russians, not all Russians are like that and most certainly not the government, which tries to in fact repress those racist voices.

First of all; in 1962 China most likely returned to pre-war boundaries because they did not have the military to control captured territories long term. Back then China's military sucked in terms of logistics and military technology. So...it was the prudent course of action. Had China been as powerful as it is today, they probably would not have been that magnanimous.

For all its faults the Chinese army back then was much more advanced and organized than the Indian army, the entire war was testament to that. China today would much rather not have tensions with a nation that is mirroring similar growth.

Key words: "...for now."

Which means you can't accurately predict what's going on. In fact going by your substance they're more likely to get into an alliance and go to war with the United States rather than with each other.

Not at all. China would be overrun by N. Koreans fleeing the greatest humanitarian crisis since the Holocaust. This very well could destabilize parts of China where there are ethnic Korean Chinese populations, and Beijing would fear contagion. Furthermore, N. Korea have played off the Russia-China divide throughout its history. Seeing that it weakens thier adversary, Russia may see an opening.

You've missed the point, China and Russia having warm relations with N. Korea does not show a rivalry between Russia and China as much as it displays tension the two have against America.

Yes...it is predominately Sino-US. However, if the US is perceived as weak someone like Russia could try to muscle in.

Why would Russia want to go to war with China? Again, they've been trying to warm up relations because China is a growing power who can invest in the Far East, China doesn't want to go to war either, it may not care about a close relation with Russia but still likes the opportunity to have a peace with their big neighbor as well as potential investments.

No...I've provided enough. You're just stuck with a post-Cold War mentality that dictates that we have seen 'the end of history' (a famous quote from the mid-1990s). We have not. The fact is there are many ethnic and nationalistic tension throughout the world just like there were tensions in Europe during the Colonial Era that eventually led to WWI. Now we see an ascent of the East as the West wanes. Now we see powers rising to near-superpower status both in terms of military tech and economies. Some, especially Russia, have not so covertly let it be known that they want to re-expand their borders/influence to ones from some past golden age.

You're stuck in a Sino-Soviet split mentality. You've failed to cite any modern tension, you've failed to show any tension between the governments of Russia and China. In fact all you've done is shown why they would go to war with the United States together before they go to war with each other.

The reality is that the world is shifting, and now old tensions pose dangers to the peaceful status quo. Afterall the Pax Americana is not the first era of peace thanks to one person/dynasty/nation becoming a superpower. The Pax Romana lasted 207 years and the Pax Mongolia lasted about 90.

The current peace, unfortunately, will not last forever. In order to see this all you need to do is take off your rose-colored glasses.

Dear lord that is perhaps one of the most arrogant things I have ever heard. That is not what I'm saying at all, what you need to do is read up on MODERN Sino-Russian relations before you go off calling people ignorant on that topic. Of course I know it's shifting, in fact Russia and China have been warming relations, but you haven't proven anything that they're turning hostile in fact all you've done is shown potential Sino-Russian alliance against the US and its allies but even that is unlikely. What YOU need to do is get off the Cold War mentality and understand modern Russia and China rather than think everything is the same from that period.

At 10/19/12 06:34 PM, Warforger wrote:

lulz "ROMNEY/RYAN LOST MODERATOR WAS BIASED!!" Did you actually watch the debates live and that was the conclusion you made or did you just watch Fox news? Because the none of the moderators were Obama's Cheerleaders.

keep the rose colored glasses on, truth may be too harsh for you. look over the statistics and tell me Crowley wasn't working to help obama.

Tactics you mean like criticize both candidates? Because if they were truly unbiased then they'd criticize only Obama because Conservatives are always right.

*facepalm* I give up, there's no point in any of this. No matter what I say I'm always gonna get sarcastic remarks and "lolderpconspiracylol"

On another note, Romney's numbers continue to rise.

I'm just banking on the end of the world at this point.

At 10/19/12 11:46 PM, POTaTOS wrote: I'm just banking on the end of the world at this point.

It's honestly not bad for most of us that have internet I mean we could have just as easily been born an indentured slave bound for death on the construction crews of the great wall of China working for one rice bowl a day.

