10/11/2012 11:54:24 PM

i mean, at least you posted the same fucking thing in a different way... but hey, post it again, because somebody might not know about that CBS poll about a meaningless VP debate

10/11/2012 11:57:35 PM

mad?

10/11/2012 11:59:35 PM

nah, I just like bitchin

10/12/2012 12:00:01 AM

WHOA, WHOA, WHOA...nobody talks to Supplanter like that.

That's a line you can't uncross.

10/12/2012 12:01:20 AM

you should see what I've said to his life-partner

10/12/2012 12:02:00 AM

Willard cleaning up in polls today for some reason.

ARG New Hampshire poll has Romney +4?? Wat.

10/12/2012 12:49:39 PM

Like, bad polling?

10/12/2012 2:02:44 PM

Nah. Romney is continuing to enjoy the bounce from his debate win. He's also leading in Florida by 7%.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/12/poll-romney-advantage-in-florida/

10/12/2012 3:24:18 PM

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vRyJ9rRDnsUJ:online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Quote :

"There were fireworks all the way, and plenty of drama. Each candidate could claim a win in one area or another, but by the end it looked to me like this: For the second time in two weeks, the Democrat came out and defeated himself. In both cases the Republican was strong and the Democrat somewhat disturbing."

Quote :

"Last week Mr. Obama was weirdly passive. Last night Mr. Biden was weirdly aggressive, if that is the right word for someone who grimaces, laughs derisively, interrupts, hectors, rolls his eyes, browbeats and attempts to bully. He meant to dominate, to seem strong and no-nonsense. Sometimes he did—he had his moments. But he was also disrespectful and full of bluster. "Oh, now you're Jack Kennedy!" he snapped at one point. It was an echo of Lloyd Bentsen to Dan Quayle, in 1988. But Mr. Quayle, who had compared himself to Kennedy, had invited the insult. Mr. Ryan had not. It came from nowhere. Did Mr. Biden look good? No, he looked mean and second-rate. He meant to undercut Mr. Ryan, but he undercut himself. His grimaces and laughter were reminiscent of Al Gore's sighs in 2000—theatrical, off-putting and in the end self-indicting. "

Quote :

"Mr. Ryan was generally earnest, fluid, somewhat wonky, confident. He occasionally teetered on the edge of glibness and sometimes fell off. If I understood him correctly during the exchange on Iran, he seemed to suggest to moderator Martha Raddatz that a nuclear war in the Mideast would be preferable to a nuclearized Iran. Really? That easy, is it? Mr. Biden had one of his first good moments when he said, essentially, "Whoa." Actually he said war should always be a very last resort, which is always a good thing to say, and to mean. "

Quote :

"On the attack in Benghazi, the question that opened the debate, Mr. Biden was on the defensive and full of spin. He pivoted quickly to talking points, a move that was at once too smooth and too clumsy. He was weak on requests for added security before the consulate was overrun and the ambassador killed. "We will get to the bottom of this." Oh. Good."

Quote :

"Mr. Ryan was strong on spending and taxes. On foreign affairs and defense spending, he was on weaker ground. Medicare and Social Security were probably a draw. Mr. Ryan coolly laid out the numbers and the need for change, but Mr. Biden emoted in a way that seemed sincere and was perhaps compelling. He scored when he knocked Mr. Romney for his 47% remarks, saying those who pay only payroll taxes pay a higher rate than many of the rich, including Mr. Romney. Mr. Ryan in turn scored on the unemployment rate in Scranton, Pa., Mr. Biden's hometown. It is 10%. It was 8.5% when the recession began. "This is not what a real recovery looks like." Mr. Ryan on abortion was personal and believable. Mr. Biden seemed to be going through the pro-choice motions. "

Quote :

"National Democrats keep confusing strength with aggression and command with sarcasm. Even the latter didn't work for Mr. Biden. The things he said had the rhythm and smirk of sarcasm without the cutting substance. And so the Romney-Ryan ticket emerged ahead. Its momentum was neither stopped nor slowed and likely was pushed forward."

