Some polls now have Romney ahead.

[Steeplerot]

Assuming that were true, are you suggesting obama is the intelligent man's candidate?

If you mean intelligent by not watching foxnews? Right wing media consumers are generally found to be less informed and less able to use critical thinking skills when challenged with a contradiction. Then yes.

 

[Ryan]

If you mean intelligent by not watching foxnews? Right wing media consumers are generally found to be less informed and less able to use critical thinking skills when challenged with a contradiction. Then yes.

lulz.

 

[Anarchist420]

Assuming that were true, are you suggesting obama is the intelligent man's candidate?

can't speak for him, but the answer is yes. Obama is the first intellectual president since Reagan, but reagan had too much sympathy for his oppressors. Obama tried to game the system but failed.

Johnson's supporters are mostly idiots, particularly the ones who didn't support dr. Paul. Rand Paul isn't even worthy of the Paul name in my opinion... He is too sensitive, and he is more like Johnson than his own father is. It is funny how even their abortion records are more like each other than they are like that of the elder Paul. The intellectuals in the Republican party gave the sick ass bitch of a 14th amendment and the Democrats used it for abortion, but the Republican party is the party of progressivism and abortion. Romney is an anti choice politician... he hates natural life he loves fake shit like himself and his biggest supporters. He doesn't like hamilton though because Hamilton was a devil of an intellectual. Romney will take up George Washington, y'know, the master sword and inadvertantly destroy himself for he is Washington. the master sword is going to melt itself and plunge the world into the ever lasting enlightenment eventually. Communism will be where it is popular, but confederalism will re join the post -hot war America because it is the jeffersonian Founding tradition of America. I hope I don't get killed off, physically castrated, or sterilized in any way during the coming hot war because I would love to spend the latter part of my life under the articles of confederation and perpetual union II and in my hometown all at the same time. I need to get back to my hometown soon, hopefully tomorrow.

 

[monovillage]

Assuming that were true, are you suggesting obama is the intelligent man's candidate?

He's a dumb fuck, just look at the author of the study he's citing.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...3/the-data-are-in-regarding-satoshi-kanazawa/

For those of you who haven’t been following this saga online, or aren’t regular readers of Psychology Today: last Sunday, Satoshi Kanazawa, PhD, Evolutionary Biologist and professor at London School of Economics posed (and purported to answer) an incendiary question on his Psychology Today blog: "Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?"

Though the post has been removed from the site, you can now see it here. In the post, Kanazawa promises his readers a scientific analysis of public data showing objective evidence of Black women’s status as the least attractive group among all humans. In other words, he promises to wave a magic wand, say "Factor Analysis!" and make racist conclusions appear before your (bluest) eyes.

As it turns out, Kanazawa is a repeat offender, with years of roundly criticized and heartily debunked pseudoscience-based shock-jockery under his belt.

 

[Steeplerot]

He's a dumb fuck, just look at the author of the study he's citing.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...3/the-data-are-in-regarding-satoshi-kanazawa/

That is very controversial. He went there with a study of racial cultural bias. Damn.

 

[monovillage]

That is very controversial. He went there with a study of racial cultural bias. Damn.

Grats, you're too stupid to read the link.

 

[buckshot24]

I've heard that reference as well, and my problem is that a single accurate poll taken right before an election suggests Rasmussen has the ability to be accurate, but it doesn't mean they are consistently accurate or accurate right now (or even generally accurate at this point in the election).

So you would rather trust those polls that were less accurate in 2008. I agree however that past performance isn't always an indication of future performance but Rasmussen was the most accurate in 2008 and now we have people calling it wrong because it doesn't agree with the rest.

To be frank I don't think any of the polls are correct I think the anti Obama vote is larger than the pollsters are accounting for. The average republican will be more motivated to come out to vote than the average democrat and yet the polls use a dem/rep ratio that favors the dems ala 2008 turnout (or even worse). Romney will win by 4%.

 

[momeNt]

Smart money is on Obama, Gold, and Oil. Smart money protects their investments with their votes.

 

[Anarchist420]

Smart money is on Obama, Gold, and Oil. Smart money protects their investments with their votes.

Can you rephrase that buddy old pal? I think you're not saying that Romney is going to win, but that Obama is less anti gold and anti oil because of the boots Romney would put on Iran, but not the State of Iran. I kind of like ahmedinejahd too, he just has to do what that idiot Ben netanyahu is forcing him to do. Ben netanyahu is Romney and they butt fuck each other every time they see each other. He actually thinks his iq is 180 but he is the anti-Israel although he does govern Israel as the State of Israel. When I first heard him talk, he sounded like the fucking anti Christ or something and that the applause he got was at gun point... He wants legislation and order now but he is going to crash the state of Israel. Israel will become it's original self again but it will be Neo Israel because it will realize that Jacob was wrong to be ethnoreligious centric. Every ethnic group is a little Jewish and a little Irish and even a little Scottish: ). Israel is coming to his senses, but bIbi rifle shotgun isn't going to let them until he crashes the state of Israel. I am jeffersonian america, so I don't give a fuck if Romney crashes the hamiltonian state of america. Hamilton, as an intellectual, the Al gore of his day, would realize he was wrong.

