The Big Cat Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Where did I "confirm that Barry has painted Romney into a defensive corner on Bain?" I did no such thing. There is no corner, much less has Romney been painted into it. Again the attacks on Bain have shown to be fruitless mostly, and that's with Romney's bare-minimum rebuttals so far. When he gets to the debates and gets to counter Barry's claims, you'll see who is painted into a corner. My point is that it's not like Barry being half-white didn't help him a ton, or that he was running against a super-team of opponents, or that he didn't represent a change from the previous party who held power while the country went into turmoil. You're basing your faith on his team over stuff that largely he/they had no control over. You do understand the definition of rebuttal, yes? The McCain camp threw a hail Mary with Palin. They needed that hail Mary because of...OBAMA. Palin ended up costing more votes than she earned. Lieberman would not have had the same effect. This was Obama's race to lose, hell even John Kerry would of defeated McCain by 5+ % . This was as bad of a year as you could of scripted for a conservative to run. I already listed the reasons, if you don't recognize that, then we can't really go any further regarding this point. And to your second point, again, this is something that you believe that is not supported by empirical data. From Today: Two-thirds of likely voters say the weak economy is Washington’s fault, and more blame President Obama than anybody else, according to a new poll for The Hill. It found that 66 percent believe paltry job growth and slow economic recovery is the result of bad policy. Thirty-four percent say Obama is the most to blame, followed by 23 percent who say Congress is the culprit. Twenty percent point the finger at Wall Street, and 18 percent cite former President George W. Bush. So while I understand that you may actually believe what you said, it's simply not backed up by data. And Nate Silver says Obama has a 68% chance of winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 23, 2012 Author Share Posted July 23, 2012 You do understand the definition of rebuttal, yes? The McCain camp threw a hail Mary with Palin. They needed that hail Mary because of...OBAMA. Palin ended up costing more votes than she earned. Lieberman would not have had the same effect. And Nate Silver says Obama has a 68% chance of winning. Yes, and Jay Cost says 50% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 The McCain camp threw a hail Mary with Palin. They needed that hail Mary because of...OBAMA. Palin ended up costing more votes than she earned. Off the point of the thread, but that statement is false. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Yes, and Jay Cost says 50% C'mon. Really? In an argument over the legitimacy of data you put a statistician up against a writer for a neoconservative rag? Off the point of the thread, but that statement is false. . Prove it. I'll be happy to rescind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 You do understand the definition of rebuttal, yes? The McCain camp threw a hail Mary with Palin. They needed that hail Mary because of...OBAMA. Palin ended up costing more votes than she earned. Lieberman would not have had the same effect. I know rebuttal doesn't mean "being painted into a corner." And there's a big difference between a rebuttal to an attack ad, and rebutting what someone is saying to your face. Palin was a Hail Mary. But it was like fumbling the snap instead of throwing it into the endzone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 And Nate Silver says Obama has a 68% chance of winning. And Nate Silver is? Weatherman said 40% chance of rain on Saturday and it poured like Noah. Weatherman said 40% chance of rain on Sunday and it didn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 23, 2012 Author Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) C'mon. Really? In an argument over the legitimacy of data you put a statistician up against a writer for a neoconservative rag? That just goes to show you how hopelessly biased you are. You accept a self-described Progressives analysis, but not a conservative's. Here are the facts, I kept up with Silver's predictions through out the GOP primaries, he whiffed more times than a little league player. He was horrible, he even had Romney with a 92% chance of winning the S.C primaries and we saw how that turned out. Dude, step away from the progressive kool-aid , the point is that you have your left-wing statistician that supports your odds and views and I have actual non partisan polling data supporting mine.. See the difference? The best evidence we have is on the most recent polling, and the only way you can combat my arguments, which I've supported based on data (and you on "well since I say it's so, it's so") is say, hey, if Nate (Self-described progressive NY times blogger) Silver says it, than THERE, take that! Edited July 23, 2012 by WorldTraveller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 ... Question one: there won't many minds changed in this election, yours included, I gather. Just know that there are still a **** ton of Americans who do NOT share your opinion on the President, and see other barriers to success (laregely the GOP Congress) as more significant factors. That's not my opinion, that's just truth. Plus, if they can mobilize the black vote again, and there's no reason to think they can't, that's an entire demo they have completely locked up. Women too. I'm not saying these people are right or wrong to support Obama, but that doesn't change the fact that they do. Question two: well, what evidence do we have--other than his record breaking/Super Bowl winning performances--do we have that Tom