At 10/19/12 11:02 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 10/19/12 06:34 PM, Warforger wrote:

On another note, Romney's numbers continue to rise.

Now I could just be using math here, but it appears to me that Obama either held ground or gained ground in 8 of the polls released, and lost ground in 5 of them. Now let's zero in on the Pennsylvania polls:

10/14/12 Quinnipiac Obama 50% - Romney 46%
10/14/12 Public Policy Polling (D) Obama 51% - Romney 44%
10/14/12 Morning Call Obama 49% - Romney 45%
10/08/12 Philadelphia Inquirer Obama 50% - Romney 42%
10/09/12 Rasmussen Reports Obama 51% - Romney 46%
10/05/12 Siena Obama 43% - Romney 40%

Now you may ask "Well, JMHX, you cherrypicking fuck, why isn't Susquehanna included?" Well, for good reason. To borrow from Philadelphia Weekly

According to the Examiner-and kudos to them for admitting this up front-said poll was done by right-wing pollster Susquehanna Polling and Research between the first and second debates. The kicker: It was âEUoeconducted for state party officials.âEU Which Susquehanna often does.

On September 21st, we noted a Susquehanna poll showing Romney down by one point to Obama-while similar polls showed the Republican losing by double digits.

The pollster only spoke to voters who said there was an âEUoeexcellentâEU or âEUoegoodâEU chance theyâEUTMll vote in November-and 96 percent of those were in the âEUoeexcellentâEU category. The poll included third party candidates (and thatâEUTMs good), but found that only two percent of voters in Pennsylvania-two!-are what you may call âEUoeundecided.âEU Only 20 percent of respondents were from Philadelphia or Allegheny Counties. ItâEUTMs unclear whether the pollster called cell phones in addition to land lines.

Even as SusquenannaâEUTMs polls have shown Romney within striking distance throughout campaign season, the candidate and his money have been moving away from the commonwealth, with a hard shift of resources toward Ohio. Romney hasnâEUTMt run an ad here in months.

So in short, a strong outlier, I'll stick with the trend line provided by the conservative RealClearPolitics: Obama +5.0

For reference to my 8-5 poll comment:

I knew you would bite on that one. Kind of makes my point. When I say something you can counter easily, you do. When I say something you can't counter you try to discredit by screaming "conspiracy theory!" and making sarcastic remarks.

to hell with it, I'm out of here.enjoy the liberal circle jerking, as this entire forum has become.

At 10/20/12 12:37 AM, Korriken wrote: I knew you would bite on that one. Kind of makes my point. When I say something you can counter easily, you do. When I say something you can't counter you try to discredit by screaming "conspiracy theory!" and making sarcastic remarks.

to hell with it, I'm out of here.enjoy the liberal circle jerking, as this entire forum has become.

Hey man, I gave you my paragraphs up above, you decided to change the goalposts of the discussion midway through your 'rebuttal.' Don't get butthurt over statistics courses, bro.

At 10/19/12 11:02 PM, Korriken wrote: keep the rose colored glasses on, truth may be too harsh for you. look over the statistics and tell me Crowley wasn't working to help obama.

I actually watched the debate live. Crowley was about as much of an Obama supporter as Romney. Many people are cherry picking her words because when she criticized one candidate she went after the other, I think the best was on LIbya where she fact checked Romney when he said that Obama did not call the attack on the embassy a terrorist attack until weeks after and immediately after that pointed out to Obama that his administration has been changing their story alot and hasn't had a consistent report on it. If that's cheerleading for Obama then I'd guess only Rush Limbaugh would be a fair moderator.

*facepalm* I give up, there's no point in any of this. No matter what I say I'm always gonna get sarcastic remarks and "lolderpconspiracylol"

lulz. Keep the rose colored glasses on, truth may be too harsh for you. I'd love for you to actually watch the debate instead of just listening to some news outlet and call it a day. Because you obviously haven't.

At 10/20/12 12:37 AM, Korriken wrote: to hell with it, I'm out of here.enjoy the liberal circle jerking, as this entire forum has become.

