dayman Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 The polls are pretty retarded IMO. Whether they favor Romney or Obama they mean nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 The polls are pretty retarded IMO. Whether they favor Romney or Obama they mean nothing. Pretty much. But without them the talking heads have got even less than the nothing they currently blather on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) Evidence? I said it's practically a dead even race, and that the point of the thread is that Obamas attacks have been largely ineffective. Then you came in with "Obama will win because nate silver says so and ummm, yeah, and yeah, he'll win, because that's what I believe" So you came in with an emotional non related response. We're having a discussion based on facts, polling data and in your case emotions, so I can see why you began with the personal attacks. I mean understand, there is a tendency in people to lob ad hominems once they get frustrated, in what started off as a civil conversation. So let me repeat this again for you, the point of the thread was that the attacks have been largely ineffective according to polling data, not who will win the election. And as I'm about to agree with below, polls are bull ****. They've been the basis for all your arguments in this thread, even when presented with contrary "evidence." Also, my initial (real) response was that the Bain attacks were effectual since they've since put Romney on the Bain defensive. If you agree that Romney's on the Bain defensive (!@#$ the polls), then you'd agree that Obama's strategy IN JUNE AND JULY (back to my original post in this thread: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/147888-looks-like-the-bain-attacks-have-had/page__view__findpost__p__2511185) has definitely been effectual. I brought up Nate Silver because you were basing your asshat argument on !@#$ing polls which don't mean a hill of beans, which you've forthrightly acknowledged in the face of a pollster whose results you've don't agree with. The polls are pretty retarded IMO. Whether they favor Romney or Obama they mean nothing. Pretty much. But without them the talking heads have got even less than the nothing they currently blather on. Totally agree with these two polls posts, and lest we forget the 24 hour talking heads have nothing to blather about if the race isn't a "dead heat." Good luck finding any national media organization reporting on a poll that shows the race will be a blowout. Hell no, they'll dangle that carrot as long as they can, and keep us interested, telling us what to think. Take the view from the 30,000 feet though, and you're likely to see something much, much different. I see a candidate who's wildly unpopular with those who lean right, but adored by women and minorities. The former is light years from his base the latter will give him the edge. edited for clarity!! Edited July 23, 2012 by The Big Cat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 23, 2012 Author Share Posted July 23, 2012 The polls are pretty retarded IMO. Whether they favor Romney or Obama they mean nothing. Well, I know that this train of thought is popular in some liberal and conservative quarters, but political campaigns going back ever since, I don't know, ever, think differently. Obama has spent over $15M in polling this election cycle, why would they do that if it was "retarded"? Well, they do it because it's not retarded. They do it because it offers a glimpse of what the race looks like at this particular time. They do it because they want to see if their messaging is working. They do it to see if a possible new message could work. There are many ways to characterize polling, in regards to the benefits of polling to each campaign, "retarded" wouldn't be one of the ways to characterize it, however, you could characterize discussions revolved around polling as retarded. And as I'm about to agree with below, polls are bull ****. They've been the basis for all your arguments in this thread, even when presented with contrary "evidence." Also, my initial (real) response was that the Bain attacks were effectual since they've since put Romney on the Bain defensive. If you agree that Romney's on the Bain defensive (!@#$ the polls), then you'd agree that Obama's strategy IN JUNE AND JULY (back to my original post in this thread: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/147888-looks-like-the-bain-attacks-have-had/page__view__findpost__p__2511185) has definitely been effectual. I brought up Nate Silver because you were basing your asshat argument on !@#$ing polls which don't mean a hill of beans, which you've forthrightly acknowledged in the face of a pollster whose results you've don't agree with. Totally agree with these two polls posts, and lest we forget the 24 hour talking heads have nothing to blather about if the race isn't a "dead heat." Good luck finding any national media organization reporting on a poll that shows the race will be a blowout. Hell no, they'll dangle that carrot as long as they can, and keep us interested, telling us what to think. Take the view from the 30,000 feet though, and you're likely to see something much, much different. I see a candidate who's wildly unpopular with those who lean right, but adored by women and minorities. The former is light years from his base the latter will give him the edge. edited for clarity!! Chill, no need to PMS all over the screen. We get it, you