Look for another revised reply to the last email I replied to from you: )

 

[First]

Smart money is on Obama, Gold, and Oil. Smart money protects their investments with their votes.

Obama and oil yes, gold no. Gold will collapse when significant inflation never materializes.

 

[Anarchist420]

Obama and oil yes, gold no. Gold will collapse when significant inflation never materializes.

you might be right, but it would be good to have gold, some well preserved gold backed swiss francs and/or the new Iran currency as soon as it comes out, when Romney, the antithesis of Jefferson, collapses. That is, not even Lincoln was Jefferson's 99% antithesis because the two men could appreciate each other... George Romney may or may not be related to Willard, but the latter is certainly a pure ape in mind. I love Romney's father if that is what you want to call him, but you know how I am. Willard, ben netanyahu, and the Roosevelt presidents et al, are the evolved 99%, the state incarnate.

That said, I want to be on the committee of the declaration of the jeffersonians and of the natural 1% the whole time.

 

[dennilfloss]

You guys already were a scary laughing stock for electing Bushlite TWICE! Imagine if you now further compound this by electing Mitt Pants-on-Fire Romney so soon afterwards. What does that say about the collective IQ of your nation?

 

[buckshot24]

You guys already were a scary laughing stock for electing Bushlite TWICE! Imagine if you now further compound this by electing Mitt Pants-on-Fire Romney so soon afterwards. What does that say about the collective IQ of your nation?

Yeah spending a trillion plus more than we take in every year is just so intelligent.

 

[momeNt]

Can you rephrase that buddy old pal? I think you're not saying that Romney is going to win, but that Obama is less anti gold and anti oil because of the boots Romney would put on Iran, but not the State of Iran. I kind of like ahmedinejahd too, he just has to do what that idiot Ben netanyahu is forcing him to do. Ben netanyahu is Romney and they butt fuck each other every time they see each other. He actually thinks his iq is 180 but he is the anti-Israel although he does govern Israel as the State of Israel. When I first heard him talk, he sounded like the fucking anti Christ or something and that the applause he got was at gun point... He wants legislation and order now but he is going to crash the state of Israel. Israel will become it's original self again but it will be Neo Israel because it will realize that Jacob was wrong to be ethnoreligious centric. Every ethnic group is a little Jewish and a little Irish and even a little Scottish: ). Israel is coming to his senses, but bIbi rifle shotgun isn't going to let them until he crashes the state of Israel. I am jeffersonian america, so I don't give a fuck if Romney crashes the hamiltonian state of america. Hamilton, as an intellectual, the Al gore of his day, would realize he was wrong.

Look for another revised reply to the last email I replied to from you: )

All I meant was people voting to protect their investment will vote for what's done pretty well for their investment the last 4 years. Obama has done wonders for oil and gold.

 

[momeNt]

Obama and oil yes, gold no. Gold will collapse when significant inflation never materializes.

Gold's price isn't there because it's waiting for inflation. Inflation will send gold skyrocketing. Gold's price is where it is at because of QE and helicopter Ben. There is way too much demand for gold by other nation's unhappy with Benny to ever send it down. It may go down if Obama or Romney back up the monetary policy with nuclear weapons, ie. sell your gold and back the dollar or get nuked.

 

[Rainsford]

So you would rather trust those polls that were less accurate in 2008. I agree however that past performance isn't always an indication of future performance but Rasmussen was the most accurate in 2008 and now we have people calling it wrong because it doesn't agree with the rest.

Not at all...read what I wrote again. Citing a single poll, immediately before election day in a single election does not prove (or even really suggest) that Rasmussen was "more accurate" in 2008. At the very most, it suggests that I should look at Rasmussen immediately before the election to see what the results might be.

I trust the polling aggregates MUCH more than any individual poll because they even out the bumps in polling and account for even biased polls (as long as the polls are consistently biased).

To be frank I don't think any of the polls are correct I think the anti Obama vote is larger than the pollsters are accounting for. The average republican will be more motivated to come out to vote than the average democrat and yet the polls use a dem/rep ratio that favors the dems ala 2008 turnout (or even worse). Romney will win by 4%.

The majority of polls don't "use" any ratio...the ratio is what they get when they ask people for party identification. So what you're saying is that either the polls are throwing out Republican answers, people are lying about their party (or who they'll vote for) or the polls manage the incredibly unlikely feat of randomly selection a non-representative sample in poll after poll.

 

[monovillage]

You guys already were a scary laughing stock for electing Bushlite TWICE! Imagine if you now further compound this by electing Mitt Pants-on-Fire Romney so soon afterwards. What does that say about the collective IQ of your nation?

How's the Harper government working out for you?

 

[ivwshane]

Not at all...read what I wrote again. Citing a single poll, immediately before election day in a single election does not prove (or even really suggest) that Rasmussen was "more accurate" in 2008. At the very most, it suggests that I should look at Rasmussen immediately before the election to see what the results might be.

