So, how are things over here in the Talk Radio Support Group?

[Max Fischer]

Have you figured out why the polls are wrong?

[DC Tom]

Have you figured out why the polls are wrong?

 

Yes, they're "oversampling" Democrats - er, Republicans...um, polls just suck!

 

It's quite fun to watch, actually.

[meazza]

Yes, they're "oversampling" Democrats - er, Republicans...um, polls just suck!

 

It's quite fun to watch, actually.

 

Rasmussen is biased!!!

[OCinBuffalo]

Have you figured out why the polls are wrong?

Well, I don't know anymore. Perhaps you can explain.

 

1. How is Romney winning Rs and Is, losing Ds....but also losing overall in Ohio by 10pts, at the same time, in the same poll? Hey take a shot at it, you'd be the first to try to explain why...for the first time ever....a candidate's performance with Is, in swing states, has become...irrelevant.

 

2. Where is the "Obama crushing Romney with Independents" story? Wouldn't that be news? Didn't we see 1000s of stories about Obama winning INDs in 2008? So....isn't it reasonable...to expect those stories right now, if Obama was indeed winning overall? Again, behavior, not polls, is where it's at. Why aren't we seeing these stories, if they could be supported?

 

3. Perhaps you can explain why Republican registration is up, in many cases by double digits, in every swing state, while Democratic registration is down, some by double digits(3 biggest Democratic counties in Ohio for example)...yet D turnout, in these polls, is expected to be > 2008, while R turnout is expected to be <= 2008?

 

I mean at this point, somebody has to try and explain the...statistical phenomena...that we are going to see in this coming election, according to these polls, right? Why can't that be you?

 

4. While you're at it, please explain how Romney, who has already registered 240k more R voters in FL than McCain( who lost to Obama by 200k votes there in 2008), is down by 9 points there, while, again, winning with Is? More, amazing...phenomena, right?

 

I hope you can do it, because you'd be the ONLY person who even tried. Using Obama increasing turnout in 25% of the electorate(minorities) is going to wallop Romney improving turnout in 75%(whites)in your explanation? Not a good plan. Especially when early voting/registration already indicates that minority/youth votes turnout will be significantly less than 2008, while white voting will be >.

 

But then, there's always calling us all racists, right?

[dayman]

O'Reilly posits that Americans are addicted to the internet and do not know the issues therefore the polls are wrong. He has it figured out.

[1billsfan]

Have you figured out why the polls are wrong?

 

Awwww, are you upset with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity making fun of your man crush?

 

 

How pissed are you at Howard Stern?...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeJbOU4nmHQ&feature=related

[/dev/null]

O'Reilly posits that Americans are addicted to the internet and do not know the issues therefore the polls are wrong. He has it figured out.

 

I love how leftys talk smack about talk radio and dittoheads etc. Meanwhile the leftys are the ones who always seem to be the ones talking about what Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, etc are up to

[dayman]

I love how leftys talk smack about talk radio and dittoheads etc. Meanwhile the leftys are the ones who always seem to be the ones talking about what Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, etc are up to

 

What's your point? I watch O'Reilly. Therefore I talk about O'Reilly. And he's hilarious about "the internet" has been forever. He talks about it as if it's a video game.

[OCinBuffalo]

What's your point? I watch O'Reilly. Therefore I talk about O'Reilly. And he's hilarious about "the internet" has been forever. He talks about it as if it's a video game.

There can be little doubt that O'Reilly simply doesn't get the internet. In that, he is very like a liberal talking about guns.

 

Neither truly understand the tool they are talking about, because neither have any real experience with said tool. Both wrongly believe that just because they can't understand what other people are doing with the tool, that makes it OK to devalue what they are doing. And, both want to point to 1% of people doing bad things with the tool, while 99% of us are doing good things with it....because they don't value, or devalue our use.

 

Hence they create convenient scenarios....that have all gun owners as rednecks who are careless with their weapons and ammo, and all internet business...as social media triviality, porn, selling junk, or trying to steal data. Then, they try to fit all news about these tools...into their scenario.

[Duck_dodgers007]

Dick Morris was on Hannity screaming about how we were attacked by terrorists this 9-11, and how attacking us on 9-11 was such an insult and that when Bush was president we never saw things like being attacked on 9-11!

 

Too funny! Conservatives are addicted to the talk radio garbage, ignorant trash make believe land of no government except to stop abortions

 

[birdog1960]

I love how leftys talk smack about talk radio and dittoheads etc. Meanwhile the leftys are the ones who always seem to be the ones talking about what Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, etc are up to

i rarely listen to or watch them. used to listen to beck but the local talk radio station dropped him presumably because he was too expensive. the thing i can't figure out is if they really believe there own nonsense. it's funny enough if they don't but hilarious if they do. and then when something obviously over the line is said (which happens quite often) guys in the chorus here say "they're just entertainers" while quoting them like scripture the rest of the time.