Ah, yes, the right wing victim complex in action.

you know, I oughta begin replying to these posts the same way the liberals do. good idea!

At 10/20/12 01:09 AM, Warforger wrote:

I actually watched the debate live. Crowley was about as much of an Obama supporter as Romney.

right... Obama gets the last word damn near every time. Obama gets more speaking time. That sure as hell if even. but let's just ignore that, since, you know, its for your guy and not the other guy. I saw the debate myself. I watched it, I didn't get to see it live, since I was at work, but it is available on youtube. I kept note of several things, like how many times the moderator interrupted who, who gets the last word in, and so on. In case you're wonder why it's important, the person who gets the last word can say as he pleases and the other guy doesn't get to respond. Obama got to say as he pleases all but twice.

maybe you didn't watch it at all, maybe you only saw the MSNBC recap of it. or perhaps your blindfold was on so tight it cut off the blood circulation to your brain and you didn't notice Obama getting the last word in damn near every time. Maybe you didn't notice the question to Romney only about how "he is different from Bush" and why Obama didn't have to answer it? or perhaps it's the tingly feeling in your pants you get when Obama opens his mouth.

Many people are cherry picking her words because when she criticized one candidate she went after the other, I think the best was on LIbya where she fact checked Romney when he said that Obama did not call the attack on the embassy a terrorist attack until weeks after and immediately after that pointed out to Obama that his administration has been changing their story alot and hasn't had a consistent report on it.

the question remains is "why did she answer for Obama?" is it the moderator's job to fact check on the spot? and if so, she did she only fact check that one time? meh we'll just ignore that because it's for your guy's benefit and not the other guy.

lulz. Keep the rose colored glasses on, truth may be too harsh for you. I'd love for you to actually watch the debate instead of just listening to some news outlet and call it a day. Because you obviously haven't.

keep the blindfold on. It suits you.

Hey man, I gave you my paragraphs up above, you decided to change the goalposts of the discussion midway through your 'rebuttal.' Don't get butthurt over statistics courses, bro.

I could have sworn I replied to that already... then again A lot of things I could have sworn I replied to vanish into thin air. *shrug*

At 10/18/12 05:57 PM, JMHX wrote: First Debate: Obama spoke for 42:50 , compared to 38:32 for Romney. Romney got in 7,802 words and Obama spoke 7,294 words. Actual things said advantage: Romney 6%

Second Debate: Obama's spoke for 44:04 and Romney's 40:50. Romney said 7,984 words and Obama 7,506. Actual things said advantage: Romney 6.5%

both are irrelevant. debates are not limited by words. they're limited by time. If a candidate stands there for his entire duration staring at the moderator, stuttering and babbling like a newborn, he shouldn't get extra time because he can't think of what to say.

Cut away how much time was spent on interrupting each other and trying to hijack, and we'll probably find a much closer parity.

both sides did a pretty good job of trying to hijack each other. I was talking more specifically about the moderator interrupting the candidates herself.

If you have a problem with asking follow-up questions, I mean, I guess we're just at an ideological divide.

I suppose it's not the follow up questions in general that bug me... just some of the more specific ones that dug under my skin.

In short, this whole thing is nothing new. The right bitches and the left bitches after every debate, trying to explain away missteps and less-than-stellar performances with external factors.

that's been going on since the whole thing started.

Until we can actually do an interruptions duration count, we should hold off on assuming one was interrupted more than the other.

They oughta just cut the other person's microphone off if it isn't their turn to speak and this wouldn't even be an issue.

you would think they would.

At 10/19/12 07:18 PM, Warforger wrote: Dear lord that is perhaps one of the most arrogant things I have ever heard. That is not what I'm saying at all, what you need to do is read up on MODERN Sino-Russian relations before you go off calling people ignorant on that topic.

Well...dude...when I started by referencing a work by a scholar on the rise of modern Chinese domestic and foreign relations I think I've got this box checked. When I lived in the region from 2004-2006...and not 1204-1206...I think I've got this box checked. When all the IR courses and papers I've written are about current policies and trends...I think I've got this box checked.

