fyp

it's because he is lazy. the guy hates campaigning and this is just an excuse not to

The next and most obvious domino is for the GOP to somehow tie long term structural federal deficits to the increased availability of polls and practical costs of early voting and claim we can't afford all this voting, we need to clamp down on all these extra hours and early voting periods, think of all the burnt out lightbulbs and the troops maybe, so, polls should instead be open from 2pm-4pm on Election Day and that's it, SHOW ME IN THE CONSTITUTION WHERE EARLY VOTING IS A RIGHT, it's not there, not what the Founder's intended, so it's illegal, and also, ACORN can vote more with more hours.

main feature of the ad is the use of the word "lie". its a pretty easy ad to write but i think its pretty good ad for that reason alone.

I got called for one and miraculously I was in a good mood and willing to do it. Then they said they wanted 40 minutes of my time. Um no? So basically these polls are skewed towards shut-ins, QVC addicts and really really lonely people.

Like, that's kinda something I'm interested in. Tying back in with Riverman's post about credulousness, Seattle, when there's a story like the $16 muffins that briefly becomes a "scandal" and us liberals are like "lol that's clearly just some quirk of the accounting" and then it turns out to be... an accounting quirk just like was predicted, do you think we just got lucky?

Like we were gonna gainsay whatever Hannity and O'Reilly are complaining about and it just happened to turn out exactly like we thought?

If so, goddamn why the **** am I wasting this hot streak on debunking chain emails?

big gilute,

Wishing death will get you infraction points and or banned, FYI.

Meh ad. It was alright until they showed the clip of Romney that was so awkwardly cut in mid sentence. It was cut in the way you would cut Romney saying "Don't let Detroit go bankrupt" so it just comes across as cheap to me.

lol it was meant as a joke. i geuss it's hard to tell on the net.

I'm on a mailing list with a lot of conservatives who are actually quite intelligent and can discuss economic policy at a pretty high level. They definitely know more than me on a lot of stuff.

But when it comes to something like voter fraud their IQ immediately drops 50 points. They've already had the emotional part of their brains heavily stimulated on this issue - causing all reason and logic goes out the window. I have painstakingly laid out, over and over again, the rock solid case that voter ID laws have nothing to do with actual voter fraud to the point where a reasonably intelligent 6 year-old can completely grasp it.

They calm down for a while - then one of them reads something about "El Macho" and his busload of illegals, and even though it's beyond obvious the author is being derisive about the whole myth, they point to that as evidence of in-person voter fraud. So we repeat the whole process of laying out every point of logic.

Then they calm down for a while until the latest James O'Keefe sting comes up. Repeat the process. It's like arguing with a 2-year-old.

What was the source of the muffin story? An exclusive from Fox news or the GAO? What was the reaction from the WH, lol nothing to see here or new rules regarding convention spending?

I really think outlets are overestimating the effect of the hurricane on the election. For one thing, the studies that have analyzed weather and voter turnout has largely centered on election day, and the hurricane will be over a full 5-6 days before the election. For another, the hurricane is not poised to affect key swing States very much. Virginia will get some of the edge of the storm, but not the brunt. Pennsylvania will take a hit, but it's unlikely the effect will be enough to alter the President's considerable advantage there. The rest of the areas are predominantly Blue States.

This is not to sound callous, as surely there will be many people who suffer from the hurricane, but the media is treating it like some kind of wild card for the election, which I greatly doubt it will be. A reduction in turnout could be balanced by a couple good public appearances from Obama appearing "presidential" (that stupid word again) in the face of disaster. The only real risk is botching the response, which is possible but unlikely, especially given the strength of Northeastern infrastructure, and the fact that it's a slowing Category 1 storm, not a monster like Katrina.

from gallup-
Gallup has suspended polling for its daily tracking as of Monday night and will reassess on a day-to-day basis. The ultimate effect on the overall picture of polling between now and this weekend, including election polling, will depend on what happens as a result of the storm, about which we will have a better understanding of on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week.

ok thanks. i was just kidding but i will heed the warning ty

Sort of like how they're fine with any and all Obama obstruction, up to the point where it costs them $1k-$2k out of their own pocket.

Money >>> emotions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason

1. Obama did let Detroit go bankrupt.
2. Romney definitely over-reached and twisted the source bloomberg article. But that doesn't change the fact Ford, GM and Chrysler have been trying to relocate production to China for a while.

Meanwhile, the UAW and other unions are trying to clawback back concessions despite the still rather weak states of Detroit firms.

So national disasters can be handled entirely by insurance? We don't need to send FEMA for <insert national disaster>guys insurance companies will send checks in the mail in a few months. Don't even worry.
But clearly not enough of a policy difference for you to get upset over? Like if obama had some program that would cost a few trillion more over a few years, and i was like meh don't really agree with it, but it's just a few trillion more. Not like we have any problems with deficits.

the nerve of the UAW trying to get it's members better benefits and better pay.

I've been watching Fox. What is this storm of which you speak? Did it rain on some burning buildings in Benghazi?

Polling trends:

Rasmussen

Date

National

Colorado

Florida

Iowa

Michigan

Nevada

New Hamp.

N. Car.

Ohio

Penn.

Virginia

Wisconsin

10/2

+4

10/3

-2

10/4

+2

-1

+1

10/6

+2

10/7

-1

-2

10/9

0

+3

-5

-2

10/10

-1

10/11

+4

-7

+2

10/15

-3

-1

10/17

+6

-1

10/18

+5

+3

-2

10/21

+4

0

10/23

-2

+2

0

10/24

-5

+2

10/25

+2

+6

0

10/28

+2

+2

PPP

Date	Colorado	Florida	Iowa	Michigan	Nevada	N. Hamp.	N.Car.	Ohio	Penn.	Virginia	Wisconsin
10/6											-2
10/7										-3
10/10					-4
10/13								-5
10/14		+1					+2		-7
10/18	-3	+1
10/19			+1			+1
10/20								-1
10/24					-4
10/25	-4						0
10/28		-1				-2		-4

I will add more as time permits.

Who said: "Deficits don't matter?"

Oh yeah, I forgot about republican accountability rules that past performance can never be used as a gauge for future performance - even if the candidate hires a ****load of the exact same team. So my point is muted.

I think FEMA has a role in disaster relief for sure. I didn't think that was the issue being discussed it's the post-event cost of rebuilding that could be handled by insurance. I don't think, but not entirely sure, that immediate disaster relief is a significant part of the cost.

I chalk that up to conservatives finding an outlet for their inner racist where they think they can complain about brown people without being called racist.

they do coordinate messaging though. not in the manner a press agent would disseminate who to break the story to, and then expect (because they are professional)how it would play out.

The Fox-GOP ties are in initial strategy and its expected messaging. The Frank Luntz system. There was a time editorial and advertising had walls (some were more transparent than others) to separate them, but Roger Ailes considers himself more a political operative than a news disseminator.

The evil liberal media has been accused of that, but as in most frivolous charges, there is no basis in fact. Asking easier questions is not the same as asking a leading question.

the former = left leaners
the latter = Fox

I wanted to point out that deficit spending hypocrisy is not a one party problem.