have nothing to back up your claim other than then spouting the name Nate Silver and making emotional statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Well, I know that this train of thought is popular in some liberal and conservative quarters, but political campaigns going back ever since, I don't know, ever, think differently. Obama has spent over $15M in polling this election cycle, why would they do that if it was "retarded"? Well, they do it because it's not retarded. They do it because it offers a glimpse of what the race looks like at this particular time. They do it because they want to see if their messaging is working. They do it to see if a possible new message could work. There are many ways to characterize polling, in regards to the benefits of polling to each campaign, "retarded" wouldn't be one of the ways to characterize it, however, you could characterize discussions revolved around polling as retarded. Fact: You've never conducted nor commissioned a poll before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 23, 2012 Author Share Posted July 23, 2012 Fact: You've never conducted nor commissioned a poll before. Fact: You are an emotional wreck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Well, I know that this train of thought is popular in some liberal and conservative quarters, but political campaigns going back ever since, I don't know, ever, think differently. Obama has spent over $15M in polling this election cycle, why would they do that if it was "retarded"? Well, they do it because it's not retarded. They do it because it offers a glimpse of what the race looks like at this particular time. They do it because they want to see if their messaging is working. They do it to see if a possible new message could work. There are many ways to characterize polling, in regards to the benefits of polling to each campaign, "retarded" wouldn't be one of the ways to characterize it, however, you could characterize discussions revolved around polling as retarded. Chill, no need to PMS all over the screen. We get it, you have nothing to back up your claim other than then spouting the name Nate Silver and making emotional statements. No. I have insight. You have bull **** polls. We'll see whose turns out to be more accurate come November. Fact: You are an emotional wreck You must have a read a poll somewhere to confirm that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 23, 2012 Author Share Posted July 23, 2012 No. I have insight. You have bull **** polls. We'll see whose turns out to be more accurate come November. You must have a read a poll somewhere to confirm that. Relax, no need to get so worked up hun. No. I have insight. You have bull **** polls. We'll see whose turns out to be more accurate come November. Another emotional response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Well, I know that this train of thought is popular in some liberal and conservative quarters, but political campaigns going back ever since, I don't know, ever, think differently. Obama has spent over $15M in polling this election cycle, why would they do that if it was "retarded"? Well, they do it because it's not retarded. They do it because it offers a glimpse of what the race looks like at this particular time. They do it because they want to see if their messaging is working. They do it to see if a possible new message could work. There are many ways to characterize polling, in regards to the benefits of polling to each campaign, "retarded" wouldn't be one of the ways to characterize it, however, you could characterize discussions revolved around polling as retarded. Chill, no need to PMS all over the screen. We get it, you have nothing to back up your claim other than then spouting the name Nate Silver and making emotional statements. And I would suspect the polls conducted by the 2 campaigns would be a bit different than those run by the independent orgs. Market research is a good thing; if you don't know what your customers want, you can't give it to them. But alot of the questions asked by the independent orgs tend to not tell a whole lot about the nuances that the campaigns themselves need. Though, on a slightly different topic, I not sure why TBC keeps claiming the President is "adored by women." He's polling about 12% ahead with them currently. That's not exactly 'let's build a statue to him' territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 23, 2012 Author Share Posted July 23, 2012 Though, on a slightly different topic, I not sure why TBC keeps claiming the President is "adored by women." He's polling about 12% ahead with them currently. That's not exactly 'let's build a statue to him' territory. He says that because he has an emotional connection and insight with the way they think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 And I would suspect the polls conducted by the 2 campaigns would be a bit different than those run by the independent orgs. Market research is a good thing; if you don't know what your customers want, you can't give it to them. But alot of the questions asked by the independent orgs tend to not tell a whole lot about the nuances that the campaigns themselves need. Though, on a slightly different topic, I not sure why TBC keeps claiming the President is "adored by women." He's polling about 12% ahead with them currently. That's not exactly 'let's build a statue to him' territory. Haha, again: To base that notion on polls conducted