Brady is a decent quarterback? To go a step further, I made the assessment of Obama's team in relation to Romney's. So, just as Obama's has proven themselves sharp, Romney's has proven themselves dull. there won't many minds changed in this election, yours included, I gather. What exactly does that have to do with whether it will be easier or more difficult to elect the SECOND African American President? I am mildly curious how the "GOP Congress" is the Country's barrier to success, when the GOP only controls the House of Representatives, the Democrats STILL control the Senate (though not by the fillibuster-proof majority they had at the beginning of the current President's term), and the House was overwhelmingly Democrat during the 1st 2 years of this Presidency as well? Women are locked up for the Democrats? Really? How does any of this make it easier for another African American to become President? What if that next high quality candidate is a Republican? Does anything you just babbled have any relevance to that situation? As for your 2nd paragraph; Romney's team has proven itself dull? How? By being a Republican candidate winning the Massachusetts Governorship? By being the most central leaning major candidate of the Republican primary and still winning it going away? And this is relative to Obama's campaign proving itself sharp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 That just goes to show you how hopelessly biased you are. You accept a self-described Progressives analysis, but not a conservative's. Here are the facts, I kept up with Silver's predictions through out the GOP primaries, he whiffed more times than a little league player. He was horrible, he even had Romney with a 92% chance of winning the S.C primaries and we saw how that turned out. Dude, step away from the progressive kool-aid , the point is that you have your left-wing statistician that supports your odds and views and I have actual non partisan polling data supporting mine.. See the difference? The best evidence we have is on the most recent polling, and the only way you can combat my arguments, which I've supported based on data (and you on "well since I say it's so, it's so") is say, hey, if Nate (Self-described progressive NY times blogger) Silver says it, than THERE, take that! Except we're not talking about primaries. We're talking about national elections for which there is a ton more data to crunch. I'd be interested to hear how he changed his formula to give him the "progressive" results he was looking for. there won't many minds changed in this election, yours included, I gather. What exactly does that have to do with whether it will be easier or more difficult to elect the SECOND African American President? I am mildly curious how the "GOP Congress" is the Country's barrier to success, when the GOP only controls the House of Representatives, the Democrats STILL control the Senate (though not by the fillibuster-proof majority they had at the beginning of the current President's term), and the House was overwhelmingly Democrat during the 1st 2 years of this Presidency as well? Women are locked up for the Democrats? Really? How does any of this make it easier for another African American to become President? What if that next high quality candidate is a Republican? Does anything you just babbled have any relevance to that situation? As for your 2nd paragraph; Romney's team has proven itself dull? How? By being a Republican candidate winning the Massachusetts Governorship? By being the most central leaning major candidate of the Republican primary and still winning it going away? And this is relative to Obama's campaign proving itself sharp? I'm sorry I took an additional step on the first question that you didn't follow (for whatever reason): you asked if Obama's failure would make it easier or harder for the next African American to be elected. I responded by saying not everyone thinks he's been a failure (especially blacks). You're in a severe minority if you think Romney is the opposite of dull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) Prove it. I'll be happy to rescind. LOL....well you're the one who initially made the statement that needs backing up, but forget it just do me (and yourself) a favor and look up the definition of rescind..................lol . Edited July 23, 2012 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 23, 2012 Author Share Posted July 23, 2012 there won't many minds changed in this election, yours included, I gather. What exactly does that have to do with whether it will be easier or more difficult to elect the SECOND African American President? I am mildly curious how the "GOP Congress" is the Country's barrier to success, when the GOP only controls the House of Representatives, the Democrats STILL control the Senate (though not by the fillibuster-proof majority they had at the beginning of the current President's term), and the House was overwhelmingly Democrat during the 1st 2 years of this Presidency as well? Women are locked up for the Democrats? Really? How does any of this make it easier for another African American to become President? What if that next high quality candidate is a Republican? Does anything you just babbled have any relevance to that situation? As for your 2nd paragraph; Romney's team has proven itself dull? How? By being a Republican candidate winning the Massachusetts Governorship? By being the most central leaning major candidate of the Republican primary and still winning it going away? And this is relative to Obama's campaign proving itself sharp? How do you expect to get through, when he makes his claims based on emotion rather than data? I mean, in his world, it's ok to say, "Nate silver is acceptable but not Jay Cost because, well, Jay cost is a neo conservative