Andrew Sulluvan's latest column: Did Obama Just Throw The Entire Election Away?

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

some 70M people watched the debate, and it was overwhelmingly a Romney win...big time according to polls.

Yeah, and according to polls Kerry beat Bush 61% to 19% in the first debate in 2004, too.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

Mostly right Obama that sucked? That he is a made up caricature of a bunch of peoples imaginations? That he can't talk intellectually without his teleprompter? He was challenged, something that rarely happens, and he failed. It won't be the last time.

The reason Obama did so poorly, and why when you pit a leftist liberal up against a conservative, the conservative will always look more reasonable and knowledgeable, is because liberals believe their way of thinking is the only way, and rarely engage in debate about their world view. When they are challenged they come away looking like Obama last Wednesday night. Romney has been so underrated this entire election, he's been defined up until last week by Obama as this dumb, heartless, nitwitted, rich guy. And in one night Romney destroyed that narrative and as Krauthammer said, essentially turned hundreds of millions in negative ads into dust.

Goddamn, you are stupid. The reason Romney did well was because he lied his ass off, and there are plenty of suckers like you out there who are easy prey for a confidence man like Romney.

[Requiem]

ABOUT THE PEW POLL:

In a stunning reversal from a month ago, in Pew Research's poll of likely voters, Mitt Romney now leads President Obama by 4 points. In September, Obama led by 9 points. Other polls have shown that Romney got a bump from the first debate, but most of them showed Obama still holding a narrow lead. The poll was conducted Oct. 4-7, entirely after the debate.

However, a close look at the internals of the poll turns up something odd. In the October sample, 31% of the respondents self identified as Democrats (vs. 39% in September). Similar, there were 36% Republicans in October (vs. 29% in September). While many people believe Romney "won" the debate, it is extremely unlikely that 21% of the nation's Democrats changed parties as a result of one debate. So there is a fair chance that the Pew poll is an outlier that undersampled Democrats and oversampled Republicans.

For comparison purposes, two other national polls hav also been done entirely since the first debate. Rasmussen has it as a tie at 48% to 48% and Gallup has it at 47% to 47%.

And FWIW, Rasmussen has Obama up in IA and CO.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

The reason Obama did so poorly, and why when you pit a leftist liberal up against a conservative, the conservative will always look more reasonable and knowledgeable, is because liberals believe their way of thinking is the only way, and rarely engage in debate about their world view.

Says the guy who believes man walked with dinosaurs.

[spdirty]

Originally Posted by Requiem

ABOUT THE PEW POLL:

In a stunning reversal from a month ago, in Pew Research's poll of likely voters, Mitt Romney now leads President Obama by 4 points. In September, Obama led by 9 points. Other polls have shown that Romney got a bump from the first debate, but most of them showed Obama still holding a narrow lead. The poll was conducted Oct. 4-7, entirely after the debate.

However, a close look at the internals of the poll turns up something odd. In the October sample, 31% of the respondents self identified as Democrats (vs. 39% in September). Similar, there were 36% Republicans in October (vs. 29% in September). While many people believe Romney "won" the debate, it is extremely unlikely that 21% of the nation's Democrats changed parties as a result of one debate. So there is a fair chance that the Pew poll is an outlier that undersampled Democrats and oversampled Republicans.

For comparison purposes, two other national polls hav also been done entirely since the first debate. Rasmussen has it as a tie at 48% to 48% and Gallup has it at 47% to 47%.

And FWIW, Rasmussen has Obama up in IA and CO.

Fair enough. I can't trust Rasmussen though, not after that amazing **** up they made in 2010 with the 2010 Colorado governors race.

I bet the best poll to believe for Colorado would be the Denver Post poll if/when they do one. I don't even know if they've done one yet but I believe them to be most accurate when dealing with Colorado.

When it comes to polling, the worst mistake that partisans make is to believe and push the poll that has their candidate winning. All it does is set yourself up for a letdown. Polling has to be tough. Trying to figure out what kind of sample size to use has to be really tough, because you have to predict the turnout.

I started this thread because Sullivan's reaction to the poll he chooses to believe gave me a chuckle. And I wanted to share it with you fine folks.

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Goddamn, you are stupid. The reason Romney did well was because he lied his ass off, and there are plenty of suckers like you out there who are easy prey for a confidence man like Romney.

