Originally posted by PsychoPawnIn Britain before the 2005 election, I watched the political commentator Jeremy Paxman make mincemeat out of all three political leaders in separate interviews on successive nights.
I like that idea, but I believe that would be against the first amendment here.
I believe Canada allows for equal time on the media outlets l, but Canada has publicly funded elections.
I imagine that in Canada and Ireland the media outlets aren't as beholden to the political establishment and that might just make all the difference.
Whether it had something to do with the low turnout in the subsequent poll, I cannot tell. But it sure was fun to watch.
Incidentally, can it possibly be in keeping with the spirit of the First Amendment to create a system which favours media deference to politicians?
Originally posted by TeinosukeNo, we lost at the turn of the 20th century. Now that the country is on the verge of insolvency it is the country that has lost. The exiting thing is that the country is now also on the verge of a new beginning. Perhaps they will try something new.
You had your "choice not an echo" way back in 1964.
You lost.
Originally posted by utherpendragonIt might actually be rather entertaining, since Obama will not have a teleprompter to feed him answers line-by-line. May get a laugh if he starts talking the 57-state type crap again like he did in 2008. May also be interesting to see if he revisits promises he made in 2008 that did not get kept (all of them) and gets more mileage out of them. Of course, Romney could goof too, we will see.
The first Presidential debate (1 of 3) is on October 3rd.
Moderator: Jim Lehrer (Host of NewsHour on PBS)
Here are the topics broken down by time allotted of the 90 minute debate:
Economy – 45 minutes
Health Care – 15 minutes
Role of Government – 15 minutes
Governing - 15 minutes
Any predictions on how this will turn out ? Sounds pre ...[text shortened]... p://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2012-presidential-debate-schedule/
Originally posted by SleepyguyPlus, his alleged gaffes the last few months have not really been gaffes. Instead, the assertions of Biden gaffes are out-of-context or a play on words, a desperate effort at distraction by Fox News and right-wingers. It is really hilarious to see the right try to create something that is not there. The just don't have to the zingers like legitimate rape or 47% to use.
I don't expect gaffes from Biden in that format. This isn't his first rodeo.
4 edits
Originally posted by whodeyWhile Romney may be a RINO or moderate Republican, he has not campaigned as such. There are huge differences between the two candidates. With the President at least we have a chance with a major deficit reduction (e.g., $4 trillion) having a balanced approach of revenue increases (25% ) and spending cuts (75% ) including cuts to entitlements. Not so with Romney. Plus, the President will support legislation more favorable to the working middle class. Not so with Romney. Further, reelection of the President essentially guarantees the Affordable Healthcare Act is implemented. Not so with Romney. Also, with the President, we will have a Justice Department that fights discrimination, voter suppression, etc. Not so with Romney.
They should let Whodey be the moderator.
I would defy them to challenge these notions in how Romney and Obama are alike.
1. Both support the NDAA and Patriot Act to expand the tyrannical police state.
2. Both claim to want to balance the budget but won't do it.
3. Both support increasing deficit spending.
4. Both supported the economic stimulus. ...[text shortened]...
16. Both support CFR policies to impement a one world government.
I could go on but why?
The Republican war on women would have little check if Romney is elected. Further, the nominations to the Supreme Court would be hugely different between Romney and the President, a crucial distinction. Also, more likely to have better protection of the environment, worker protection, good unions, and less transfer of wealth from the working middle class to the top 1% if the President wins the election as opposed to Romney. Also, less chance at war with Iran.
Anytime I see someone asserting incorrectly that there is no distinction between the parties, I think of the gays in the military and the recent repeal of DADT. McCain strenuously lead the fight against repeal was the sole Senator fighting repeal to the bitter end. Quite the opposite, the President encouraged the repeal. If McCain had been elected in 2008, we would still have DADT. So ask gays serving in the military if there is a difference between the two parties or two candidates. I didn't realize until I watched an HBO special, but it was horrible for gays in the military with DADT. Trying to serve with honor but having a rule that forces them to live a lie. Then resignations, career changes, suicides, etc. Being investigated. Being kicked out if became public they were gay. These are Americans serving their country and some risking their lives. It was a huge difference for them that Obama and not McCain was elected.
