This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Blitzen on 24 September 2012 - 12:09
And I'd suggest the same is true for Obama, Preston. There have been a lot more lies and half truths cherry picked and taken out of context posted about him on this forum than Romney. Don't assume that's because the inflamatory U-Tubes and blogs about Romney are not available, it's because the Obama supporters aren't as relentless or obsessed with ruining Romney and painting him as "not one of us". Most of us don't spend 24/7 surfing the net for smack talk about Obama or Romney.
There are plenty of facts that could be used to demonstrate that Mitt doesn't get the middle class and why. You can't even accept the FACT that Obama was born in the US. I don't know if it's the result of free speech on the net or if it's just plain unbridled hatred for reasons known only to those who spew the lies and hatred. It's never enough for anyone to just say I'm not voting for Obama and here's why. It always has to come down to hatefilled diatribes about Obama's heritage, Muslims, socialism, anything to make it look as if he is not like us. Look at the post YOU copied here about his book and how many times have YOU insisted that he was not born in the US. Don't you think if there were proof postive of that crazy talk that the GOP would have started impeachment proceedings against Obama by now?
It's ironic that those who frequent a dog board would be so fired up by totally ignorant statements like Obama's being fathered by Malcomb X yet give a pass to a guy who straps his dog on the roof of his car. I wouldn't sell him and dog and I won't vote for him either. If Helser did something like that, most here would be hunting him down waving pitchforks.
There are plenty of facts that could be used to demonstrate that Mitt doesn't get the middle class and why. You can't even accept the FACT that Obama was born in the US. I don't know if it's the result of free speech on the net or if it's just plain unbridled hatred for reasons known only to those who spew the lies and hatred. It's never enough for anyone to just say I'm not voting for Obama and here's why. It always has to come down to hatefilled diatribes about Obama's heritage, Muslims, socialism, anything to make it look as if he is not like us. Look at the post YOU copied here about his book and how many times have YOU insisted that he was not born in the US. Don't you think if there were proof postive of that crazy talk that the GOP would have started impeachment proceedings against Obama by now?
It's ironic that those who frequent a dog board would be so fired up by totally ignorant statements like Obama's being fathered by Malcomb X yet give a pass to a guy who straps his dog on the roof of his car. I wouldn't sell him and dog and I won't vote for him either. If Helser did something like that, most here would be hunting him down waving pitchforks.
by Preston on 25 September 2012 - 04:09
Blitzen, I never gave Romney a pass on anything. You didn't read my posts carefully. I did suggest that O is sheep dipped. There is plenty of criticism available on Romney and here is a selection of a few:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/09/23/press-tv-secret-video-ties-romney-to-terror-attacks-and-mossad-election-rigging/
http://www.tehrantimes.com/component/content/article/101753
http://www.veteranstoday.com/
That is why I am considering voting for former NM Gov. Gary Johnson. I really like this man and see him as the kind of ordinary American we need in high leadership:
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/09/23/press-tv-secret-video-ties-romney-to-terror-attacks-and-mossad-election-rigging/
http://www.tehrantimes.com/component/content/article/101753
http://www.veteranstoday.com/
That is why I am considering voting for former NM Gov. Gary Johnson. I really like this man and see him as the kind of ordinary American we need in high leadership:
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/
by SitasMom on 25 September 2012 - 05:09
http://unskewedpolls.com/
Looks like Romney is up by 7.8
by Keith Grossman on 25 September 2012 - 12:09
http://unskewedpolls.com/
Looks like Romney is up by 7.8
From: http://www.businessinsider.com/unskewedpolls-2012-9
Looks like Romney is up by 7.8
From: http://www.businessinsider.com/unskewedpolls-2012-9
"Then again, this all comes down to what you want in a poll. If you want a political talking point, some thing to spin to favor a preferred candidate, that's your own business, enjoy UnskewedPolls.com and enjoy life in a self selected vortex of spin.
But if you want to use a poll to gain insight on a race or to learn more about the public perception of an issue, just understand this: the methodology, the mentality, and the mathematics of UnskewedPolls.com leads to some incorrect conclusions."
by Blitzen on 25 September 2012 - 12:09
LOL any port in a storm, Keith. Now we're worried about being truthful? I can't wait to see those polls after the first debate.
by Blitzen on 25 September 2012 - 12:09
Keith has linked this, but since I hear that most here are too lazy to click on a link to read something truthful, here's the entire analysis of Unskewed Polls.
"Making the rounds lately is a new site, UnskewedPolls.com. The website is seeking to mitigate republican fears that Romney is slightly behind Obama by tweaking the partisan tilt rightward, rejecting polled data, and weighting them in favor of their candidate based on an extremely favorable formula from a Republican-leaning firm.
"Now, you can believe it if you want, but you're deluding yourself and you deserve to know why. Here is why UnskewedPolls may paint a charming picture for a conservative, but isn't statistically right.
