"Hurricane Sandy 2012: Chris Christie heaps praise on Obama"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/83042.html

Quote :

"Christie said he spoke with Obama three times on Monday, including at midnight, when Obama agreed to speed along an major disaster declaration for New Jersey without all the “normal FEMA mumbo jumbo.” The declarations for New Jersey and New York were issued this morning. “The president has been all over this and he deserves great credit,” Christie said. “I’ve been on the phone with him, like I said, yesterday, personally three times. He gave me his number at the White House, told me to call him if I needed anything. And he absolutely means it.”"

10/30/2012 12:02:41 PM

No chance of ever winning the south in a primary for Christie anymore.

[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 12:09 PM. Reason : Joking]

10/30/2012 12:05:33 PM

Imagine that, he's acting like a President and Chris Christie has the balls to give credit where it's deserved.

There's always the possibility that since the election is around the corner Obama knows the spotlight is on him... he knows the storm and related efforts need to dominate the news for the next week (not Benghazi).

But at least we have two classy guys here.

^That's a bit harsh.

[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 12:08 PM. Reason : -]

10/30/2012 12:07:40 PM

This widespread destruction should be a great boost to the economy, though, so that's good for Obama.

10/30/2012 12:13:59 PM

i'm waiting for the spin on how this was obama's fault. i'm sure it's somewhere in the comments on golo.

10/30/2012 12:21:12 PM

I know Romney is getting hit some for his anti-federal disaster relief statements during the primary, but I think it's things like his rally in Ohio today where he's talking about responding to the storm as something where you should only aim to help a few people, not try to take on too much, only do a few yards yourself with his football metaphor, seems kind of small by comparison... all to cheering crowds.

[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 1:14 PM. Reason : .]

10/30/2012 12:59:59 PM

I really don't think people understand how dire Romney's situation is. His path to 270 is literally non-existent. Forget the national polls, lets look at the polling average out of Ohio for the entire year.







What that basically means is that if you give Obama every "safe" blue state plus Ohio, he's already at 265 EVs. Give him Nevada, which he's practically guaranteed to win at this point, and he's over 270. Same with Iowa. Colorado and Virginia are also leaning towards him. Conversely, even IF Romney somehow wins Ohio, he would still have to pick off one or more states he's currently trailing in to get to 270.

tl;dr: unless there is some sort of systemic bias towards Obama across every polling outfit in every swing state, he is still the prohibitive favorite to win the election.

10/30/2012 1:23:01 PM

Quote :

" even look here locally w/ the amendment 1...i think everyone would have guessed, even me, that it would be voted down (that shit was 60% to 40%)...but the people who aren't all over facebook and the internet still know how to get to the voting booths on election day."

This factoid says more about the flaws of our current political system than it does polling.

10/30/2012 1:35:44 PM

In 2008, Gallup was off by 2% in their predictions. The polls predicted Obama would do better than he actually did.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/9442/election-polls-accuracy-record-presidential-elections.aspx

Sure, this kind of deviation has been seen before, but there's another explanation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

Quote :

"a theory proposed to explain observed discrepancies between voter opinion polls and election outcomes in some United States government elections where a white candidate and a non-white candidate run against each other. The theory proposes that some voters will tell pollsters they are undecided or likely to vote for a black candidate, while on election day they vote for the white candidate."

In 2008, however, I feel like it was different, because it was the first black man to run for president. I think it would be more difficult to admit to not voting for Obama in that case.

Today, if the polls are 48.6 versus 46.7 for Obama vs Romney, that could mean that it's actually the reverse. Look at the 2008 result - that's 2% extra for the non-Obama candidate and 2% less for Obama.

Nonetheless, Intrade still predicts for Obama to win with 63% chance. I find that difficult to believe. I think a bet against Obama would be more valuable at this price.

10/30/2012 2:30:26 PM

^Nate Silver has it around a 70% chance for an Obama win, so not too far from intrade.

http://thewolfweb.com/poll.aspx
More importantly the tdub poll for who do you think will win is at 59% for Obama. Can't argue those numbers.

10/30/2012 2:36:56 PM

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/ohio/election_2012_ohio_president

Romney is looking good in Ohio. I think he'll get at least a 2pt win at minimum, possibly as high as 4-5. Bush carried Ohio by 4 points in 2000, and 2 points in 2004. Republicans are much more enthused to vote in this election than those.

10/30/2012 2:40:10 PM

Quote :

"^Nate Silver has it around a 70% chance for an Obama win, so not too far from intrade. "

Nate Silver should do himself a favor and bring it down to 50-50 by election day so that he doesn't completely lose all credibility when Romney routs Obama.

10/30/2012 2:42:55 PM

He can't bring it down retard, it's a set formula.

It's like asking football statisticians to change passer rating because the other guy just looked better to you.