three months before the election seems to upend your previous assertions, but I'll take a crack at it. The GOP circus over birth control filled the Obama camp's quiver with ample arrows that I wouldn't expect them to unleash unless they were dealing with uncomfortable margins. They've been doing their political homework and have been on the political offensive for the last six months. Not only in attacks, but in maneuvers that would force their opponent's hand. I see a lineup of issues from job creation, to women's rights, to immigrants rights, to gay rights that they're tallying somewhere for when it's time to transition to boasting about their "accomplishments." Please don't take the above as bible. I could swing and miss big time on this. But I see a spinnable record that Obama can use to mobilize voting segments (like women and minorities) that Romney's already in the red on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Well, I know that this train of thought is popular in some liberal and conservative quarters, but political campaigns going back ever since, I don't know, ever, think differently. Obama has spent over $15M in polling this election cycle, why would they do that if it was "retarded"? Well, they do it because it's not retarded. They do it because it offers a glimpse of what the race looks like at this particular time. They do it because they want to see if their messaging is working. They do it to see if a possible new message could work. There are many ways to characterize polling, in regards to the benefits of polling to each campaign, "retarded" wouldn't be one of the ways to characterize it, however, you could characterize discussions revolved around polling as retarded. Of course you have to poll as a campaign it's all you have to go on. I just don't think they're very accurate and in the context of the media citing this poll and that poll it's meaningless. If I were to really get a feel for the campaign I would look at money (which I know comes from the campaign poll anyway). If Obama is dumping money into Ohio it means it's close and he needs it. If no money is going into Alabama it means it's in the bag for Romney. Etc. Obviously swing states get money either way and other states don't so it's not exactly a science but all in all there just is no way to really know with any meaningful certainty. The best way for the common man to get a feel for things is to look at what is on TV...and all that will tell you is the swing states are close and the rest is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Of course you have to poll as a campaign it's all you have to go on. I just don't think they're very accurate and in the context of the media citing this poll and that poll it's meaningless. If I were to really get a feel for the campaign I would look at money (which I know comes from the campaign poll anyway). If Obama is dumping money into Ohio it means it's close and he needs it. If no money is going into Alabama it means it's in the bag for Romney. Etc. Obviously swing states get money either way and other states don't so it's not exactly a science but all in all there just is no way to really know with any meaningful certainty. The best way for the common man to get a feel for things is to look at what is on TV...and all that will tell you is the swing states are close and the rest is not. And how do they decide where it is close... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 And how do they decide where it is close... They ask Nick Silver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Relax, no need to get so worked up hun. Another emotional response. No, no, he truly has "insight." Naw, I couldn't say it and keep a straight face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 23, 2012 Author Share Posted July 23, 2012 They ask Nick Silver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 And how do they decide where it is close... Like I said in the post....w/ their own internal polls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 23, 2012 Author Share Posted July 23, 2012 Here are more findings from the same poll: Despite concerted Democratic attacks on his business record, Republican challenger Mitt Romney scores a significant advantage over President Obama when it comes to managing the economy, reducing the federal budget deficit and creating jobs, a national USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds. Mitt Romney is preferred over President Obama on the economy, despite attacks on his record at Bain Capital, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. By Charles Dharapak, AP Mitt Romney is preferred over President Obama on the economy, despite attacks on his record at Bain Capital, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. Enlarge By Charles Dharapak, AP Mitt Romney is preferred over President Obama on the economy, despite attacks on his record at Bain Capital, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. Sponsored Links By more than 2-1, 63%-29%, those surveyed say Romney's background in business, including his tenure at the private equity firm Bain Capital, would cause him to make good decisions, not bad ones, in dealing with the nation's economic problems over the next four years. The findings raise questions about Obama's strategy of targeting Bain's record in outsourcing jobs and hammering Romney for refusing to commit to releasing more than two years of his tax returns. Instead, Americans