"The argument they make is that polls are oversampling Democrats, and that this is causing a more significant lean in the polls for Obama in the presidential election. Last week, we looked at why the idea that polls deliberately oversample democrats is wrong, and why there are a bunch of legitimate reasons why polls will say they talked to more Democrats than Republicans. The easiest solution to this is that (a) there are more registered Democrats than Republicans after a six year blitz of voter registration and (b) that many Romney voters identify as independents, not Republicans.
"But that's not even what makes UnskewedPolls misleading. Here is where the weighting system is off: from what we can ascertain of their statistical method, they don't really have one. They just assign a certain weight to a poll to equalize the sample out to Rasmussen Reports' cozy idea of the 35.4% Republican, 34% Democratic, 30.5% Independent split, a number disputed by nearly every other polling firm in the entire country.
"Polls which dispute Rasmussen's spread of Party Identification have been conducted by the following credible organizations, many as recently as last week: The Associated Press/GfK (D 31%, R 22%, I 29%) Pew Research (D 35%, R 24%, I 36%) CBS / The New York Times (D 35%, R 22%, I 36%) ABC / The Washington Post (D 34% R 24% I 34%) The Washington Post (D 32%, R 25%, I 37%) Bloomberg (D 32%, R 27%, I 39%) The National Journal (D 33% R 26%, I 26%) Why is this? Well, as the polling aggregator FiveThirtyEight's founder Nate Silver argues: Rasmussen Polls "were biased and wrong" in 2010.
"Their information was inaccurate, and there's reason to believe that since their polls are such significant outliers this time around that they are still statistically biased and in accurate from a mathematical perspective. There's nothing wrong with believing in a wrong poll, honestly, but you're deluding yourself if you buy into it.
"Essentially, UnskewedPolls are really just skewing individual polls to fit a preferred reality, when what they should be doing is looking at an aggregation of polls weighted for their quantifiable historical biases and correcting for them to give an appropriate picture.
"Then again, this all comes down to what you want in a poll. If you want a political talking point, some thing to spin to favor a preferred candidate, that's your own business, enjoy UnskewedPolls.com and enjoy life in a self selected vortex of spin. But if you want to use a poll to gain insight on a race or to learn more about the public perception of an issue, just understand this: the methodology, the mentality, and the mathematics of UnskewedPolls.com leads to some incorrect conclusions. "
"Making the rounds lately is a new site, UnskewedPolls.com. The website is seeking to mitigate republican fears that Romney is slightly behind Obama by tweaking the partisan tilt rightward, rejecting polled data, and weighting them in favor of their candidate based on an extremely favorable formula from a Republican-leaning firm.
"Now, you can believe it if you want, but you're deluding yourself and you deserve to know why. Here is why UnskewedPolls may paint a charming picture for a conservative, but isn't statistically right.
"The argument they make is that polls are oversampling Democrats, and that this is causing a more significant lean in the polls for Obama in the presidential election. Last week, we looked at why the idea that polls deliberately oversample democrats is wrong, and why there are a bunch of legitimate reasons why polls will say they talked to more Democrats than Republicans. The easiest solution to this is that (a) there are more registered Democrats than Republicans after a six year blitz of voter registration and (b) that many Romney voters identify as independents, not Republicans.
"But that's not even what makes UnskewedPolls misleading. Here is where the weighting system is off: from what we can ascertain of their statistical method, they don't really have one. They just assign a certain weight to a poll to equalize the sample out to Rasmussen Reports' cozy idea of the 35.4% Republican, 34% Democratic, 30.5% Independent split, a number disputed by nearly every other polling firm in the entire country.
"Polls which dispute Rasmussen's spread of Party Identification have been conducted by the following credible organizations, many as recently as last week: The Associated Press/GfK (D 31%, R 22%, I 29%) Pew Research (D 35%, R 24%, I 36%) CBS / The New York Times (D 35%, R 22%, I 36%) ABC / The Washington Post (D 34% R 24% I 34%) The Washington Post (D 32%, R 25%, I 37%) Bloomberg (D 32%, R 27%, I 39%) The National Journal (D 33% R 26%, I 26%) Why is this? Well, as the polling aggregator FiveThirtyEight's founder Nate Silver argues: Rasmussen Polls "were biased and wrong" in 2010.
"Their information was inaccurate, and there's reason to believe that since their polls are such significant outliers this time around that they are still statistically biased and in accurate from a mathematical perspective. There's nothing wrong with believing in a wrong poll, honestly, but you're deluding yourself if you buy into it.
"Essentially, UnskewedPolls are really just skewing individual polls to fit a preferred reality, when what they should be doing is looking at an aggregation of polls weighted for their quantifiable historical biases and correcting for them to give an appropriate picture.
"Then again, this all comes down to what you want in a poll. If you want a political talking point, some thing to spin to favor a preferred candidate, that's your own business, enjoy UnskewedPolls.com and enjoy life in a self selected vortex of spin. But if you want to use a poll to gain insight on a race or to learn more about the public perception of an issue, just understand this: the methodology, the mentality, and the mathematics of UnskewedPolls.com leads to some incorrect conclusions. "
by SitasMom on 25 September 2012 - 14:09
If a poll doesn't sample with the correct percentages per party affiliation, than the poll is not reliable.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/mood_of_america_archive/partisan_trends/summary_of_party_affiliation
Before believing a poll, one must look at the polling facts......if it doesn't reflect the percentages, then it not accurate.