The reality is the present is informed by the past. Just because people are playing nice during economic good times...does not mean that tensions that are historic and have existed for literally thousands of years will just suddenly go away never to re-appear again.

Now, the reason I called you ignorant is your responses do not show any in-depth understanding of either historical or modern politics, history or military trends in the region. A prime example is your comment about Russia and China being of the same mind on N. Korea. If Asia is the general region I've studied, the Korean peninsula is the specific country I've studied. And I can tell you...N. Korea plays Russia off of China all the time. Pyongyang uses the Sino-Russia divide to their favor...although recently they are playing towards China more since Russia is catching on and China is their more natural ally. If the N. Korean regime collapses or is hit by famine...China is going to bear the brunt of the humanitarian crisis. In that case I think they will be looking toward the US and S. Korea for help while Russia (sensing the weakness in their adversary) will play a back-seat role. If they play nice it will be because of the refugees flooding across the very small part of N. Korea that borders Russia.

As you can see, I called you ignorant not because I think you are stupid...but your opinions do not show any in-depth study, knoweldge or training with the subject matter.

At 10/20/12 11:10 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/19/12 07:18 PM, Warforger wrote: Dear lord that is perhaps one of the most arrogant things I have ever heard. That is not what I'm saying at all, what you need to do is read up on MODERN Sino-Russian relations before you go off calling people ignorant on that topic.

Well...dude...when I started by referencing a work by a scholar on the rise of modern Chinese domestic and foreign relations I think I've got this box checked. When I lived in the region from 2004-2006...and not 1204-1206...I think I've got this box checked. When all the IR courses and papers I've written are about current policies and trends...I think I've got this box checked.

The problem is that you seem to referring to hardcore nationalists rather than the government. The governments of those countries are not democracies, they have their own separate objectives. Neither government has given much reason as to why they would go to war with each other other than some border issues you're talking about, which as I've said they've resolved in 1991. In fact even there Russia is helping China modernize its military, its sending equipment and training to the Chinese military.

The reality is the present is informed by the past. Just because people are playing nice during economic good times...does not mean that tensions that are historic and have existed for literally thousands of years will just suddenly go away never to re-appear again.

There are always hardcore nationalists who will go to war over this crap, there are probably some Mexicans out there who wish to invade the USA and reclaim the SouthWest, there are Serbian people out there who want to make the Serb portion of Bosnia part of Serbia and Kosovo free of Albanians again, it doesn't mean the governments there actively support that. Hell there are times when it's the opposite such as the Iran-Iraq war, Hussein tried to play it off as a nationalist cause and one of pride but the military lacked morale because they didn't know why they were attacking Iran so the war was a disaster for Iraq.

My point is that you haven't provided enough substance to make a Sino-Russian war more likely than a Sino-Russian alliance against America, which appears to be what's going on.

Now, the reason I called you ignorant is your responses do not show any in-depth understanding of either historical or modern politics, history or military trends in the region. A prime example is your comment about Russia and China being of the same mind on N. Korea. If Asia is the general region I've studied, the Korean peninsula is the specific country I've studied. And I can tell you...N. Korea plays Russia off of China all the time. Pyongyang uses the Sino-Russia divide to their favor...although recently they are playing towards China more since Russia is catching on and China is their more natural ally. If the N. Korean regime collapses or is hit by famine...China is going to bear the brunt of the humanitarian crisis. In that case I think they will be looking toward the US and S. Korea for help while Russia (sensing the weakness in their adversary) will play a back-seat role. If they play nice it will be because of the refugees flooding across the very small part of N. Korea that borders Russia.

N.Korea has been hit by famine, it was hit during the 90's and arguably still goes on today. Except Sino-Russian relations didn't deteriorate, they improved. If the N. Korea regime falls then it would probably be peaceful, just like every other Communist regime that has fallen, so I don't see as much reason why they would want to go to China, which by now China would probably have really strict border security and even if they make it through what would stop China from sending them back? I don't see how it would be any different than it currently is.

