jjamie12

Why do you need to start a fake thread 'asking' for people to talk about what Gov. Romney is going to do for the country? You clearly and obviously won't listen, as per the quote above. You're starting from a spot that says that you won't believe anything anyone will say. What's the point?

Total Responders to the Time poll: D - 37% (273 of 742 total) R - 28% (206 of 742 total) I - 29% (215 of 742 total) Is that what we think Ohio turnout is going to look like?

He's not saying that HE'S against affirmative action -- he's saying that Republicans, in general, are against affirmative action and that THEY (Conservative Republicans) are upset about Mitt Romney "affirmative actioning" his staffing. Further -- he's not surprised that people who have self-described as against affirmative action would spin the Mitt Romney binder story into something that wasn't affirmative action because Mitt Romney happens to be the Republican nominee.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't remember Mitt Romney ever campaigning on "We need to end affirmative action!" In fact, the only things I've heard him say are "We need to equalize opportunity for people, NOT outcomes". Sure enough, I just spent some time over on MittRomney.com and I couldn't find anything over there about affirmative action. Literally, there was nothing about it. But, somehow, I'm supposed to believe that "opposition to affirmative action" is a "core belief" of Mitt Romney's and that he's a lying liar who hates apple pie and babies and wants to make rubbers and The Pill illegal. Whatever. I'll be really happy when this election is over.

It sure is a good thing that many state legislatures (Pennsylvania being the latest) have passed new laws this year to stop the plague of absentee ballot fraud. Wait. What?

That's right. Until WE enforce term limits (like ONE term) on our representatives, nothing will ever change. I haven't voted for an incumbent in years.

To me, this is where you go wrong here. The vast majority of people don't give a flying damn about semantics. Everyone understood Romney's point as: "You didn't label this an act of terror until several weeks after it happened and not only that, but you kept blaming a movie." Romney's point wasn't "You didn't specifically say the word terror in an address in the Rose Garden." For most people watching, the argument went like this: Romney: You kept on saying this was the result of the protest of a movie, not an act of terror. Obama: No I didn't, I said it was an act of terror. Romney: No you didn't. Crowley: Yes he did. Obama: Say that again. Crowley: Yes he did. And then almost immediately after the debate, everyone in the world can see that the President and other administration members kept on blaming this on the movie for about two weeks -- which is why this is continuing to be a bad story FOR OBAMA, not Romney. That's why this hasn't worked for the President, and why, arguably, it is a bigger story than it should be. Most people don't give a damn about the 'semantic argument' made -- they care that the President wasn't being truthful in the sense that most people view truthful. This isn't some courtroom where: "Well, technically, I said the words 'act of terror' on 9/12" No one cares. People don't care about whether you could get off in a court case -- they care that what you're inferring you said can be demonstrably proved false BY YOUR OWN WORDS A WEEK LATER! Personally, I don't care about this issue. I think it's really, really stupid. I've also come to the realization that most people don't care what I think is important or not, and that THEY'LL each decide what's important. Candy Crowley blew this up in the President's face by butting in for no good reason. It's clear to everyone who watched the debate what Romney was trying to say -- she just went out and went courtroom lawyer on it instead of letting them duke it out. This would be OVER now if it weren't for her doing something that she should absolutely not have done. Now, it continues to be a giant problem for the President.

Some people think that Obama's resume is really, really great for a Presidential candidate. Other don't. You obviously don't. That's fine. Some people think that Romney's resume is really, really great for a Presidential candidate. I'm pretty sure you agree. Just because you don't like one guy's qualifications doesn't mean he's *not qualified*. TO YOU, he's not qualified, and, guess what? You've got the other guy to vote for if you think "doing something with it" matters. Plenty of other people really like President Obama's experience. Personally, I find President Obama's narrative not at all compelling. I don't necessarily view 'being a good politician' as high on my priority list as others, but to deny that being a good politician is somehow not relevant to the Presidency is pretty shortsighted. Conversely, I find Governor Romney's narrative to be extremely compelling. I think he's EXACTLY what we need. Frankly, I think he'll be a giant disappointment to someone like you -- I imagine you'll view him as having 'caved' too much to 'the Liberals' during his Presidency. This idea that these two men are clowns or something is completely and totally ridiculous. Each of them, in very different ways -- ways you may or may not find compelling -- are extremely accomplished and generally worth voting for, given a particular view of the world. I don't really know what you're looking for in a Presidential candidate if you can't find it in either one of these guys.

This is just so completely wrong. Both of these men are highly qualified in very different ways. Columbia University, Harvard Law, University of Chicago professor, State Senator, US Senator, President of the United States. Harvard Business School, Harvard Law School; started a wildly successful company that only succeeded when other small companies succeeded. Saved the Olympics, Governor of a state. What more do you want?

Look. We can just stop talking about this poll, that poll, bias, whatever. OC said it above: If you believe that this is a D+8 to D+13 TURNOUT, Barack Obama will win going away. If you believe that it is a D+2 or lower TURNOUT, he's going to be in some trouble. That's it. I don't know we need to have articles from 538.com or whatever. On November 6th, SOMEONE'S methodology will have been right, and the other guy's will have been wrong. Just stop and think about it for yourself for a second. Don't go searching for an article to support 'your' view. Do you believe there will be a D+8 turnout this year? If not, what do you think it will be? Does it make sense to you that the turnout will be as strong for President Obama this year as 4 years ago? If so, look at 538. If not, find a poll that has the sampling that most resembles your view of turnout. Otherwise, you're just wasting your time. No articles that you link to will replace you thinking about this for yourself. Just do it.