[OCinBuffalo]

Given this:

I love how leftys talk smack about talk radio and dittoheads etc. Meanwhile the leftys are the ones who always seem to be the ones talking about what Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, etc are up to

You don't find this:

Dick Morris was on Hannity screaming about how we were attacked by terrorists this 9-11, and how attacking us on 9-11 was such an insult and that when Bush was president we never saw things like being attacked on 9-11!

 

Too funny! Conservatives are addicted to the talk radio garbage, ignorant trash make believe land of no government except to stop abortions

even the slightest bit ironic...do you?

 

I mean...it's on the same page, only a few posts away. It's not like this was 20 pages ago or something.

 

I suppose hypno is happy, having you confirm his statement and all.

[IDBillzFan]

Conservatives are addicted to the talk radio garbage, ignorant trash make believe land of no government except to stop abortions

 

Progressives would be addicted to their own talk radio garbage if only you could put something on the air that wouldn't go bankrupt.

 

Air America! !@#$ yeah!

[OCinBuffalo]

Progressives would be addicted to their own talk radio garbage if only you could put something on the air that wouldn't go bankrupt.

 

Air America! !@#$ yeah!

Won't happen. They don't get that Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer first. Instead, they tried to do hateful diatribe...with sarcasm, not humor, as decoration.

 

Rush does humor...and for many, information, first....with hateful diatribe as a decoration.

 

That was the clear cut difference between Rush and Air America. The average person will come away from a Rush show having learned something, like what the Fed does, or, a faster, more effective way of explaining what the Fed does.

 

I spent hours listening to Air America(for the same reason I watch MSNBC = I have 0 fear of hearing what I may not agree with) I never learned a thing. In fact, I often felt the urge to call them, and explain what the Fed does, if nothing else...just to keep the show going. I often thought "now I know what John Densmore(Doors drummer) must have felt like...lets go guys...this song has to end sometime".

 

Chris Matthews has been hysterical this week...but only for people like me....who like to do our own version of Mystery Science Theater with it.

[CosmicBills]

Won't happen. They don't get that Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer first. Instead, they tried to do hateful diatribe...with sarcasm, not humor, as decoration.

 

Rush does humor...and for many, information, first....with hateful diatribe as a decoration.

 

That was the clear cut difference between Rush and Air America. The average person will come away from a Rush show having learned something, like what the Fed does, or, a faster, more effective way of explaining what the Fed does.

 

I spent hours listening to Air America(for the same reason I watch MSNBC = I have 0 fear of hearing what I may not agree with) I never learned a thing. In fact, I often felt the urge to call them, and explain what the Fed does, if nothing else...just to keep the show going. I often thought "now I know what John Densmore(Doors drummer) must have felt like...lets go guys...this song has to end sometime".

 

Chris Matthews has been hysterical this week...but only for people like me....who like to do our own version of Mystery Science Theater with it.

:lol:

[Max Fischer]

Well, I don't know anymore. Perhaps you can explain.

 

1. How is Romney winning Rs and Is, losing Ds....but also losing overall in Ohio by 10pts, at the same time, in the same poll? Hey take a shot at it, you'd be the first to try to explain why...for the first time ever....a candidate's performance with Is, in swing states, has become...irrelevant.

 

2. Where is the "Obama crushing Romney with Independents" story? Wouldn't that be news? Didn't we see 1000s of stories about Obama winning INDs in 2008? So....isn't it reasonable...to expect those stories right now, if Obama was indeed winning overall? Again, behavior, not polls, is where it's at. Why aren't we seeing these stories, if they could be supported?

 

3. Perhaps you can explain why Republican registration is up, in many cases by double digits, in every swing state, while Democratic registration is down, some by double digits(3 biggest Democratic counties in Ohio for example)...yet D turnout, in these polls, is expected to be > 2008, while R turnout is expected to be <= 2008?

 

I mean at this point, somebody has to try and explain the...statistical phenomena...that we are going to see in this coming election, according to these polls, right? Why can't that be you?

 

4. While you're at it, please explain how Romney, who has already registered 240k more R voters in FL than McCain( who lost to Obama by 200k votes there in 2008), is down by 9 points there, while, again, winning with Is? More, amazing...phenomena, right?

 

I hope you can do it, because you'd be the ONLY person who even tried. Using Obama increasing turnout in 25% of the electorate(minorities) is going to wallop Romney improving turnout in 75%(whites)in your explanation? Not a good plan. Especially when early voting/registration already indicates that minority/youth votes turnout will be significantly less than 2008, while white voting will be >.

 

But then, there's always calling us all racists, right?