Go back and see the polling facts of each poll you happen to see and check it before deciding whether to believe it on not.
| August 31, 2012 | |||||||||||||
| Republican | Democrat | Other | |||||||||||
| 2012 | |||||||||||||
| Aug | 37.6% | 33.3% | 29.2% | ||||||||||
| Jul | 34.9% | 34.0% | 31.1% | ||||||||||
| Jun | 35.4% | 34.0% | 30.5% | ||||||||||
| May | 35.7% | 33.8% | 30.5% | ||||||||||
| Apr | 35.1% | 33.1% | 31.8% | ||||||||||
| Mar | 36.4% | 33.4% | 30.2% | ||||||||||
| Feb | 36.0% | 32.4% | 31.6% | ||||||||||
| Jan | 35.9% | 32.5% | 31.6% | ||||||||||
by SitasMom on 25 September 2012 - 15:09
so if you take the average of the polls.......
We can all see that poll are being used to influence voters........ what we think is real isn't real at all........
unskewedpols.com
UnSkewed Polling Data
Tuesday, September 25, 2012 9:49:10 AM PollDateSampleMoEObama(D)Romney(R)
SpreadUnSkewed Avg.9/4 - 9/20----44.051.8 Romney +7.8
Reason/Rupe 9/13 - 9/17787 LV4.345.052.0Romney +7
Reuters/Ipsos 9/12 - 9/201437 LV2.944.054.0Romney +10
NBC News/WSJ 9/12 - 9/16736 LV3.644.051.0Romney +7
Monmouth Univ. 9/13 - 9/161344 LV2.545.050.0Romney +5
QStarNews 9/10 - 9/1520753.044.055.0Romney +11
NY Times/CBS News 9/8 - 9/121162 LV3.044.051.0Romney +7
Democracy Corps 9/8 - 9/121000 LV3.143.052.0Romney +8
Fox News 9/9 - 9/111056 LV3.045.048.0Romney +3
Wash. Post/ABC News 9/7 - 9/9826 LV4.045.052.0Romney +7
CNN/ORC 9/7 - 9/9875 RV3.545.053.0Romney +8
IBD/CSM/TIPP 9/4 - 9/9808 RV3.541.050.0Romney +9
ARG 9/4 - 9/61200 LV3.043.053.0 Romney +10
NBC - in the tank for Obama
NY times - in the tank of Obama
Democracy Corps - in the tank for Obama
Fox News - In the tank for Romney
Wash Post - ?
CNN - in the tank for Obama
IBD - in the tank for Business (Romney)
and
realclearpolitics.com
| RCP Average | 9/11 - 9/24 | -- | -- | 48.6 | 44.9 | Obama +3.7 |
| Rasmussen Tracking | 9/22 - 9/24 | 1500 LV | 3.0 | 47 | 46 | Obama +1 |
| Politico/GWU/Battleground | 9/16 - 9/20 | 1000 LV | 3.1 | 50 | 47 | Obama +3 |
| Gallup Tracking | 9/17 - 9/23 | 3050 RV | 2.0 | 48 | 46 | Obama +2 |
| National Journal | 9/15 - 9/19 | 1055 LV | 3.0 | 50 | 43 | Obama +7 |
| Associated Press/GfK | 9/13 - 9/17 | 807 LV | 4.3 | 47 | 46 | Obama +1 |
| Hartford Courant/UConn | 9/11 - 9/18 | 1186 LV | 3.0 | 46 | 43 | Obama +3 |
| Monmouth/SurveyUSA/Braun | 9/13 - 9/16 | 1344 LV | 2.7 | 48 | 45 | Obama +3 |
| NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl | 9/12 - 9/16 | 736 LV | 3.6 | 50 | 45 | Obama +5 |
| Pew Research/PSRAI | 9/12 - 9/16 | 2268 LV | 2.4 | 51 | 43 | Obama +8 |
now lets look at the lean of the polls........
Pew is liberal
NBC is in the tank for Obama
Wall St Jrnl - ? consertave
Associated press is in the tank for Obama
Politico - in the tank for Obama
Rasmussen - ?
Gallup - ?
by mtndawg on 25 September 2012 - 15:09
whatever makes you feel better for supporting one of the worst candidates in the history of the country sitasmom
by Keith Grossman on 25 September 2012 - 15:09
Typical conservative mindset...start with a preconceived notion and then find something that supports what I want to believe no matter how outlandish.
Uh, even Scott Rasmussen, who is definitely right-leaning and whose percentages this site attempts to use in its calculations says it's ridiculous.
Uh, even Scott Rasmussen, who is definitely right-leaning and whose percentages this site attempts to use in its calculations says it's ridiculous.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top