[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 3:12 PM. Reason : If you want to criticize his methodology, please do so]

10/30/2012 2:51:11 PM

prep-e doesn't seem too smart

10/30/2012 2:56:46 PM

While we all get a good laugh out of the "analysis" of people like prep-e and mrfrog, remember that they are not alone. There is a large subset of the population that is absolutely sure that Obama is going to lose, and they are being encouraged by people like Sean Hannity, Dick Morris, and the Unskewed Polls guy. I don't think they are all just going to say "oops, guess our predictions/methodologies were wrong" on November 7. Nope, Fox News and the far right are setting the table for a massive election fraud narrative after Obama wins. They are going to try to portray him as an illegitimate President who stole the election, in order to give the GOP cover for another 4 years of obstructionism. It's actually pretty scary.

10/30/2012 3:16:38 PM

"Obama visits Red Cross: 'Storm is not yet over'"
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/30/obama-visits-red-cross-storm-is-not-yet-over/

Quote :

""This storm is not yet over," Obama said during the five-minute statement. "We have gotten briefings from the national hurricane center. It is still moving north. There are still communities that could be affected." "I want to emphasize, there is still risks of flooding, there is still risks of downed power lines, risks of high winds, and so it is very important for the public to continue to monitor the situation in your local community," he also said. Shortly after his visit the White House announced the president will travel to severely impacted state of New Jersey Wednesday to survey damage with Governor Chris Christie."

10/30/2012 4:02:34 PM

Given the current evidence, I wouldn't be surprised if Romney wins.

ITT some people seem to think that reporting a 60% chance of rain is predicting rain. Granted, some people confuzzle popular vote with popularity of winning. If polling statistics were established with scientific rigor and forecast an Obama lead of 5% with an error of 2%, then we would be talking about > 95% certainty of him winning.

Of course, polls show neither a 5% lead nor a 2% margin of error. Individual polls will report completely meaningless margins that no one believes. If you look at the spread of the polls, we're look at more like a 2% lead with a 5% standard deviation. Even that would have a better confidence than 63%, and like I said, I won't even jump into the 63% wagon. For all practical purposes, we're at 50/50.

I don't really have trouble believing that the nation is so closely balanced between two candidates. A split this even wouldn't happen naturally, but our political institutions have spent the last half-century refining everything about the process to make it this way.

10/30/2012 4:02:35 PM

Quote :

" “Over the last couple of months, you have appeared throughout the country, Governor, on behalf of Mitt Romney,” Doocy remarked to Christie. “[W]e hear that perhaps Mr. Romney may do some storm-related events. Is there any possibility that Gov. Romney may go to New Jersey to tour some of the damage with you?” “I have no idea, nor am I the least bit concerned or interested,” Christie replied, immediately shutting down the idea. “I’ve got a job to do here in New Jersey that’s much bigger than presidential politics and I could [sic] care less about any of that stuff.” “I have a job to do,” he added. “I’ve got 2.4 million people out of power, I’ve got devastation on the shore, I’ve got floods in the northern part of my state. If you think right now I give a damn about presidential politics then you don’t know me.” "

Good on Christie.

10/30/2012 4:20:36 PM

Quote :

"If you look at the spread of the polls, we're look at more like a 2% lead with a 5% standard deviation."

A) baseless, unspecified assertion.
B) the election is not determined by popular vote.

10/30/2012 4:36:26 PM

^^^While that was a surprisingly reasonable post, I would note again, popular vote does not determine the Presidency. While the national horse race numbers do indeed suggest a 50/50 chance for either candidate, the aggregates of the state polls do not. There are 247 EVs that meet or exceed your criteria for ">95% certainty" of Obama winning. Then you've got another 56 EVs that Obama is currently favored to win by varying degrees. Romney only has 191 EVSs that he can call safe. I'm sorry, but unless you're suggesting that polling in general is totally flawed and systemically biased towards Obama, that's not a dead heat.

[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 4:42 PM. Reason : :]

10/30/2012 4:37:45 PM

Quote :

"While we all get a good laugh out of the "analysis" of people like prep-e and mrfrog, remember that they are not alone. There is a large subset of the population that is absolutely sure that Obama is going to lose, and they are being encouraged by people like Sean Hannity, Dick Morris, and the Unskewed Polls guy. I don't think they are all just going to say "oops, guess our predictions/methodologies were wrong" on November 7. Nope, Fox News and the far right are setting the table for a massive election fraud narrative after Obama wins. They are going to try to portray him as an illegitimate President who stole the election, in order to give the GOP cover for another 4 years of obstructionism. It's actually pretty scary."

Believe me, I will be back to get a good laugh at you next week. Not only that, but I also stand to win a pretty nice chunk of change also. I got a nice bet in on Bovada back when Obama was supposedly "guaranteed to win" to quadruple my money at the expense of all the other sheep out there that believe the lying media and skewed polls. You're in for a big shock on Election Day.