The last point is probably the most important, but also the easiest/simplest for anyone to digest. You had a bad night with Obama, one that was impossible to explain away, so this week you simply wanted blood.

Well, you got it. It didn't help anyone but the most rabid Romney-haters, but you got it. Keep watching Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow if you want to find others that agree with you, maybe even Chris Matthews, but don't pretend that Biden gave you anything but a show. He played to what you wanted specifically, but that's it. The MSNBC peanut gallery and TWW liberals are not representative of the typical Democrat.

You can try to dispute any of this, or you can read this and simply agree with it:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEBATE_IMPRESSIONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-10-12-04-02-53

Regardless, Florida and now Virginia aren't looking so hot. I don't see Democrats bouncing like Republicans anytime soon. You better pray for Obama in a week.



[Edited on October 12, 2012 at 4:00 PM. Reason : and bye bye Colorado.]

10/12/2012 3:51:10 PM

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/tivo-percent-exchange-mostwatched-138330.html

Quote :

"The most-watched moment of Thursday’s vice presidential debate was the exchange between Vice President Joe Biden and Paul Ryan over Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” remarks, according to a report on Friday."

Quote :

"TiVo Research and Analytics Inc. uses anonymous viewing data and “gauges the interest in programming content by measuring the most rewound and re-watched moments in the debate.”"

10/12/2012 11:48:00 PM

The popular vote is neck and neck now. Still hasn't slowed.

10/13/2012 11:19:13 AM

Quote :

"Obama wins by landslide in 7-Eleven coffee cup survey As it has done in every presidential election since 2000, the convenience store chain is selling red and blue to-go coffee cups marked with the names of the major party candidates, as well as regular, unmarked cups for undecided voter in its "7-Election." So far Obama is ahead nationally by a wide 60-40 margin, although more scientific polls have the national race as virtually a dead heat. In the closely contested swing state of Ohio, where both candidates are campaigning heavily this week, the coffee cup poll favors the incumbent 57 to 43, with undecided coffee drinkers excluded. Even though the poll bills itself as "unabashedly unofficial and unscientific," it has accurately predicted the winners since it began in 2000. Not only that, the results have hewed within 1 percentage point of the final popular vote. In 2008, Sen. John McCain got 46 percent in the 7-Election and 45.7 percent in the real election, while Obama got 52 percent of the coffee cups and 52.9 percent of the actual votes. In 2004, President George W. Bush beat Sen. John Kerry in the 7-Election 51-49, compared with 50.7 to 48.3 in the real polls."

http://lifeinc.today.com/_news/2012/10/10/14340658-obama-wins-by-landslide-in-7-eleven-coffee-cup-survey#comments

10/13/2012 1:38:21 PM

Yo mnfares, when is Julian Castro gonna run for Governor?

10/13/2012 1:43:32 PM

Probably in 9 years when Hispanics become the majority in Texas

10/13/2012 2:14:37 PM

Anyone go to see first lady next Tuesday at UNC?

10/13/2012 4:53:09 PM

7-Eleven coffee cup sales accurately predicting elections? What the hell? That's like a story out of the Onion. The results for this election are ridiculous, though.

10/13/2012 6:25:07 PM

I'm a nut just like George Carlin.

10/13/2012 6:42:23 PM

Hi friends!

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/10/obama-leads-51-46-in-ohio.html

Quote :

"PPP's newest Ohio poll finds Barack Obama leading 51-46, a 5 point lead not too different from our last poll two weeks ago when he led 49-45. The key finding on this poll may be how the early voters are breaking out. 19% of people say they've already cast their ballots and they report having voted for Obama by a 76-24 margin. Romney has a 51-45 advantage with those who haven't voted yet, but the numbers make it clear that he already has a lot of ground to make up in the final three weeks before the election. We've found a major improvement in Mitt Romney's image in most of the states that we've polled since the Presidential debate, but Ohio is an exception. His favorability now is a 45/51 spread, showing no improvement from his 45/49 breakdown two weeks ago. Obama meanwhile has seen a small spike in his approval rating, from 48/49 to 50/48."