As you can see, I called you ignorant not because I think you are stupid...but your opinions do not show any in-depth study, knoweldge or training with the subject matter.

If you did, why have you failed to acknowledge any of my points? Why have you failed to explain why a Sino-Russian war is more likely than a Sino-Russian alliance against America?

Idiots running by idiots voting - nothing more - nothing less.

Move on already! Fuck the system!

At 10/20/12 03:02 AM, Korriken wrote: you know, I oughta begin replying to these posts the same way the liberals do. good idea!

I like how you say "Liberals". The simple fact is that Romney lost the debate, it may not have been a landslide like the 1st one but he still lost. This is why I find these accusations of moderators supporting the Democratic candidate over the Republican hilarious. It's just a way for the Romney camp to make an excuse for losing.

maybe you didn't watch it at all, maybe you only saw the MSNBC recap of it. or perhaps your blindfold was on so tight it cut off the blood circulation to your brain and you didn't notice Obama getting the last word in damn near every time.

I noticed quite the opposite. It was probably because in the first issue Romney got to go second thus got the last word in, then the next Romney got the first. One thing I noticed was that when he was having the last word he was touting his outright lies such as Obama doubling the deficit, because he knew Obama would slam him if he had a chance to respond.

Maybe you didn't notice the question to Romney only about how "he is different from Bush" and why Obama didn't have to answer it? or perhaps it's the tingly feeling in your pants you get when Obama opens his mouth.

Um the question was to Romney, Romney argued why he was different from Bush and then Obama argued why they're still on the same page in terms of what they did wrong.

the question remains is "why did she answer for Obama?" is it the moderator's job to fact check on the spot? and if so, she did she only fact check that one time? meh we'll just ignore that because it's for your guy's benefit and not the other guy.

Yes it is when neither candidate will admit the other was right on something. You see this especially in the VP Debates where they seem to live in entirely separate realities and outright disagree on some basic shit that should be true or false and not open to interpretation. If Romney is basing his argument on faulty logic (which is what he's been doing ALOT like claiming the government doesn't create jobs) then the moderator can call him out on it because if Obama were to do it Romney would just deny it (which he did the entire time). But I love how you completely tied your blindfold so hard that you didn't hear Crowley criticize Obama right after she fact checked Romney. Which is something you've completely ignored.

keep the blindfold on. It suits you.

Look, everyone who actually saw the debate live without any prior media interpretation thought it was a pretty good debate. No one thought that the moderator was biased either way. That was something Conservative News Outlets made up on the spot to explain why Romney lost the debate.

At 10/20/12 12:49 PM, Warforger wrote: Look, everyone who actually saw the debate live without any prior media interpretation thought it was a pretty good debate. No one thought that the moderator was biased either way. That was something Conservative News Outlets made up on the spot to explain why Romney lost the debate.

He is dissatisfied that the debate did not go exactly how he envisioned a debate should go.

Clearly, that trumps your logic and JMHX's witchcraft statistics.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/18/obama-backer s-threaten-postelection-violence-griev/

Washington times thinks that riots could happen because liberals are so tolerant and loving. I believe these people are the ones with cavemen and cavewomen mentality such as Eva Longoria. Washington times isn't a right-wing/conservative website now is it?

At 10/20/12 03:35 PM, TheKlown wrote: Washington times isn't a right-wing/conservative website now is it?

Hmmmmm....

Certainly doesn't seem that way.

At 10/20/12 03:35 PM, TheKlown wrote: Washington times thinks that riots could happen because liberals are so tolerant and loving. I believe these people are the ones with cavemen and cavewomen mentality such as Eva Longoria. Washington times isn't a right-wing/conservative website now is it?

Oh wow, lack of political knowledge on this scale reaches into the level of self-parody. Yes, the Washington Times is not what anyone would ever think of calling 'right wing.' In fact, they're cheerleaders for the left. Everything I am saying to you is true.