And you're not a sucker for buying into the fake Obama persona? If Obama isn't bright enough to call Romney out for "lying" in a debate, then he isn't as smart as his followers believe he is.

[SoCalBronco]

Some swing state polling out today that is bad for Obama. I also thought it was amusing that a PPO/SEIU poll showed Romney up by 2 while Rasmussen found it only tied.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by spdirty

Fair enough. I can't trust Rasmussen though, not after that amazing **** up they made in 2010 with the 2010 Colorado governors race.

I bet the best poll to believe for Colorado would be the Denver Post poll if/when they do one. I don't even know if they've done one yet but I believe them to be most accurate when dealing with Colorado.

When it comes to polling, the worst mistake that partisans make is to believe and push the poll that has their candidate winning. All it does is set yourself up for a letdown. Polling has to be tough. Trying to figure out what kind of sample size to use has to be really tough, because you have to predict the turnout.

I started this thread because Sullivan's reaction to the poll he chooses to believe gave me a chuckle. And I wanted to share it with you fine folks.

Polling isn't easy. Various places have different ways of gaining their information and certain states have laws against types of polling (robo-polling, etc.) and it is always important to look at the sample sizes with each poll.

I have a friend who works for Talking Points Memo and does this stuff on a day to day basis. A month ago he thought it was all wrapped up, but now he is seeing drastic shifts in places he didn't think they would happen. He still believes Obama will edge this one out, but ~ 290 to 300 EV instead of 325+ which was what he was expecting. Still a month to go. Anything could happen. From what I know about their respective ground campaigns, Obama has a lot more boots on the ground and political headquarters in states that are definitely in play. Romney has had to move his around quite a bit. He had to give up on Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, etc. I think he is still hoping that Ryan is popular enough in Wisconsin to give them a battle there.

Personally, I don't really care about the national elections as much as I do local and state ones which have more of an impact on my day-to-day living than what goes on in D.C. -- I forgot that SD didn't have a state income tax, so I've been stoked that I've been saving ~ 100$ each pay check as compared to Colorado where I was getting bent over tax-wise. If Romney wins, I just hope things can get better. However, a lot of that burden rests on Congress, which is just a cluster**** and has been for a very, very long itme.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

Some swing state polling out today that is bad for Obama. I also thought it was amusing that a PPO/SEIU poll showed Romney up by 2 while Rasmussen found it only tied.

Rasmussen had Obama behind in Colorado and Iowa in September, but up there now, even after Mitt's success in the debate last week. *shrug*

[SoCalBronco]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Rasmussen had Obama behind in Colorado and Iowa in September, but up there now, even after Mitt's success in the debate last week. *shrug*

I think Biden and later Obama will come our a lot stronger in the next two debates. I don't think Obama will go all EJ Manuel again.

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

I think Baden and later Obama will come our a lot stronger in the next two debates. I don't think Obama will go all EJ Manuel again.

You can't get much worse, so he's going to have to.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

I think Biden and later Obama will come our a lot stronger in the next two debates. I don't think Obama will go all EJ Manuel again.

This was a low blow. You are forgiven just because you called Brian Kelly a murderer.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

I think Biden and later Obama will come our a lot stronger in the next two debates.

Here's a negative take on Obama's chances of "winning" the next two debates:

The next debate is a town-hall meeting. Obama’s campaign is talking up its plan to roll out a new, tougher Obama who will challenge Romney’s slick evasions. But a town-hall meeting is a whole different animal. In a one-on-one debate, you can fillet your opponent. A town-hall meeting consists of undecided voters pressing the candidates for answers. The focus of the event is on answering the questions of the voters. Using their questions to assail your opponent is bad form — indeed, the Regular Voters who ask the questions, and serve as proxies for the public, can be counted on to implore the candidates to stop attacking each other so much. Romney will use the town hall to proclaim his deep and abiding concern for all of America, and Obama will have little chance to disprove it.

And then the final debate centers on foreign policy. Obama can try to use some of the questions to turn to domestic policy, but that risks a scolding from host Bob Schieffer.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10...st-chance.html

[mhgaffney]

The tragedy here is that Romney has no answers and if elected will lead the US into another Mideast war -- probably within months.

Get ready for things to get much worse.

[Requiem]

Gaff, who would be your choice for President if you could have your guy elected?