10/30/2012 5:19:41 PM

Gloating is typically never a good idea-

Betting on the Bradley Effect isn't exactly something to be proud of either-

Let's call it the Shy Tory instead, or something.

10/30/2012 5:54:52 PM

He's referring to this,

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/romney-camp-going-off-the-fact-checking-rails-in-ohio.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

Quote :

"“We’ve clearly entered some parallel universe during these last few days,” GM spokesman Greg Martin told the Detroit Free Press. “No amount of campaign politics at its cynical worst will diminish our record of creating jobs in the U.S. and repatriating profits back to this country.”"

But Romney isn't desperate at all, he's clearly got this election in the bag

10/30/2012 6:03:18 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/misleading-romney-ad-on-jeeps-draws-obama-retort/

Quote :

"Fiat, the Italian parent company of Chrysler and Jeep, has said flatly that Romney’s claims are “unnecessary fantasies and extravagant comments.”"

10/30/2012 6:17:32 PM

The CEO of Chrysler just emailed all of his employees to tell them Romney is a liar.

http://www.freep.com/article/20121030/BUSINESS01/121030036/1205/business01/Romney-implies-GM-used-U-S-aid-create-jobs-China

Quote :

"Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne used an e-mail to employees today to refute the implication in a Romney TV ad that Chrysler may move all Jeep production from the U.S. to China. “Jeep production will not be moved from the United States to China,” Marchionne stated in the e-mail. “The numbers tell the story,” followed by specific investments Chrysler has made at its plants in Detroit, Toledo and Belvidere, Ill. “Those include more than $1.7 billion to produce the successor of the Jeep Liberty and hire about 1,100 workers on a second shift by 2013.”"

hahahahahahahahaha

[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 6:45 PM. Reason : :]

10/30/2012 6:45:23 PM

THE PROBLEM GUYS IS THAT THE REPUBLICANS DONT CARE WHAT YOU HIPPY LIBERALS SAY ON THE INTERNET

10/30/2012 6:53:48 PM

That's not what Republicans will say.

They will say the Chysler CEO is a foreigner and foreign interests would prefer Obama as President for a number of (anti-American) reasons.

Hippies are so cliché!

10/30/2012 6:56:29 PM

you give republicans way too much credit.

Well then again, they could just read it on fox news.

10/30/2012 6:57:43 PM

This has to KILL him in Ohio and Michigan, no?

Have CEO's come out and basically called a candidate out for bullshitting in the past?

** And more importantly are these actually ROMNEY ads or from a Super PAC? That is a huge distinction to me.

[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 7:14 PM. Reason : x]

10/30/2012 7:13:46 PM

^maybe when rachel maddow takes a break from munching rug she'll provide you with an actual counterpoint.

i'm mistergreen and i approved this message

10/30/2012 7:13:53 PM

Is there any talk about potentially pushing back the election due to the storm?

10/30/2012 7:25:17 PM

Oh dear lord

10/30/2012 7:26:07 PM

Haha, no.

10/30/2012 7:26:28 PM

Are there any mechanisms defined for events that it ever may be moved? I've never really checked.

10/30/2012 9:28:12 PM

Congress sets the date

So if they had an emergency meeting, sure

but no

[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 9:30 PM. Reason : ]

10/30/2012 9:30:28 PM

"Politics Bleeds Into Romney’s Relief Event For Sandy Victims"
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/mitt-romney-sandy-relief-politics.php?ref=fpblg

Quote :

"Looking to avoid any appearance of politics amid disaster, Mitt Romney billed his Ohio event on Tuesday as “storm relief” instead of a campaign rally. But politics had a way of crashing of the party. With the president holed up in the White House monitoring the hurricane response through at least Wednesday, Romney announced yesterday he would refrain from partisan business as usual on the campaign trail. That meant converting an already scheduled rally Tuesday morning in Kettering, Ohio, into a relief drive for Sandy victims. Still, the election was never entirely removed from the event, according to reports from the scene. Most notably, the event included a biographical video of Romney that typically plays at his rallies. Press badges still referred to a Romney “victory rally.”"

10/30/2012 9:36:24 PM

^ newsworthy

10/30/2012 10:02:03 PM

yeah, what the fuck are you libs expecting romney to do? he isn't in power.

WHY ISN'T HE IN THE WHITE HOUSE MONITORING THE HOT LINE? WHAT A JOKE GUYZ

10/30/2012 10:06:38 PM

Call a time-out like McCain



... Haha jk

10/30/2012 10:11:18 PM

these guys make mccain look like a golden god.

10/30/2012 10:48:25 PM

Regarding JesusHChrist's discussion on the past few pages:

I've never understood how voters could remain undecided so close to election day.
However, I currently find myself undecided between voting for an incumbent with a jaded record and not voting at all.