At 10/19/12 11:57 PM, JMHX wrote: So in short, a strong outlier, I'll stick with the trend line provided by the conservative RealClearPolitics: Obama +5.0

Here's a question for you; while rare...polls being wrong have historically happened. 1980, 1948...things can change. New technology (ie: phones, cell phones) and bias such as respondant bias can seep in. What do you think the possibility is we could see something like this? What about the Bradley Effect?

Mark Sanchez and Eva Longoria are the perfect couple, but are losers that no sane person likes.

At 10/21/12 08:26 PM, TheKlown wrote: Mark Sanchez and Eva Longoria are the perfect couple, but are losers that no sane person likes.

TheKlown is back to tackle the real issues: celebrity twitter accounts.

At 10/21/12 07:44 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/19/12 11:57 PM, JMHX wrote: So in short, a strong outlier, I'll stick with the trend line provided by the conservative RealClearPolitics: Obama +5.0

Here's a question for you; while rare...polls being wrong have historically happened. 1980, 1948...things can change. New technology (ie: phones, cell phones) and bias such as respondant bias can seep in. What do you think the possibility is we could see something like this? What about the Bradley Effect?

In 1948 polls weren't wrong, it was just some began reporting Truman being in the lead so they just stopped releasing them. That was important because Truman got in the lead in the last week before the election. It's just overall polls prefer making the election seem alot closer than it actually is in order to get people pumped for an election, after all if someone has a 10 point lead that kind of kills enthusiasm for both sides. It also means no one gives a crap about election coverage anymore because everyone knows who's going to win.

But national polls don't matter, only the polls in the swing states do.

At 10/21/12 07:44 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/19/12 11:57 PM, JMHX wrote: So in short, a strong outlier, I'll stick with the trend line provided by the conservative RealClearPolitics: Obama +5.0

Here's a question for you; while rare...polls being wrong have historically happened. 1980, 1948...things can change. New technology (ie: phones, cell phones) and bias such as respondant bias can seep in. What do you think the possibility is we could see something like this? What about the Bradley Effect?

I think the media are getting all wrapped up in polls that show a shocking lack of numeracy among the public. For example, say a poll yesterday shows Romney +1 in Florida, with a +/- 3 margin of error. Then say today's poll shows a Romney/Obama tie with the same margin of error. I've seen the media go nuts covering things like this as a "step backward for Romney" or phrasing the question as "Is Romney losing momentum in Florida?"

In reality, those two polls are statistically meaningless when compared to each other. They don't represent an Obama gain or a Romney loss. They're within a margin of error, which is called that for a reason. Drawing conclusions from them with any kind of statistical confidence is madness.

That said, yeah, there have been a lot of polls in the past that were incorrect. Do I think that's the case now? Well, it depends on which polls you look at. We're in the "wildcat bank" era of polling - anyone with significant capital and an auto-dialer can, in effect, start their own robo-calling poll service. There was a great article about a few companies that have done just that in Harper's last month, I believe it was. I'll need to look it up. The bottom line is, as the market demand for polls has increased, so has the number of poll providers, and thus the accuracy becomes a matter of personal trust, partisan alignment, things like that. It'll definitely be fascinating to see how they stack up on election night.

At 10/21/12 07:44 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/19/12 11:57 PM, JMHX wrote: So in short, a strong outlier, I'll stick with the trend line provided by the conservative RealClearPolitics: Obama +5.0

Here's a question for you; while rare...polls being wrong have historically happened. 1980, 1948...things can change. New technology (ie: phones, cell phones) and bias such as respondant bias can seep in. What do you think the possibility is we could see something like this? What about the Bradley Effect?

Also, in reference to the 1948 Truman point, both you and Warforger are slightly wrong. It wasn't so much the POLLS that had Truman losing as it was the election returns on election night. That's why the Chicago Tribune ran that unfortunate headline - it was running off of preliminary exit returns from precincts that ended up going Truman's way. 1948 was entirely a flaw of the news industry trying to get a jump on the actual event. I've actually got one of those papers hanging on my wall, it's a great reminder for those of us who use polls and focus groups professionally that there is the potential for even the best analyst to be wrong.