I trust the polling aggregates MUCH more than any individual poll because they even out the bumps in polling and account for even biased polls (as long as the polls are consistently biased).

The majority of polls don't "use" any ratio...the ratio is what they get when they ask people for party identification. So what you're saying is that either the polls are throwing out Republican answers, people are lying about their party (or who they'll vote for) or the polls manage the incredibly unlikely feat of randomly selection a non-representative sample in poll after poll.

You are arguing with an idiot who fails at basic reading comprehension. They state that Rasmussen was the most accurate for their final polling and they translate that into meaning Rasmussen is the most accurate pollster.
Like Obama, you can't have an intelligent discussion with someone when they Romney up the facts.

 

[First]

Gold's price isn't there because it's waiting for inflation. Inflation will send gold skyrocketing. Gold's price is where it is at because of QE and helicopter Ben. There is way too much demand for gold by other nation's unhappy with Benny to ever send it down. It may go down if Obama or Romney back up the monetary policy with nuclear weapons, ie. sell your gold and back the dollar or get nuked.

It's still not going to go up, because other nations will lose legitimacy when inflation never materializes. Gold's rise is fueled by smaller individual investors anyway, and that's going to diminish significantly in the U.S. when significant inflation never happens.

 

[sportage]

This it turning out to be the Bush vs Kerry all over again.
Kerry = Romney.
Bush = Obama.

Everyone thought Kerry would win.
Bush was soooo awful. How could he ever win...again?
And all those young college students will turn out for kerry. Remember?
Well it didn't happen.
Guess who won re election in 2006.
Truth is and still is, republicans just are not exited with Mitt Romney.
I still hear that all the time from republicans I know, and republicans in my family.
Never have been that excited. Never will be.
People are just a little confused.
They may feel Romney was the big winner in the debate, but that logic does NOT follow thru to being the big winner in their hearts and minds.
YES, he won that debate. NO, he still is not their cup of tea.
Inside the "loop" is still that....... the republican guy that won the debate was NOT the same Mitt Romney some republicans have tried to know and love.
That Mitt Romney that won the debate was the liberal Mitt Romney, appealing to a more middle of the road viewing public.
They know that. We all realize that by now.
Mitt Romney, the debater Mitt Romney, had to once again change his colors in order to appeal within that particular viewing audience.
That must hurt down deep, at least a little bit, for republicans.
They know that what Mitt said then was not what Mitt says now.
And vise versa... 😀 😀 😀
They know... They know... We all know.
Bush will win on election day. (whoops), I meant Obama. 😀

 

[CallMeJoe]

They were also one of, if not, the most accurate in 2008. I wonder why we wouldn't consider them more heavily if past performance is any indication.

...Obama's actual margin was 7.2%, and a complete analysis published in 2009 by the same author, Costas Panagopoulos, revealed Rasmussen to be tied for 9th most accurate...

If you read the full analysis, Rasmussen was tied for ninth most accurate... out of twenty pollsters listed. I suppose that does barely qualify as "one of the most".

 

[buckshot24]

The majority of polls don't "use" any ratio...the ratio is what they get when they ask people for party identification. So what you're saying is that either the polls are throwing out Republican answers, people are lying about their party (or who they'll vote for) or the polls manage the incredibly unlikely feat of randomly selection a non-representative sample in poll after poll.

It defies logic to suggest that the turnout for democrats will be higher this year over 2008 and yet many of these polls have more Democrats responding to the poll than Republicans. However they are getting their sample this just won't be the case when it comes time to vote.

Michael Barone writes about this...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/01/the_particulars_of_polls_115620.html

Leaving Rasmussen out of this, you'd have to believe that there are more Democrats now than in 2008 (on a percentage basis). I think this is highly unlikely and we will see for sure next month.

 

[buckshot24]

If you read the full analysis, Rasmussen was tied for ninth most accurate... out of twenty pollsters listed. I suppose that does barely qualify as "one of the most".

haha, that PDF hurts my eyes. Have they heard of OCR?

Ok, you're right. Rasmussen sucks. We'll see next month when Obama loses by 4.

 

[ivwshane]

It defies logic to suggest that the turnout for democrats will be higher this year over 2008 and yet many of these polls have more Democrats responding to the poll than Republicans. However they are getting their sample this just won't be the case when it comes time to vote.

Michael Barone writes about this...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/01/the_particulars_of_polls_115620.html

Leaving Rasmussen out of this, you'd have to believe that there are more Democrats now than in 2008 (on a percentage basis). I think this is highly unlikely and we will see for sure next month.

No! What it means is that less people are identifying themselves as republicans and are instead identifying themselves as independents.

But I'm sure your gut reasoning makes more sense./s

 

[zsdersw]

This election is Romney's to lose. With the economy being what it is and the failures of Obama's first term he should be well ahead of Obama (like, say, 5-10 points), but he isn't.

The Romney apologists will point to the media and everyone and everything except Romney, his lackluster campaign, and the poor field of Republican candidates.