Obama is not going to lose Ohio. Obama is not going to lose this election.

10/13/2012 9:22:15 PM

From the latest campaign e-mail, a new record for number of donors:

Quote :

"We've out-registered Republicans in every battleground state for the past THREE months. Right now, we've got a total of more than 14,000,000 registered Democrats in battleground states like Florida and Nevada -- that means we have a 2,400,000-person lead over Republicans where it matters the most. And when it comes to voting early in battleground states, we're in the lead in important states like Iowa and Ohio -- and ahead in ballot requests in Nevada. In Iowa, we lead in vote-by-mail ballots cast, in-person early voting, total voting and total ballots requested. We also lead by a wider margin than we did at this point in 2008 in both ballots requested and cast. This is all possible because of more than 4 million people -- about 1 in 75 Americans -- owning a piece of this campaign. That's a record for American politics."

[Edited on October 14, 2012 at 12:33 PM. Reason : .]

10/14/2012 12:33:28 PM

It looks like at least a bounce in the polls according to 538.

It's to early to tell if the free fall has stopped. Good news for Obama though.

10/14/2012 3:54:32 PM

Anyone here donated to either campaign or a Super PAC? Just curious.

I bit the bullet a few days ago after the recent onslaught of bad Obama polls.

10/15/2012 7:30:34 PM

^ No because I am absolutely against Super PAC's, 501 c4's and all the BS that came with Citizens United.

10/16/2012 9:32:44 AM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/16/high-court-allows-early-voting-in-ohio/?hpt=hp_t2

10/16/2012 2:31:33 PM

^ There is hope for humanity.

Husted is such a giant tool.

10/16/2012 3:27:58 PM

No matter who wins, I expect an all out war on early voting from the right leading up to the next election cycle.

10/16/2012 3:38:10 PM

I bet Romney will go to town on foreign policy and portray Obama as weak which is what republicans always try to do and it often times works.

10/16/2012 3:57:30 PM

What's sad is that the president can't call Willard and the Right out for parading around the bodies of four dead Americans while they fail to acknowledge the thousands they sent to die needlessly in Iraq. Disgusting.

10/16/2012 4:04:15 PM

No, what's really sad is that the president can't call out the right for endless wars and civil rights abuses, because he's continued and exceeded those travesties.

10/16/2012 4:38:08 PM

^Exactly! There is just too much profit to be made from war. Nothing will really change so long as money rules politics as we are in a virtual plutocracy at this point.

10/16/2012 4:56:43 PM

So a local brewery here in Utah just released their take on the White House Honey Ale!! Gonna pick some up for the debate tonight, it's supposedly pretty damn tasty.

10/16/2012 5:07:47 PM

umm, he marched people out of iraq and will do the same in Afghanistan....

10/16/2012 5:08:41 PM

um, he's toppled governments, violated the sovereignty of nations of countries we're not even at war with, killed american citizens without trial, personally oversees kill-list meetings, kept open guantanamo bay, prosecuted whisteblowers, and endorsed legislation that suspends your right to habeus corpus. You'd be fucking livid if a republican had done any of these things. Stop being a cheerleader. It's pathetic.


But hey, he's replaced our troops with private contractors who aren't responsible to government oversight or transparency or international law, so I guess you got me there.

10/16/2012 5:18:32 PM

I think that you are on agenda. If you look at Bush and Obama, clearly Obama is the less of two evils when it comes to waging wars. We are talking about the president of the United States, he can't try to be a saint. Look at what happened to Jimmy Carter.

[Edited on October 16, 2012 at 5:23 PM. Reason : z]

10/16/2012 5:23:06 PM

I'm not the one on an agenda, homey.

And it's very much debatable whether or not Obama or Bush is worse. The worse thing Bush did in terms of civil liberties was detain people indefinitely on suspicion of charges and phonetap Americans.

Obama just straight up kills those people, some of them being American teenagers. Look up what a "signature strike" and "personality strike" are and come back and puff your chest out about how moral your president is.

I'm not the one who stopped being outraged at endless wars and civil rights abuses once someone from my party got into office. You did that. Not me.

10/16/2012 5:30:08 PM

Next thing, you'll be asking me: "why do you hate America so much?" with full sincerity without realizing that you sound like a Republican circa 2003.

10/16/2012 5:31:54 PM

Quote :

"Anyone here donated to either campaign or a Super PAC? Just curious. I bit the bullet a few days ago after the recent onslaught of bad Obama polls."

Yeah, purchasing my campaign signs counted as contributions, and so did buying merch at the Convention down in Charlotte. Not to any super PACs though. I'm all for overturning Citizens United, having more vigorous public campaign financing, and other campaign finance and lobbying reform to get big money out of politics as much as is practically possible.

10/16/2012 5:46:55 PM

So then what is it gonna be, he is weak and can't control anything in the middle east, or that he is a monstrous terrorist who violently goes after innocent?

Could you have at least some amount of continuity in how you portray him?

10/16/2012 6:19:24 PM

Quote :

"And it's very much debatable whether or not Obama or Bush is worse. The worse thing Bush did in terms of civil liberties was detain people indefinitely on suspicion of charges and phonetap Americans. Obama just straight up kills those people, some of them being American teenagers. Look up what a "signature strike" and "personality strike" are and come back and puff your chest out about how moral your president is."

This is really what I hate about much of the Democratic party base. Not only do we have to deal with the GOP distorting the truth, we do the same thing to eat our own. Seriously, worse than Bush? Come the fuck on man, the Iraq war wasn't that long ago. If you want to have a serious debate about the questionable morality of the drone warfare campaign or civil rights, we can do that. But when you start from the position of "Obama is worse than Bush", it's no better than arguing with someone like aaronburro about global warming. It's a fucking waste of everyone's time.

[Edited on October 16, 2012 at 6:23 PM. Reason : :]

10/16/2012 6:22:16 PM

Look, I'm not the one reflexively defending someone based on party affiliations. Whether or not you want to argue that the Iraq War was/is worse than civil rights abuses is up to you. That's a matter of perspective.

You can argue that starting a stupid war is terrible, and I wouldn't disagree. But what I find even worse, is the continued erosion of civil liberties and the cementing of what were once considered radical-right wing policies.

I am irate with Obama, because he's taken what were once fringe policy issues and given them bi-partisan consensus. Do you even know what that does? It takes those issues off the table for debate. Remember when Democrats demanded the restoration of Habeus Corpus? Well guess what, you can't argue about that anymore, because we now have a president that embraces that assault. And that leaves the door open for the next right-wing president to come in, pick up that football, and move it even further to the right.

So you might be upset with the Democratic base, but I'm far more upset with the mark-ass Dems who now openly endorse what were once considered extremist positions.

When you don't oppose radicalism, but rather compromise with it, radicalism eventually wins. Always. And it's your fucking weak-ass reasoning that allows the rabid wing of conservatives to consistently get their way. Because you never fucking oppose the people in your own party that continuously compromise with crazy.



[Edited on October 16, 2012 at 7:06 PM. Reason : ]

10/16/2012 7:04:19 PM

Quote :

"I am irate with Obama, because he's taken what were once fringe policy issues and given them bi-partisan consensus. Do you even know what that does? It takes those issues off the table for debate. Remember when Democrats demanded the restoration of Habeus Corpus? Well guess what, you can't argue about that anymore, because we now have a president that embraces that assault. And that leaves the door open for the next right-wing president to come in, pick up that football, and move it even further to the right."

Again, people forget about Reagan when they criticize Obama on his war time atrocities. Not trying to defend Obama in the slightest, but to act like everyone else has been innocent compared to him is nonsense. I am totally for finding a solution to this problem but to harp on it now is just election fodder for the GOP who have just as much (probably more) blood on their hands.