for a rightwing publication" yet, makes no mention of Nate Silver who is a self-described progressive who rights for a left-wing publication. But it's ok, because he's a "statistician" and he is heralded from the left, even though he has been wrong many times. Except we're not talking about primaries. We're talking about national elections for which there is a ton more data to crunch. I'd be interested to hear how he changed his formula to give him the "progressive" results he was looking for. Hold on a second, he's a statistician right? So are you saying his stats don't apply to primaries and that there is a magical formula that only works in the general elections? okaay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 So if I'm reading this thread right: nobody here thinks Obama is running or ever will run a more superior campaign than Romney--assuming, of course that the mark of a superior campaign is in the ability to win an election. Okay. Well, we'll just sit back and see who wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 So if I'm reading this thread right: nobody here thinks Obama is running or ever will run a more superior campaign than Romney--assuming, of course that the mark of a superior campaign is in the ability to win an election. Okay. Well, we'll just sit back and see who wins. Based on the posts in this thread up to this point, how the !@#$ are you coming to that conclusion? Just how stoned are you right now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 23, 2012 Author Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) No, what I'm saying is that after the unprecedented $100 M attempt to define Romney with the help of the media, that it has largely been ineffective relative to the effort provided. Did you not read the original post of the thread? Where do you come up with this? Are you hearing voices in your head? Edited July 23, 2012 by WorldTraveller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 So if I'm reading this thread right: nobody here thinks Obama is running or ever will run a more superior campaign than Romney--assuming, of course that the mark of a superior campaign is in the ability to win an election. Okay. Well, we'll just sit back and see who wins. Obama is running a better campaign and has an army of Zombies ready to go out and vote for him. But there are plenty of people who drank the Kool-Aid in '08 and aren't quite enjoying the hangover. It will be close either way, and in the end it will come down to the Electoral Votes of a handful of states For example, I'd be willing to wager that neither Chef Jim (CA) nor Jim in Anchorage (AK) are experiencing the quite the same campaign that I am along the Virgina/North Carolina border Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Based on the posts in this thread up to this point, how the !@#$ are you coming to that conclusion? Just how stoned are you right now? No, what I'm saying is that after the unprecedented $100 M attempt to define Romney with the help of the media, that it has largely been ineffective relative to the effort provided. Did you not read the original post of the thread? Where do you come up with this? Are you hearing voices in your head? You guys can bend and twist anyway you like to make you feel more confident in your GOP golden boy. Why face reality, right? Romney = Kerry and the right hates Obama as much as the left hated Bush in 2004. Romney is a weak candidate with a weak campaign team. He. Will. Lose. Obama is running a better campaign and has an army of Zombies ready to go out and vote for him. But there are plenty of people who drank the Kool-Aid in '08 and aren't quite enjoying the hangover. It will be close either way, and in the end it will come down to the Electoral Votes of a handful of states For example, I'd be willing to wager that neither Chef Jim (CA) nor Jim in Anchorage (AK) are experiencing the quite the same campaign that I am along the Virgina/North Carolina border Right, but if they were still drunk, this election would be a LANDSLIDE. The hangover is just making things slightly more interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 You guys can bend and twist anyway you like to make you feel more confident in your GOP golden boy. Why face reality, right? Romney = Kerry and the right hates Obama as much as the left hated Bush in 2004. Romney is a weak candidate with a weak campaign team. He. Will. Lose. Doubtful. The economy will sink Barry and this will come to a head in the weeks before the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 23, 2012 Author Share Posted July 23, 2012 You guys can bend and twist anyway you like to make you feel more confident in your GOP golden boy. Why face reality, right? Romney = Kerry and the right hates Obama as much as the left hated Bush in 2004. Romney is a weak candidate with a weak campaign team. He. Will. Lose. So while we both acknowledge that the incumbent has a huge advantage, and from your point of view, Romney is a weak candidate, yet the polls show a practically dead even race. What does that say about Obama? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 So while we both acknowledge that the incumbent has a huge advantage, and from your point of view, Romney is a weak candidate, yet the polls show a practically dead even race. What does that say about Obama? The worst part for Barry is the polls show a dead even race...with a good percentage of undecideds, who mostly vote for the challenger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 23, 2012 Author Share Posted July 23, 2012 The worst part for Barry is the polls show a dead even race...with a good percentage of undecideds, who mostly vote for the challenger. Not according to Nate Silver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts