Bipartisan Poll projects Romney to win decisively

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by Kaylore

I think that's a legitimate concern of the left that I hadn't considered. That he's "turning into Bush" because of party pressure.

I don't. I think he worked up the red-meat for the primaries with every intention of gravitating back toward the middle just to get the nomination. Republican critics think that he's too lefists. You guys should be thrilled that Rush, Coulter and Savage were doing their best to keep this guy down.

I think Romney is a pragmatist. I think he takes what he's got and makes it work. I honestly don't think he really cares about the social issues in any Christian fundamentalist sense. If it came to him from congress, he of course would deal with it, but I think you're getting a Michigan-born, Massachusetts governor, former businessman. I don't believe he's someone who let's either party dictate.

And yet, he won't explain his plan to create 12 million jobs or reveal the tax loopholes that will negate his 7 trillion in tax cuts and military budget increases.

For someone who is campaigning on the deficit, he's awfully reluctant to explain how he isn't adding trillions to it.

So far, his rhetoric doesn't add up

[Arkie]

Originally Posted by Mecklomaniac

A left-wing blog predicts an Obama win. Shocking.

538 has a good track record. The left wing might use his objective statistics when it promotes their agenda, but the right can do the same like when his formula pointed their way in 2010.

[TonyR]

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



Here's an explanation for the midleading poll numbers posted in the OP.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Mecklomaniac

A left-wing blog predicts an Obama win. Shocking.

538 isn't "left-wing". Neither is reality.

Tough **** for you.

[Bronco Yoda]

Who ****ing knows. If somebody tells you they know... they are lying. Just depends on who shows up and where and who does the counting.

[Mecklomaniac]

Originally Posted by W*GS

538 isn't "left-wing". Neither is reality.

Tough **** for you.

You can argue whether Nate Silver is biased or not.

There is no argument though that he is a lefty. In his own 538 blog FAQs in 2008, he said that he and his main contributor are dems and supporters of Obama. He was brought in and given access to the Obama campaign internal polling (LInk to Buzzfeed). He is a former blogger at the leftist Daily Kos. There really is no argument that he is a lefty.

[Blart]

538 is pretty open, regardless of the political beliefs of its creator.

It's like Football Outsider's DVOA. It takes in stats and spits them out - the creator's favorite team doesn't play a part.


If you believe there's a calculation that's giving a "leftist" interpretation, please show us where. The methodology is open for critique:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/methodology/


Also, where were the arguments about a leftist lean when we got clobbered by the Tea Party nationalists in 2010?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThi...term_elections

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

So, since you couldn't slide a credit card between the differences in the policies of George Bush and Mitt Romney, why do you think it will work this time?

And Obama has kept many of Bush's policies and plans in tact. In fact, you guys have given Obama credit for many.

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

And yet, he won't explain his plan to create 12 million jobs or reveal the tax loopholes that will negate his 7 trillion in tax cuts and military budget increases.

For someone who is campaigning on the deficit, he's awfully reluctant to explain how he isn't adding trillions to it.

So far, his rhetoric doesn't add up

What's your guys plan? Do the same thing we did the previous four years?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

538 isn't a "liberal blog," dope. The used a fixed methodolgy to make predictions. in 2008, they correctly called 49 of 50 states. They called the Republican landslide in 2010 months before it was clear that that would happen. Like I said, anything that's bad for Romney is part of some liberal conspiracy.

Can't believe you have to explain this to him.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

What's your guys plan? Do the same thing we did the previous four years?

alot better than going back to what we had before the last 4 yrs. the last 4 yrs have been spent trying to clean up what your hero left behind.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

And Obama has kept many of Bush's policies and plans in tact. In fact, you guys have given Obama credit for many.

Wait a minute - I thought you guys claim Obama is a socialist, communist, Marxist, etc...?

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Wait a minute - I thought you guys claim Obama is a socialist, communist, Marxist, etc...?

When? You never fail to show your ignorance.

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

alot better than going back to what we had before the last 4 yrs. the last 4 yrs have been spent trying to clean up what your hero left behind.

Alot better? I doubt it. If that's your idea of cleaning up...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

When? You never fail to show your ignorance.

Let me get this straight:

You're now claiming you guys have never said Obama was a socialist, communist or a Marxist?

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

Alot better? I doubt it. If that's your idea of cleaning up...

we went from losing 800,000 jobs to gaining 100,000 or more a month...I would say that is alot better. considering we are where we are cuz of your hero.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by TonyR

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



Here's an explanation for the midleading poll numbers posted in the OP.

I hope everyone clicks on that link and reads it. Should've known the Weekly Standard would just plain make **** up.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

I hope everyone clicks on that link and reads it. Should've known the Weekly Standard would just plain make **** up.

L0L!

Another day, another failed right-wing propaganda thread.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by Mecklomaniac

You can argue whether Nate Silver is biased or not.

If by "biased" you mean "mostly correct with his predictions" then yes, he's biased.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

I hope everyone clicks on that link and reads it.

They won't. But this just goes to show the power of the right wing spin machine. People see such blatantly misleading reports and take them for gospel.

[Kaylore]

Gallup came out with a pretty large sample size poll.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158399/20...like-2008.aspx

Republicans lead Democrats in voter identification for the first time in eight years.

What is more interesting is this:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/158420/re...t-ballots.aspx

Romney is currently showing a lead in early voters, though within the margin of error.

[Kaylore]

Originally Posted by TonyR

If by "biased" you mean "mostly correct with his predictions" then yes, he's biased.

This Colorado study that has correctly identified the Presidential winner every year going back to 1980 picked Romney in August

http://www.colorado.edu/news/release...ado-study-says

It's actually a good read and will make you have more faith in the electorate. Not because they think they will pick Romney, but because it shows at the end of the day, voters don't pick Presidents based on the "noise" through adds. It's about more general issues. The most interesting part is they expect different things from different party's. They are pretty merciless of Democrat Presidents who don't get unemployment down, and likewise toward Republicans who don't increase household income.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by TonyR

They won't. But this just goes to show the power of the right wing spin machine. People see such blatantly misleading reports and take them for gospel.

Even after the reports have been shown to be misleading.

The right-wingnuts aren't interested in facts, evidence, or the truth - they prefer to believe in fairy tales.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[BroncoInferno]

No comment on the fact that Fred Barnes - the guy who wrote your OP for the Weekly Standard - dishonestly respresented the poll he cited, Khan?