Due to my disagreements with his administration's drone strike policies, I've seriously considered not reelecting Obama.
However, as far as his campaign could discern, I may just be a bigoted North Carolinian whose vote he lost due to his open acceptance of gay marriage.

How is his administration to know the intentions of my vote?

[Edited on October 31, 2012 at 2:00 AM. Reason : ]

10/31/2012 1:59:26 AM

From all the gay porn they monitor you downloading

10/31/2012 3:52:19 AM

Quote :

"How is his administration to know the intentions of my vote?"

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/27/the_progressive_case_against_obama/

Personally, I think when it comes down to it, this administration misjudged the political moment of 2008. I think the country overwhelmingly wanted drastic change. From two botched wars, the worst economic crisis of our lifetime, and sincere panic, the voters knew something was wrong. This administration really showed the true colors of the Democratic Party (and our electoral politics in general), and exposed them for being corporately/wall street backed.

When you look at polls for individual topics (anti-war, anti-bailout, anti wall street, anti drug laws, anti surveillance, anti corporatism-citizens united, pro gay rights, pro social security/medicare, pro climate) the country is surprisingly progressive.

Yet, any politician who shares these sentiments cannot find his/her way into the national spotlight, and that really speaks to the corrupting influence of corporate money and lobbying in Washington. You can't win a presidential election anymore without raising one billion dollars. If you can't win without being corporately backed, then you can't win trying to change the status quo.

It's not that Obama doesn't know where progressives stand on these issues. It's that he knows they're going to vote for him regardless of how unsatisfied they are with him. It's triangulation, and it's not just for Phil Jackson any more.

10/31/2012 12:08:46 PM

Quote :

"Is there any talk about potentially pushing back the election due to the storm?"

Limbaugh brought it up yesterday as a "What if" and then spent the next 30 minutes talking about it as though it already happened.

10/31/2012 12:19:40 PM

Quote :

"Yet, any politician who shares these sentiments cannot find his/her way into the national spotlight"

thats because this:

Quote :

"When you look at polls for individual topics (anti-war, anti-bailout, anti wall street, anti drug laws, anti surveillance, anti corporatism-citizens united, pro gay rights, pro social security/medicare, pro climate) the country is surprisingly progressive. "

is not true

10/31/2012 12:34:55 PM

well, if you say so.

10/31/2012 12:53:11 PM

^^
Medicare: 88% of people say it has been good for the country

http://www.people-press.org/2011/07/07/section-3-views-of-medicare/

Social Security: 87% of people say it has been good for the country

http://www.people-press.org/2011/07/07/section-5-views-of-social-security/

Anti-war: 51% of people want US to stay neutral, even if Israel strikes Iran, though that number dips when framed in the context of preventing Iran from getting nukes.

http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=1444

class inequality: 58% also say the rich pay too little in taxes

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2337/rich-are-different-republicans-democrats-taxes-middle-class-lower-poor

and more on that topic: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2332/middle-class-optimism-income-barack-obama-mitt-romney-congress-wealth-income-lost-decade-worst

gay rights: For the first time in Pew Research Center surveys, there is as much strong support as strong opposition to gay marriage. In a survey conducted April 4-15, 22% say they "strongly" support allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally; an identical percentage (22%) "strongly" opposes gay marriage. In 2008, there was about twice as much strong opposition to as strong support for gay marriage (30% vs. 14%).

http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=1497

climate change: "Currently, 67% say there is solid evidence that the earth's average temperature has been getting warmer over the past few decades, up four points since last year and 10 points since 2009."

There is still a partisan divide over the action to take on this issue.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2388/global-warming-climate-change-solid-evidence-human-activity-earth-warmer

10/31/2012 1:17:44 PM

I love how "believing facts" is a partisan issue in this country.

10/31/2012 1:21:13 PM

aside from the medicare/social security polls most of those arent really that close. and even then, you're looking at the wrong question for ss/medicare. plus, if its 50% pro gay marriage and 50% anti-war, those 50% do not necessarily overlap.

when you ask actual, relevent questions (like how would you fix ss/medicare, which everyone in your poll said was broken as fuck) you get widely different answers (like listed in that poll). thats where the differences come in.

your mistake is assuming that being "pro-social security" means being pro your personal preference for fixing social security. thats not the case.

likewise on social issues, religious nutbags still make up a significant chunk of the population and will vote their bible over other issues.

tl;dr: the country is split on how to fix medicare/ss, still split on social issues, and those who may poll for one thing may not be for another. This is why there are still multiple candidate viewpoints and why "wow everyone is so progressive!!!" is a silly statement.

[Edited on October 31, 2012 at 1:57 PM. Reason : a]

10/31/2012 1:56:16 PM

[Edited on October 31, 2012 at 2:05 PM. Reason : .]

10/31/2012 2:05:14 PM