[Edited on October 16, 2012 at 7:17 PM. Reason : c]

10/16/2012 7:15:52 PM

I ain't forgot shit, and you're really out of your league here.

10/16/2012 7:17:08 PM

The thick, suffocating fog of cognitive dissonance.

10/16/2012 9:53:54 PM

I'm inclined to side with JesushChrist if he can provide some evidence of Obama killing American citizens. I know language in the NDAA and some legal arguments say that due process is not necessarily judicial process, but what examples are you speaking of?

10/17/2012 12:43:25 AM

^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-airstrike-that-killed-american-teen-in-yemen-raises-legal-ethical-questions/2011/10/20/gIQAdvUY7L_story_1.html


http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_year_old_son/



Drones. Killing American citizens abroad without due process. Remember when liberals were outraged over Jose Padilla being imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay without due process? Well, we've now gone even deeper down the rabbit hole and given the president the authority to kill anyone he wants, even American citizens, without due process.

Nobody, under any circumstance, should be comfortable with the idea of giving any one individual the power to order the assassination of a US citizen. You're literally giving the president the power to say "off with their heads."

And what's really disgusting about it all is the Nixon to China quality of it. Because Obama is a Democrat, people who identify themselves as liberal hold back criticism, and the radical suspension of habeus corpus becomes normalized, leaving the door open for the next president to do something even more egregious.

But hey, empires gonna empire.

10/17/2012 1:35:42 AM

Oh its drones

10/17/2012 1:51:37 AM

^^ I'm actually fairly OK with this. If he was a part of al-Qaeda, I don't really care if he's an American, especially if he's in Yemen. He wasn't even the one being specifically targeted, he was just a bystander. Nothing about this is more sad or illegal than dropping bombs on "terrorists" in Pakistan and killing innocent Pakistanis, in my opinion. They're both terrible. There's also not much difference between this and an American dying from friendly fire in the heat of a battle. The guy they were going after lost all right to a judicial form of due process due to his high-level involvement in al-Qaeda, same as any other terrorist. Police have had the power the deny a criminal judicial process by killing them if they pose an immediate threat to others for decades.

If your concern is that this is a slippery slope type deal, you probably need to invent a time machine and go back to the 1950s during McCarthyism... no wait, to the 1940s when the Japanese were interned... no wait, to the early 1900s when American citizens were detained for allegedly being spies... no wait, to the Civil War when martial law was declared... no wait, to the time the Constitution was being written to include "due process." This has been happening since 1776. Due process is a subjective as hell term so it can mean a lot of different things. You want to talk like Obama's policy is to perform drone strikes on Rush Limbaugh. It's not. They're using a legitimate ambiguity in the literal language of the Constitution to target Americans overseas who have aligned themselves with terrorist organizations. I have no problem with this. Let me know when this actually starts being abused. Until then it's a non-issue.

10/17/2012 2:31:59 AM

Quote :

"He wasn't even the one being specifically targeted, he was just a bystander."

this makes it more okay?

10/17/2012 3:12:31 AM

I addressed that in the sentence directly following the one you cherry-picked.

10/17/2012 8:07:30 AM

Quote :

"He wasn't even the one being specifically targeted, he was just a bystander."

...would make it more okay... if true.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-airstrike-that-killed-american-teen-in-yemen-raises-legal-ethical-questions/2011/10/20/gIQAdvUY7L_story_1.html

Quote :

"Two U.S. officials, again speaking on the condition of anonymity, suggested in the days after the strike that Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was in his 20s, calling him a “military-age male.” "

Some people think this is just used as rhetoric for PR damage control, but others think these words are a direct reference to a criteria the administration uses to identify someone as a terrorist and thus use a drone strike.

It seems that we can't say either way. To be 100% objective, the truth will probably never be known.

10/17/2012 9:24:37 AM