 

You seem to think losing is pretty funny. Good luck with your fantasy world - while it lasts.

[3rdnlng]

 

 

You seem to think losing is pretty funny. Good luck with your fantasy world - while it lasts.

 

Well, I see you come here to contribute your special brand of enlightenment and meaty discussion. No Snooky on tv right now?

[Gary M]

Well, I don't know anymore. Perhaps you can explain.

 

1. How is Romney winning Rs and Is, losing Ds....but also losing overall in Ohio by 10pts, at the same time, in the same poll? Hey take a shot at it, you'd be the first to try to explain why...for the first time ever....a candidate's performance with Is, in swing states, has become...irrelevant.

 

2. Where is the "Obama crushing Romney with Independents" story? Wouldn't that be news? Didn't we see 1000s of stories about Obama winning INDs in 2008? So....isn't it reasonable...to expect those stories right now, if Obama was indeed winning overall? Again, behavior, not polls, is where it's at. Why aren't we seeing these stories, if they could be supported?

 

3. Perhaps you can explain why Republican registration is up, in many cases by double digits, in every swing state, while Democratic registration is down, some by double digits(3 biggest Democratic counties in Ohio for example)...yet D turnout, in these polls, is expected to be > 2008, while R turnout is expected to be <= 2008?

 

I mean at this point, somebody has to try and explain the...statistical phenomena...that we are going to see in this coming election, according to these polls, right? Why can't that be you?

 

4. While you're at it, please explain how Romney, who has already registered 240k more R voters in FL than McCain( who lost to Obama by 200k votes there in 2008), is down by 9 points there, while, again, winning with Is? More, amazing...phenomena, right?

 

I hope you can do it, because you'd be the ONLY person who even tried. Using Obama increasing turnout in 25% of the electorate(minorities) is going to wallop Romney improving turnout in 75%(whites)in your explanation? Not a good plan. Especially when early voting/registration already indicates that minority/youth votes turnout will be significantly less than 2008, while white voting will be >.

 

But then, there's always calling us all racists, right?

 

I hope they keep it up right to the election. I can't fathom that they really believe it will discourage the Republican voters.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

Howard Stern exposed his what? Ignorance? ButtaFace? Love for little boys?

 

he denigrates women, mentally retarded people, vertically challenged people etc etc

 

He's just another clown looking for attention

[meazza]

Howard Stern exposed his what? Ignorance? ButtaFace? Love for little boys?

 

he denigrates women, mentally retarded people, vertically challenged people etc etc

 

He's just another clown looking for attention

 

Certainly you would be an expert on that.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

whats that, that canadians are clueless dolts?

[meazza]

whats that, that canadians are clueless dolts?

 

Surprisingly most Canadians are bills fans.

[dayman]

Surprisingly most Canadians are bills fans.

 

North America's team baby.

 

Why are you so interested in US poltiics anyway meazza? Being Canadian...

[Duck_dodgers007]

 

 

Progressives would be addicted to their own talk radio garbage if only you could put something on the air that wouldn't go bankrupt.

 

Air America! !@#$ yeah!

 

So true, Liberal do not need radio ignoramuses to constantly drone illogical messages into their heads, liberals think for themselves

[dayman]

So true, Liberal do not need radio ignoramuses to constantly drone illogical messages into their heads, liberals think for themselves

 

That actual answer is that most Democrats don't gravitate towards the charicature of a "liberal" personality. Most Dems are certainly more liberal than conservatives but, at least on this board, many "conservatives" don't seem to understand where most Dems are at. The party is home to some very liberal factions, but it's not a "very liberal faction" overall. As is well documented, the very conservative faction is increasingly influential in the GOP...so in some ways it makes sense why certain talk-junkies don't get this.

Edited September 28, 2012 by TheNewBills

[meazza]

North America's team baby.

 

Why are you so interested in US poltiics anyway meazza? Being Canadian...

 

I dunno. Everything related to finance/politics/economics interests me and always has. Canadian politics is boring. Not nearly as much nut jobs though we did recently elect a separatist...

[dayman]

I dunno. Everything related to finance/politics/economics interests me and always has. Canadian politics is boring. Not nearly as much nut jobs though we did recently elect a separatist...

 

Are you living in America/trying to become a citizen?

[meazza]

Are you living in America/trying to become a citizen?

 

No. Montreal.

[1billsfan]

So true, Liberal do not need radio ignoramuses to constantly drone illogical messages into their heads, liberals think for themselves

 

LOL...if Barack Obama's name were Jim Jones...you, the free phone lady, and all the other brainless Obama idiots would have been keeled over with an empty dixie cup four years ago.

[IDBillzFan]

No. Montreal.

 

Oh, you live in France. I didn't know that.

[meazza]

Oh, you live in France. I didn't know that.

 

Enchanté

[Rob's House]

 

 

That actual answer is that most Democrats don't gravitate towards the charicature of a "liberal" personality. Most Dems are certainly more liberal than conservatives but, at least on this board, many "conservatives" don't seem to understand where most Dems are at. The party is home to some very liberal factions, but it's not a "very liberal faction" overall. As is well documented, the very conservative faction is increasingly influential in the GOP...so in some ways it makes sense why certain talk-junkies don't get this.

The real answer is most liberals don't think beyond the surface level stereotypes. Even the intelligent one's reach conclusions based on symbolism or wishful thinking and then make excuses for their beliefs, primarily by denigrating those who disagree with them as immoral, then mistake the excuse making, stereotyping, & attacks for critical thinking. Most don't even know they're doing it and when confronted with it, deflect.

[birdog1960]

That actual answer is that most Democrats don't gravitate towards the charicature of a "liberal" personality. Most Dems are certainly more liberal than conservatives but, at least on this board, many "conservatives" don't seem to understand where most Dems are at. The party is home to some very liberal factions, but it's not a "very liberal faction" overall. As is well documented, the very conservative faction is increasingly influential in the GOP...so in some ways it makes sense why certain talk-junkies don't get this.

The real answer is most liberals don't think beyond the surface level stereotypes. Even the intelligent one's reach conclusions based on symbolism or wishful thinking and then make excuses for their beliefs, primarily by denigrating those who disagree with them as immoral, then mistake the excuse making, stereotyping, & attacks for critical thinking. Most don't even know they're doing it and when confronted with it, deflect.

hmmm, still thinking about this.

[birdog1960]

no, i've decided. a lot of republicans are immoral or, at least, amoral, or alternatively, without conscience.

[meazza]

no, i've decided. a lot of republicans are immoral or, at least, amoral, or alternatively, without conscience.

 

I'm shocked. Of course would you consider someone who donates 30% of his income to charity immoral?

Edited September 29, 2012 by meazza

[Doc]

no, i've decided. a lot of republicans are immoral or, at least, amoral, or alternatively, without conscience.

I don't think you want to get into an argument over the morality of Repubs versus a large percentage of the Democrat base.

[birdog1960]

I'm shocked. Of course would you consider someone who donates 30% of his income to charity immoral?

would he have done it if there wasn't something in it for him eg tax liability lessened, gaining votes, supporting his church? we'll never know.

[meazza]

 

would he have done it if there wasn't something in it for him eg tax liability lessened, gaining votes, supporting his church? we'll never know.

 

Well look at you as the judge and jury. Everyone has access to the tax advantage yet not everyone donates to charity.

 

You are full of it plain and simple.

[dayman]

The real answer is most liberals don't think beyond the surface level stereotypes. Even the intelligent one's reach conclusions based on symbolism or wishful thinking and then make excuses for their beliefs, primarily by denigrating those who disagree with them as immoral, then mistake the excuse making, stereotyping, & attacks for critical thinking. Most don't even know they're doing it and when confronted with it, deflect.

 

Bunch of words nothing more. My point is simply that while obviously more left than the GOP, there is an appreciation of compromise and moderation within the Democratic party. The internal centrist pull there, is not found in the current GOP.

 

GOP backers can continue to lable Dems lefty nutballs who win support on nonsense, but until they take a look at their own party with the same honesty it's not going to get any better. There's some debate over the "problem" (assuming there has been one) with Mitt's campaign. To me the majority of the blame falls on party forces pushing and pulling him around.

 

Long story short, I get it .... Repubs are conservative and proud of it. But the calculus is not so simple on the Dems side. It's a cooalition. To its detriment at certain points in history it's far less cohesive...hense the famous saying "I'm not apart of an organized political party, I'm a democrat." But with the GOP tilting as it has been the self correcting mechanism within the party has kept it closer to the center than the GOP and it's one of the reasons...imo....we're seeing what we're seeing.

 

Long story even shorter: Actual Dems aren't exactly what passionate Repubs think they are

Edited September 29, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Rob's House]

 

Long story even shorter: Actual Dems aren't exactly what passionate Repubs think they are

The rank & file Dems you speak of have little in common with the leaders of the party.

 

And this business of compromise is either disengenuous or obtuse. Let's say the dial is at 50, you want it at 70, & I want it at 30. You say "I want 70, but I'm willing to compromise at 60." Going along with that wouldn't be compromise on my part, it would be capitulation.

 

I give you more credit than most because you advance an argument & try to defend it with reason. While I find much of your reasoning flawed and lacking a foundation I give you credit nonetheless for being reasonable in understanding there are valid counterpoints worthy of consideration & trying to find a balance. I find far less substance or self-awareness from your fellow Dems, both in politics & media.