At 10/21/12 10:28 PM, Warforger wrote: In 1948 polls weren't wrong...

"On election night, this earlier press deadline required the first post-election issue of the Tribune to go to press before even the East coast states had reported many results from the polling places. The paper relied on its veteran Washington correspondent and political analyst Arthur Sears Henning, who had predicted the winner in four out of five presidential contests in the past 20 years. Conventional wisdom, supported by polls, was almost unanimous that a Dewey presidency was "inevitable", and that the New York governor would win the election handily. The first (one-star) edition of the Tribune therefore went to press with the banner headline "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN"."

Wikipedia article about an iconic picture from an election where the polls were wrong.

Shifts in technology and new polling techniques can lead to erroneous polling results. If you model your demographics wrong...you get erroneous polling results. If you use the wrong contact techniques...you get erroneous results. A prime example was, and it was either '48 or one of the FDR elections, that Gallup relied only upon telephone polls instead of door-to-door polls. They showed a wide margin of victory for the other guy...but since they were only really polling one segment of the population...they missed the larger picture.

All I'm suggesting is isn't possible that there is something the pollsters are missing. Especially, since economic-based models of predicting the election are not in agreement with the polls.

At 10/22/12 11:37 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/21/12 10:28 PM, Warforger wrote:

All I'm suggesting is isn't possible that there is something the pollsters are missing. Especially, since economic-based models of predicting the election are not in agreement with the polls.

This election is the first time in a while that national tracking polls and state tracking polls have diverged so sharply so close to election day. And to be fair, the 1940s really were the early days of polling, where methodology was yet to be standardized. A great example of early polling methodology errors is 1936, when Literary Digest ran a poll for Landon v. Roosevelt, and found Landon winning in a landslide. Of course, as we all know the actual election repudiated the Literary Digest results.

There's a good reason for that - Literary Digest polled ONLY ITS SUBSCRIBERS, who tended to lean heavily Republican and thus into the Landon camp. This was the poll that really changed the landscape of professional political polling, and began the long journey to developing accurate methodology. Things have gotten much more accurate since then.

At 10/20/12 12:49 PM, Warforger wrote:

I like how you say "Liberals". The simple fact is that Romney lost the debate, it may not have been a landslide like the 1st one but he still lost. This is why I find these accusations of moderators supporting the Democratic candidate over the Republican hilarious. It's just a way for the Romney camp to make an excuse for losing.

How many times did Obama get the final word? It's a simple matter of fact and it's a number. Tell me, how many times Obama get the last word in, compared to Romney? and YES it's important because whoever gets the last word in does so without the other person being allowed to respond.

Um the question was to Romney, Romney argued why he was different from Bush and then Obama argued why they're still on the same page in terms of what they did wrong.

exactly. How come Obama wasn't asked how he is different from Bush? Even you should be able to figure out the reason this question was asked in the first place.

Yes it is when neither candidate will admit the other was right on something. You see this especially in the VP Debates where they seem to live in entirely separate realities and outright disagree on some basic shit that should be true or false and not open to interpretation. If Romney is basing his argument on faulty logic (which is what he's been doing ALOT like claiming the government doesn't create jobs) then the moderator can call him out on it because if Obama were to do it Romney would just deny it (which he did the entire time). But I love how you completely tied your blindfold so hard that you didn't hear Crowley criticize Obama right after she fact checked Romney. Which is something you've completely ignored.

Ignored? no. here is what she said, "It did as well take 2 weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out" what riot about the tape? the riot was merely used as a distraction while the militia attacked the consulate. She didn't say, "It took 2 weeks or so of saying the tape was to blame before coming out and saying it was a preplanned attack" if that's not covering for Obama, I don't know what is.

Look, everyone who actually saw the debate live without any prior media interpretation thought it was a pretty good debate. No one thought that the moderator was biased either way. That was something Conservative News Outlets made up on the spot to explain why Romney lost the debate.

everyone? don't make me laugh. If everyone thought it was a good debate there would be no spin because everyone would agree that it was a good debate. If no one thought the moderator was biased there would be no 'spin' on anything.