seem focused on the economy, where disappointment with the fragile recovery and the 8.2% unemployment rate are costing the president. Notice the last part, I've been saying this for close to a week now, while the beltway folks would of had you believe otherwise. I had this discussion with B-Large, he seemed to believe that tax returns was a significant issue, I told them that it was waaaay down the totem poll of things that voters cared about, and that it was all about the economy. Here are a few other nuggets in the polling: Romney has the edge when it comes to being able to "get things done," and the broad landscape seems tilted in his favor: •Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are much more enthusiastic about the election, an important factor in persuading supporters to vote. By 18 points, 51%-33%, they report being more enthusiastic than usual about voting. In contrast, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents by 4 points say they are less enthusiastic than usual, 43%-39%. •A record number of Americans express skepticism about the activist role of government Obama espouses; 61% say the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. That's the highest number since Gallup began asking the question in 1992. Enthusiasm is definitely on the conservatives side, hispanics and voters under age 30 (which weren't reflected in this poll, but others) are at near historic lows when it comes to their enthusiasm for voting this election cycle, which are important segments of the Democratic coalition. However, voter enthusiasm for those over age 60 (which are important for conservatives) are near all time highs. My belief is that the polling data is off by a couple points, simply because when they poll people in RV polls, it doesn't reflect the enthusiasm or lack of, and in order for you to vote, you don't just receive a phone call and are asked who you want to vote for, you have to either request an absentee ballot or drive to the polls and cast it. So far, Romney has got to be very pleased with the way things are going. Voters are for the most part rejecting Obama's handling of the economy and they are in no mood for small ball personal attacks being lobbed from the Obama attack machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Haha, again: To base that notion on polls conducted three months before the election seems to upend your previous assertions, but I'll take a crack at it. The GOP circus over birth control filled the Obama camp's quiver with ample arrows that I wouldn't expect them to unleash unless they were dealing with uncomfortable margins. They've been doing their political homework and have been on the political offensive for the last six months. Not only in attacks, but in maneuvers that would force their opponent's hand. I see a lineup of issues from job creation, to women's rights, to immigrants rights, to gay rights that they're tallying somewhere for when it's time to transition to boasting about their "accomplishments." Please don't take the above as bible. I could swing and miss big time on this. But I see a spinnable record that Obama can use to mobilize voting segments (like women and minorities) that Romney's already in the red on. How the !@#$ you go from the bolded above to "women adore him?" YOU apparently adore him and are projecting YOUR favoring of his stance on the issues you listed above into meaning that women will flock to him, apparently because he's dreamy. What job creation? If "women's rights" (code word for abortion) were the be all end all, then ALL women would be Democrats. Women as a bloc are far more divided than African Americans or other racial minority groups tend to be. The rest of the "quiver" of issues you've come up with are social issues which will not trump economic issues unless the economy takes a major upturn in the next 3 months. As much as you apparently desperately want the election to come down to social issues, it is not looking like that is what people are focused on currently. IF it does come down to social issues, the President will likely get re-elected. Right now, and for the past 45 or so months, it's looking like this election will be decided by the economy. Most of the women I know aren't too thrilled with the direction that's headed in currently. And on a separate note, you said yourself, the President has been on the attack for 6 months. There are still 3 more months to go before people go to the polling stations. People want to hear what's right with the country, not just how this new guy is the devil. Attacking the other guy doesn't LOOK presidential. The tactics used, by both sides, will likely change significantly throughout the next 3+ months. If the President doesn't take the high road himself, he will give Mr. Romney an opportunity to look more presidential than the current President. If that happens, President Obama's election chances are in deep trouble. Past Presidents have let their campaign staff do their dirty work, the current WH occupant might be wise to follow that tack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Romney has made one big economic decision already and it has turned into a real loser for him. He wanted to let Detroit go bankrupt and everyone who is not retarded knows this was a foolish thing and it's going to cost him in the mid west states dearly. Biden over the weekend was hammer that message in Ohio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts