Latest dumb republican shit related to polling

[Michchamp]

If you don't pick and choose the people you poll beforehand so that the poll results show that Romney is leading, your poll demonstrates "liberal bias." link.

For example:

picking 1,000 people out of the phone book at random, polling them, and noting that 500 identified as democrats, 400 republicans, and 100 as independents, and the poll shows Obama up 55%... well that's not good, because we don't want to live in a world where more people identify as democrats than republicans, even if true, so that would be:
LIBERAL BIAS.

pre-selecting 1,000 people that make up 50% republican ID'd voters and 50% democrats, and finding that the polls show the candidates in a dead heat?
BETTER, BUT NOT GREAT

picking 1,000 people out from a conservative, rural area, who are NRA members and finding Romney is up 95% to 5%?
YEEEHA!!!! NOW THAT THERE'S A POLL, VERN.

 

[tsmith7559]

U of M grad?? I dont think so

 

[TheVictors]

Deperation is setting in.

 

[Michchamp]

Deperation is setting in.

deperation?

oh ho ho!

nice spelling UofM "grad"

 

[TheVictors]

stupid laptop keyboard made in China by Chinese workers who were paid twenty cents on the dollar compared to the US manufacturer who could have made it.

outsourced by a "job creator" looking for tax breaks and Union busting.

'Merica!

 

[johnny2x2x]

Lol

How are you Connies feeling nowadays knowing that Obama will almost certainly be a 2 term President? Must be tough knowing Americans are set to give him a 2nd term.

Obama is up to 76% on Intrade and 86% on Five Thirty Eight. He's a 3-1 or even a 5-1 favorite right now.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Sweet, we get a President that sucks because the guy we have running against him sucks even more. That's like the battle between Mark Sanchez and Tim Tebow.

 

[Thumb]

We had a sucky president for the previous 8 years too.

 

[Mitchrapp]

We had a sucky president for the previous 8 years too.

I'm not sure what that has to do with it. But okay.

 

[Thumb]

I'm not sure what that has to do with it. But okay.

Well I'm just pointing out what you conservatives are complaining about, is the same things us libs complained about with the last administration.

Bush was a proven idiot, but we put horse-face Kerry and ho-hum Liberman up against him and all Bush and Cheney had to do was shout "OMG Terrorists!" and it was all wrapped up.

Mittens is not going to lose because he sucks (even though he does) but because he's out of touch with everyone in the fucking country not born with a silver spoon in their ass, and his running mate makes Sarah Palin look better and better.


So yeah, four more years of tears, that's what the point was.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Well I'm just pointing out what you conservatives are complaining about, is the same things us libs complained about with the last administration.

Bush was a proven idiot, but we put horse-face Kerry and ho-hum Liberman up against him and all Bush and Cheney had to do was shout "OMG Terrorists!" and it was all wrapped up.

Mittens is not going to lose because he sucks (even though he does) but because he's out of touch with everyone in the fucking country not born with a silver spoon in their ass, and his running mate makes Sarah Palin look better and better.


So yeah, four more years of tears, that's what the point was.

I'm not comparing anything outside Joke 1, Obama and Joke 2, Romney. Why does this have to be about Bush. Always.

Obama is terrible. I don't care if you're Republican, Demo. Conservative or Liberal the guy has done nothing. But because he stinks less than his opposition or past administration you're okay with it. That's not being a Liberal or Demo., its being Mi_Thumb. I don't get it.

 

[Thumb]

I'm not comparing anything outside Joke 1, Obama and Joke 2, Romney. Why does this have to be about Bush. Always.

Obama is terrible. I don't care if you're Republican, Demo. Conservative or Liberal the guy has done nothing. But because he stinks less than his opposition or past administration you're okay with it. That's not being a Liberal or Demo., its being Mi_Thumb. I don't get it.

Who said I was okay with it? That's being Mitch - the person who just assumes he knows what everyone else is thinking. And is always wrong.

I'm not denying he's done nothing, I'm not even happy about the job he has done, but I'll take nothing every time over someone doing too much of the wrong things, like W. did.

And why do you get so upset every time someone mentions Bush? Is he your uncle or something?

 

[Mitchrapp]

Who said I was okay with it? That's being Mitch - the person who just assumes he knows what everyone else is thinking. And is always wrong.

I'm not denying he's done nothing, I'm not even happy about the job he has done, but I'll take nothing every time over someone doing too much of the wrong things, like W. did.

And why do you get so upset every time someone mentions Bush? Is he your uncle or something?

But dude, they're not running against each other. Fk Bush, I'm not talking about him. Its not upset it more like "Does this Thumb guy, can he talk about today's rather than yesterday's?" Should I bring up Carter as an argument?

In case I was too complex, I was talking about Romney and Obama. I always do. I never mention Bush, at all. EVER.

 

[TheVictors]

If you don't pick and choose the people you poll beforehand so that the poll results show that Romney is leading, your poll demonstrates "liberal bias." link.

For example:

picking 1,000 people out of the phone book at random, polling them, and noting that 500 identified as democrats, 400 republicans, and 100 as independents, and the poll shows Obama up 55%... well that's not good, because we don't want to live in a world where more people identify as democrats than republicans, even if true, so that would be:
LIBERAL BIAS.

pre-selecting 1,000 people that make up 50% republican ID'd voters and 50% democrats, and finding that the polls show the candidates in a dead heat?
BETTER, BUT NOT GREAT

picking 1,000 people out from a conservative, rural area, who are NRA members and finding Romney is up 95% to 5%?
YEEEHA!!!! NOW THAT THERE'S A POLL, VERN.

Wait, wait, wait!!!

Polls today show Mittens is "closing the gap" in some swing states.

So, I guess the polling is fine now after all.

 

[Michchamp]

Wait, wait, wait!!!

Polls today show Mittens is "closing the gap" in some swing states.

So, I guess the polling is fine now after all.

From Matt Taibbi's column:

"Weirdly, there seems to be an expectation that presidential races should be closer, and that if one doesn't come down to the wire in an exciting photo finish, we've all missed out somehow.

...

The mere fact that Mitt Romney is even within striking distance of winning this election is an incredible testament to two things: a) the rank incompetence of the Democratic Party, which would have this and every other election for the next half century sewn up if they were a little less money-hungry and tried just a little harder to represent their ostensible constituents, and b) the power of our propaganda machine, which has conditioned all of us to accept the idea that the American population, ideologically speaking, is naturally split down the middle, whereas the real fault lines are a lot closer to the 99-1 ratio the Occupy movement has been talking about since last year.

Think about it. Four years ago, we had an economic crash that wiped out somewhere between a quarter to 40% of the world's wealth, depending on whom you believe. The crash was caused by an utterly disgusting and irresponsible class of Wall Street paper-pushers who loaded the world up with deadly leverage in pursuit of their own bonuses, then ran screaming to the government for a handout (and got it) the instant it all went south.

These people represent everything that ordinarily repels the American voter. They mostly come from privileged backgrounds. Few of them have ever worked with their hands, or done anything like hard work. They not only don't oppose the offshoring of American manufacturing jobs, they enthusiastically support it, financing the construction of new factories in places like China and India.

They've relentlessly lobbied the government to give themselves tax holidays and shelters, and have succeeded at turning the graduated income tax idea on its head by getting the IRS to accept a sprawling buffet of absurd semantic precepts, like the notions that "capital gains" and "carried interest" are somehow not the same as "income."

The people in this group inevitably support every war that America has even the slimmest chance of involving itself in, but neither they nor their children ever fight in these conflicts. They are largely irreligious and incidentally they do massive amounts of drugs, from cocaine on down, but almost never suffer any kind of criminal penalty for their behavior.

...
For all this, when it came time to nominate a candidate for the presidency four years after the crash, the Republicans chose a man who in almost every respect perfectly represents this class of people.

...
​

The point is, Mitt Romney's natural constituency should be about 1% of the population. If you restrict that pool to "likely voters," he might naturally appeal to 2%. Maybe 3%."
​

​

​

Yet... this race is "close."

not to shill for Obama, just to point out the absurdity of the whole thing.

​

​

​

 

[TheVictors]

I've been working since I was 10yrs old and do not Uh-Polo-gize for that.

 

[byco42]

For all this, when it came time to nominate a candidate for the presidency four years after the crash, the Republicans chose a man who in almost every respect perfectly represents this class of people.

Does Taibbi realize that the same people who ran Wall Street when Bush was president are now burrowed in the Obama administration's Treasury Dept and on in his Economic Advisory team? That Obama's DOJ dropped the investigation on Goldman-Sachs? Ran weapons in Mexico? Rains drones on the Middle East? Is still engaged in Afghanistan? The fantastic aspect of all this is that we tolerate either one of these candidates, who are statists to the core. Did you notice how much they agreed last night?

 

[Michchamp]

Does Taibbi realize that the same people who ran Wall Street when Bush was president are now burrowed in the Obama administration's Treasury Dept and on in his Economic Advisory team? That Obama's DOJ dropped the investigation on Goldman-Sachs? Ran weapons in Mexico? Rains drones on the Middle East? Is still engaged in Afghanistan? The fantastic aspect of all this is that we tolerate either one of these candidates, who are statists to the core. Did you notice how much they agreed last night?

yes. he's paid ample attention to that in the past. he even ran a column a couple weeks ago bashing Holder for declaring the DOJ wouldn't touch Wall Street. he hasn't given obama a pass for his performance by any means.

his point was solely that while Obama has been more than cozy to banks, you'd think nominating a guy who WAS the banks (so to speak) would be too much for the american people to bear at this point, yet they buy into this false dichotomy we're presented with

 

[TheVictors]

In 2008, eight of the Top 10 contributors to BOTH Obama & McCain were the big banks ...

In 2012, eight of the Top 10 contributors to Romney are the big banks and none appear in the Obama Top 10 this time around ...and I can say with certainty that all the banks and brokers want Romney.

Romney:
Goldman Sachs $891,140
Bank of America $668,139
JPMorgan Chase & Co $663,219
Morgan Stanley $649,847
Credit Suisse Group $554,066
Citigroup Inc $418,263
Wells Fargo $414,750
Barclays $403,800
Kirkland & Ellis $393,667
Deloitte LLP $355,390

Obama:
University of California $706,931
Microsoft Corp $544,445
Google Inc $526,009
Harvard University $433,860
US Government $389,100
Deloitte LLP $369,401
DLA Piper $367,027
Stanford University $327,942
Kaiser Permanente $315,817
Sidley Austin LLP $312,278


(and FWIW, University of Michigan is in his Top 20)

 

[Michchamp]

weird that K&E is one of Romney's top donors, but Sidley is in Obama's camp. I guess K&E doesn't care who they piss off in Chicago.