Originally posted by utherpendragonThat's the same place Rasmussen had Ohio and Virginia the last time they announced state polls three weeks ago (while virtually every other poll had Obama with a bigger lead). It's a slight shift in Florida from Romney being two down (and ditto).
Breaking News. Since the debate Rasmussen reports,
2012 swing states,
Obama Ohio Florida Virginia
..............50%...47%.......48%
Romney
............ 49%....49%......49%
Originally posted by no1marauderRasmussen is the only one that gets it right or close to right. The other major polls are vote suppression machines for Democrats.
That's the same place Rasmussen had Ohio and Virginia the last time they announced state polls three weeks ago (while virtually every other poll had Obama with a bigger lead). It's a slight shift in Florida from Romney being two down (and ditto).
Originally posted by normbenignIt's almost like you try to be as wrong as possible. Rasmussen is somewhat of a joke among pollsters clinging to outmoded methods which lead to biased results:
Rasmussen is the only one that gets it right or close to right. The other major polls are vote suppression machines for Democrats.
On Tuesday, polls conducted by the firm Rasmussen Reports — which released more than 100 surveys in the final three weeks of the campaign, including some commissioned under a subsidiary on behalf of Fox News — badly missed the margin in many states, and also exhibited a considerable bias toward Republican candidates.
Other polling firms, like SurveyUSA and Quinnipiac University, produced more reliable results in Senate and gubernatorial races. A firm that conducts surveys by Internet, YouGov, also performed relatively well.
What follows is a preliminary analysis of polls released to the public in the final 21 days of the campaign. Our process here is quite simple: we’ve taken all such polls in our database, and assessed how accurate they were, on average, in predicting the margin separating the two leading candidates in each race. For instance, a poll that had the Democrat winning by 2 percentage points in a race where the Republican actually won by 4 would have an error of 6 points.
We’ve also assessed whether a company’s polls consistently missed in either a Democratic or Republican direction — that is, whether they were biased. The hypothetical poll I just described would have had a 6 point Democratic bias, for instance.
The analysis covers all polls issued by firms in the final three weeks of the campaign, even if a company surveyed a particular state multiple times. In our view, this provides for a more comprehensive analysis than focusing solely on a firm’s final poll in each state, since polling has a tendency to converge in the final days of the campaign, perhaps because some firms fear that their results are an outlier and adjust them accordingly.
(After a couple of weeks, when results in all races have been certified, we’ll update our official pollster ratings, which use a more advanced process that attempts to account, for instance, for the degree of difficulty in polling different types of races.)
The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.
Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen’s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases — that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.
If one focused solely on the final poll issued by Rasmussen Reports or Pulse Opinion Research in each state — rather than including all polls within the three-week interval — it would not have made much difference. Their average error would be 5.7 points rather than 5.8, and their average bias 3.8 points rather than 3.9.
Nor did it make much difference whether the polls were branded as Rasmussen Reports surveys, or instead, were commissioned for Fox News by its subsidiary Pulse Opinion Research. (Both sets of surveys used an essentially identical methodology.) Polls branded as Rasmussen Reports missed by an average of 5.9 points and had a 3.9 point bias. The polls it commissioned on behalf of Fox News had a 5.1 point error, and a 3.6 point bias.
Rasmussen’s polls have come under heavy criticism throughout this election cycle, including from FiveThirtyEight. We have critiqued the firm for its cavalier attitude toward polling convention. Rasmussen, for instance, generally conducts all of its interviews during a single, 4-hour window; speaks with the first person it reaches on the phone rather than using a random selection process; does not call cellphones; does not call back respondents whom it misses initially; and uses a computer script rather than live interviewers to conduct its surveys. These are cost-saving measures which contribute to very low response rates and may lead to biased samples.
