It tough to run against dependocrats who promise to get the rich to pay and solve all problems....
Romneys 47% quote was a dumb thing to say out loud but it is spot on....
Remember big brother is always watching....
One of the guys I work with who is a huge right wing neocon nut that I've mentioned on here before about some of the debates we've had hasn't been into work since Tuesday morning. He must be so sick from seeing Obama winning that he can't even muster up the strength to come into work.
This is the same guy who defended Romney's 47% comment even though he is one of the 47% but still refutes it when the facts are stated to him. He has a couple kids and qualifies for the EITC and Child Tax Credit which means he gets back more taxes then he pays in. He says taxes are taken out of his check every week. I told him of course they are but once February comes around you get back more then you paid in so you don't pay federal taxes. It goes in one ear and out the other. He just says they're a bunch of n-----s which doesn't want to work so Obama is taking care of them because they are n-----s. He says he isn't racists though.
He also has a problem with government spending, workers and pensions but he has been crying about the possible defense cuts which would cost government jobs and government contracted jobs. At the same time he has a pension that he collects every month from a government job he had earlier in his life. Go figure.
Last edited by BillsFever21; 11-08-2012 at 06:04 PM.
Whatchu talking about Willis?
Adviser: Romney "shellshocked" by loss
Honestly, I have no idea how these people could have been so out of touch thinking he had it in the bag.
But I digress. My point of the post is to point out his adviser saying Romney was shell shocked by the loss! That I can easily believe! When I was watching his concession speech, I'm sitting there thinking 'there's something not right about him'. I was thinking they drugged him. That he had a breakdown, or was breaking down, and that was the real reason he took so long to come out and concede. Now I really believe that!!
The little spoiled frat boy, born with a silver spoon in his mouth and given everything all his life finally had someone saying no to him (the electorate) and he lost it!!!!
Last edited by BillsFever21; 11-08-2012 at 06:26 PM.
Poor Ann was crying? Ah I feel so bad for her. Was it worse then when she cried because Tiffany's didn't have the red shoes in stock so she either had to buy another color or wait a week until they got their next delivery?
Nate Silver called every single state correctly, and was very close in his margin of each ending vote total. How did he do it? Only those that don't regularly read Nate would ask that question. Nate always noted the closeness of the nation popular polls, which he also always emphasized that the national popular vote total is irrelevant. He was able to quantify the disparity of a close popular vote and his landslide Electoral Vote total.
All based on polling.
What Nate Silver does is run models of how the voting would go in each state, based on averaging the polls. He does not do polling himself. He uses data that he has collected for years, and does an honest analysis based on the past record of accuracy from polling companies. For example, he did a detailed analysis on how polling companies fared for each race and how their accuracy was in relation to how many points they were off from actual results. He also looked for patterns on if any pollster was consistently biased in their accuracy.
Not surprisingly, he found Rasmussen to be very bad accuracy with high degree of bias toward Republicans.
So, he gives their polling less weight in his analysis.
All during the campaign, Nate had Obama with a very high chance of winning. There were ebbs and flows, but his data crunching is just a reflection of all pollsters.
The reason that some people think that polling was inaccurate is because they listened to the echo chamber of Fox, Rush, Sean and just about every single right wing blabber mouth out there. These are deeply biased and partisan sources which are desperately out of touch with reality. Facts are not important to these guys, and neither to their consumers.....millions and millions of right wingers hungry for anti-Obama bull****.
Much of that right wing chatter is picked up other, more credible news sources. One of the worst thing to happen to mainstream media is their sick desire to try and keep conservatives happy by appearing "balanced" and "fair". All it has resulted in is dishonest reporting.
Last edited by DraftBoy; 11-08-2012 at 06:55 PM.
The point, BTW....is that the trajectory of the campaign did not change much for months and months. It showed close national popular vote and always over 300 Electoral votes.
So, nothing "happened to the Romney campaign". They were destined to lose from even before he won the primary.
- - - Updated - - -
The polls were accurate. Don't look at Rasmussen and Gallup, and most were right on the money.
Accuracy is measured in a number of ways, simply saying Obama was going to win doesn't mean they were accurate from a Political Science stand point, which is the standard they are supposed to be judged at.
Obama won by +1.9
Only three polls that were conducted after 10/30 had Obama winning and by two or less. They were Columbus Dispatch, Gravis, and Univ of Cincy. The other five that had Obama winning were 3 or more, and Rasmussen had them tied. So out of 9 polls, six were not correct (and only one was within the margin of error). That's not accuracy.