That's not at all what he wrote. Read the full text.

It's totally not important to know whether or not the flooding came strictly from rains or whether dams or levees (or both) broke. Useless information. Totally useless.

Actually, what he's saying is that when the polls use a sample that is equally weighted Republican and Democrat, the poll produces a result favorable to Romney. When a poll overweights Dems, the result of the poll favors Obama. Further, OC has been making the claim that most of the previous polls have been 'over-sampling' Democrats PRECISELY BECAUSE those polls believe that the election of 2012 will be similar to the election of 2008 when it comes down to 'getting the vote out'. In other words, their models have been predicting a Democrat +6 (or 8 or whatever) turnout for the election and therefore sampled that way. He's been saying all along that he thinks that there won't be the same distribution of D's and R's as the last election; he thinks it will be even or, at most, Democrat +2%. That has been the basis of the conversations for some time now. In other words, he doesn't *magically* believe the polls now that Romney is winning, he believes the sample to be more representative of what will happen on election day.

I thought a very interesting part of the debate that hasn't really received any attention (that I'm aware of) is when Romney sort of addressed the 'lack of details' charge from President Obama. He said (and I'm obviously paraphrasing): "Look, I'm not going to come to the table with my proposal written down and tell everyone "It's my way or the highway". There are a number of different ways to get where I want to go. You can lower rates farther and take away more deductions, or you could lower them less and take away less deductions. I am setting out the broad principles of where I want to go, and we'll work together on how to get there." He also referenced Ronald Reagan, and, I think, Bill Clinton as having done that and proved that it worked. Anyway. Just thought that was a huge win on the point at the time. He also made some reference to President Obama having a lot of details about his plans for all of his claiming there are no details. I thought that was a nice point at the time, too. Of course, no one is really talking about either of these things today, so that tells you how in touch I am with America. Or rather, how in touch I am with what the media thinks is important to tell America.

I've seen this sentiment expressed many, many times. It is completely absurd (in my opinion, of course). On the one hand: 1- Harvard Business School/Harvard Law School -- very well-educated. 2- Excellent Private Sector experience with small business, as well as executive experience in running a large organization. 3- Turned around a failing Olympics. 4- Successful Former Governor of a state with 80%+ legislature of the other party. On the other hand: 1- Columbia undergrad/Harvard Law School -- extremely well-educated. 2- Constitutional Law Professor at a very well respected school. 3- Former State Senator 4- Former United States Senator 5- Current President I mean, 4 years ago, I could see -- you've got a choice between 2 Senators, for all intents and purposes, while 12 years ago, you had the choice between a Senator and what would (charitably) be described as an unremarkable businessman and the Governor of a state where 'Governor' is largely a figurehead. I can see why you might be unhappy with that. This year, though? What else can you possibly ask for from a Presidential campaign? You've got two people who are tremendously qualified, in very different ways. What more do you want?

Is this really true? Where do you get your source data for this type of analysis? Frankly, everything else I've read (which is, admittedly, not very much about this issue) says the opposite, doesn't it? Wasn't Nate Silver saying the opposite?

Maybe he let them go because this was one of, if not the most, substantive debate between Presidential nominees in, like, (what was it Chuck Todd said? Oh right) the modern era? I find it shocking that anyone could possibly think that the 'overwhelming takeaway' from what we saw last night was 'This moderator really stinks.'

Did you? I'm watching the debate from my DVR, so I'm not up to speed on what the media spin is afterward yet. It just seems like a really interesting attack angle, given all the details that President Obama seems to know about. Anyway... I'm sure you're right that he'll win on soundbites and reporting. On to the next segement for me...

For someone who claims that Mitt Romney hasn't given any detailed plans, President Obama somehow has a lot of details about what Mitt Romney's plans do and don't do, doesn't he?

It appears that maybe you don't know/understand who and what the Fed is?

Because it necessarily disenfranchises people without actually fixing any of the 'voter fraud' problems we've seen so far? Maybe that's just one guess?

Even worse: The Democrats can introduce any bill they want to; they pay lip service to the gay community (for their and their sympathizers vote), but never, ever deliver legislation that would recognize same-sex marriage. It's pretty close to as bad as the 'other' group of people who vote the 'pro-life' ticket yet that party never, ever delivers anything legislatively to stop abortions. But people keep doing the same thing, and get the same results, and then B word and moan.

Politics makes people insane. The GOP is "controlled by its fringes", yet we ended up with the most moderate (I suppose you might say that Huntsman was the most moderate, but he was never a real candidate... but if it makes anyone feel better, by all means, substitute 'second most moderate' for 'most moderate' if you'd like) of the Republican candidates as the nominee? Can you try and square that circle for me?

You REALLY think that President Obama is "President Obama" because he's black? THAT'S the reason?

As a huge Mitt Romney supporter, I agree with most of this -- not totally sure about the complete legalization of drugs, but see absolutely no reason to put people in jail for smoking pot. Another thing I'd add to this: It drives me nuts to hear Republicans talking about wanting "equal opportunity" for everyone while hand-waving away all of the reasons why there isn't "equal opportunity" in this country while, at the same time, attempting to gut some (or maybe even most) of the programs that attempt to level out the playing field into a more "equal opportunity" for everyone. I'm a grown-up, I realize that there will never be "equal opportunity" in the general sense -- I'm not desiring that. However, I'd like for Republicans to take a good look around, recognize what is egregiously unfair and try to do something about it other than say: "You had your chance and you blew it."