Haven't heard you say much about the candidate(s) -- since I know you don't like either of the two choices we got.

Would be interested in hearing your thoughts.

[TonyR]

Sullivan posted some reader feedback. Here's one of the better ones:

When the guy leading the way falls down, you pick him up. What you don't do is stop, unzip your fly and piss all over him.

How did the right wing react when Bush the Younger looked like he'd been drugged in that first debate with John Kerry? Did they run around screaming and rending their garments in despair? Did they amplify the bad debate performance by publicly excoriating Bush over and over and over again? Did they turn into pissy little b****es, willing to throw everything away in a fit of juvenile disappointment? No. They put their head down and kept fighting. As poorly as the President may have performed in that debate, far worse has been the narcissistic pouting from you and Jon Stewart and everybody else.

Barack Obama is not now and never has been a savior. It is not his holy mission to rescue us from Mitt Romney and the GOP. We are the masters of our collective fate. We our the captains of our national soul. If we're willing to hand the wheel over to a guy spouting economic gibberish and a return to Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld foreign policy, it is not Barack Obama's fault because he gave a ****ty debate performance. Democracy cannot survive if we must rely on someone to save us from ourselves.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....the-day-i.html

[mhgaffney]

Why Obama lost the debate...

Alan Hart offers a plausible explanation. He says that on the day of the debate Obama was grappling with a crisis situation in the Mideast -- Turkey bombing the Syrian city of Aleppo and on the verge of a major escalation in northern Syria....

That would be enough to distract anyone... Here's the story:

Who is the real Romney and was Obama’s mind somewhere else?

by ALAN HART on 10/04/2012

http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2012/1...omewhere-else/

[SoCalBronco]

Gaff...what do you think about Brian Kelly? D-bag or not?

[24champ]

Originally Posted by TonyR

Here's a negative take on Obama's chances of "winning" the next two debates:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10...st-chance.html

Obama will do better in the second debate, he was a community organizer. The Town Hall should be right up his alley.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by TonyR

Sullivan posted some reader feedback. Here's one of the better ones:


http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....the-day-i.html

I think this can be summed up in Will Roger's joke: "I don't belong to any organized party. I'm a Democrat."

So have they ever been. That's just the way the Democrats are. I know that Obama believes in, and works for, a progressive rights agenda. But what this country needs now is an aggressive, progressive economic agenda based on, first, a national health care, single payer system. He's not willing to pick up that banner and lead that fight. Therefore, the average voter can't see much difference between him and Romney. Especially given that Romney is willing to swing over to most of Obama's positions in order to get elected. What he would do if he did get elected is anybody's guess.

Anyway, the Republicans move like a herd. Wherever the leadership directs them, they'll go. The Democrats are like herding cats. Good luck with that.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

Gaff...what do you think about Brian Kelly? D-bag or not?

They're all douchebags. US politics is terminally dysfunctional -- and has been for a long time.

We have only the appearance of democracy. It's why the focus of my writing is exposing the shadow government.

[Requiem]

Answer my question Gaffney. I didn't ask you what Venus was.

[Jetmeck]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

It's inspiring to watch the rubes coaxed into the tent by an accomplished flim flam man. Like WC Fields said, "There's a sucker born every minute."

I 'm worried just because it seems people are pretty uninformed and actually believe you can win a debate by answering no hard questions and with your center economic policy numbers seriously flawed.

He won the debate because he was engaged and strong.

STILL THERE WAS NO SUBSTANCE AND A LOT OF LIES.

So yes he won but the poll numbers should not have moved much if any because of the lack of answers from the guy.

You see big swings in two years.....to me that is frustrating as hell.
Like on 2010 did they think OBAMA should have had things fixed that quick ? In comes Tea Party and what little compromise was in Washington left the building.

Now you see the polls reflecting the weak minded uninformed voter being all over the place. Scary to have these uninformed asswipes in control of this situation.


Biden is gonna have to rip into pretty boy and force answers.

[Kid A]

Sounds like the 538 projection is about to get really tight. Maybe see Obama drop to low or mid 60% on odds from current 74%? That would match the intrade right now.

Awaiting a couple more polls, but possible our model will show its largest one-day swing of the year.

— Nate Silver (@fivethirtyeight) October 9, 2012

[Requiem]

It's 75-25 right now.