Rasmussen also weights their surveys based on preordained assumptions about the party identification of voters in each state, a relatively unusual practice that many polling firms consider dubious since party identification (unlike characteristics like age and gender) is often quite fluid.
Rasmussen’s polls — after a poor debut in 2000 in which they picked the wrong winner in 7 key states in that year’s Presidential race — nevertheless had performed quite strongly in in 2004 and 2006. And they were about average in 2008. But their polls were poor this year.
The discrepancies between Rasmussen Reports polls and those issued by other companies were apparent from virtually the first day that Barack Obama took office. Rasmussen showed Barack Obama’s disapproval rating at 36 percent, for instance, just a week after his inauguration, at a point when no other pollster had that figure higher than 20 percent.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/
Originally posted by no1marauderRasmussen is hardly a "joke." He had a bad year in 2010, but had some excellent cycles before that. Nate Silver continues give his polls solid weight in his model (not as much as PPP or Gallup though). Obviously then, the author of that article does not agree with your conclusion that Rasmussen a joke.
It's almost like you try to be as wrong as possible. Rasmussen is somewhat of a joke among pollsters clinging to outmoded methods which lead to biased results:
On Tuesday, polls conducted by the firm Rasmussen Reports — which released more than 100 surveys in the final three weeks of the campaign, including some commissioned under a subsidiary on beha ...[text shortened]... /2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Read between the lines:
Rasmussen is hardly a "joke." He had a bad year in 2010, but had some excellent cycles before that. Nate Silver continues give his polls solid weight in his model (not as much as PPP or Gallup though). Obviously then, the author of that article does not agree with your conclusion that Rasmussen a joke.
Rasmussen’s polls have come under heavy criticism throughout this election cycle, including from FiveThirtyEight. We have critiqued the firm for its cavalier attitude toward polling convention. Rasmussen, for instance, generally conducts all of its interviews during a single, 4-hour window; speaks with the first person it reaches on the phone rather than using a random selection process; does not call cellphones; does not call back respondents whom it misses initially; and uses a computer script rather than live interviewers to conduct its surveys. These are cost-saving measures which contribute to very low response rates and may lead to biased samples.
Rasmussen also weights their surveys based on preordained assumptions about the party identification of voters in each state, a relatively unusual practice that many polling firms consider dubious since party identification (unlike characteristics like age and gender) is often quite fluid.
Say what you want; Rasmussen uses methods that are no longer accepted by the polling community and its results vary significantly from virtually every other poll in a biased manner.
Originally posted by sh76Nate was a little more explicit a few days after that column:
Rasmussen is hardly a "joke." He had a bad year in 2010, but had some excellent cycles before that. Nate Silver continues give his polls solid weight in his model (not as much as PPP or Gallup though). Obviously then, the author of that article does not agree with your conclusion that Rasmussen a joke.
Rasmussen also fails this test: it takes so many shortcuts and violates so many polling conventions, that you wouldn’t really expect its polling to be very good over the long run.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/06/when-house-effects-become-bias/
I see little real distinction between saying a polling firm is a "joke" and saying you can't "expect its polling to be very good". But you're welcome to hang onto that semantic nitpick.
Originally posted by moon1969To be honest, both you and whodey are right and wrong. There are many similarities, as well as stark differences.
While Romney may be a RINO or moderate Republican, he has not campaigned as such. There are huge differences between the two candidates. With the President at least we have a chance with a major deficit reduction (e.g., $4 trillion) having a balanced approach of revenue increases (25% ) and spending cuts (75% ) including cuts to entitlements. Not so with ...[text shortened]... risking their lives. It was a huge difference for them that Obama and not McCain was elected.
The differences you enumerate, I don't think are so real. Romney is just aware that tax revenues don't rise proportionate with increased or decreased rates. He also is aware that increased revenues don't tend to decrease deficit spending. Rather they tend to give birth to new programs, and both candidates are big government guys.