Anybody have the current poll numbers? Last I saw, Obama was still like 50 electoral college votes ahead.
This doesn't sound good... all that advantage the president had this whole year is slipping because of this debate. I guess we should prepare for whatever outcome?
I don't need praise, I need help.
Eh, the polls usually start to swing a lot more right before the elections.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
I still think Obama has a really good shot of victory. It wasn't as good as before the debates, but he's still the favored to win.
Speaking of which, are there statewide debates for governors or senators?
I don't need praise, I need help.
Yes, there are, if the candidates agree to them. Sometimes the candidates don't; sometimes no one just gives a crap. Also, when there are debates, be prepared for minor-party candidates to make a giant fuss if they are not included. I am not saying whether they should be, just noting that they do this.
edited 8th Oct '12 10:51:21 PM by GlennMagusHarvey
It would be interesting if we have debates for those 33 senators and the representatives.
I don't need praise, I need help.
Well, minor party members making a fuss isn't exactly a new thing, is it? And as much as I think they have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning (And quite a few of them I want nowhere near the office) they do have a point. This is why campaigning is like, funded by the government from an allotted allowance or something in other countries. For like.. everyone, I think is how it goes. Though with the Internet such things may be becoming less relevant because it's so easy to get the word out there virally and to millions of people. In fact, advertising on the internet is relatively cheap, I think, compared to billboards and tv ads.
audience targeting is harder when you're trying to reach a specific constituency, rather than "anyone who might buy my product".
If Romney winning and crashing everything is what it takes to make people realize what is going on then it might not be the worst thing in the world. Of course he'll probably plunge us into the 1920s and start about three wars before we get a chance to remove him so I can't exactly say I hope he wins.If you get a chance to remove him — someone else might get there first... Or Political Advertising is strictly controlled.
edited 8th Oct '12 11:46:30 PM by Greenmantle
"Per ardua ad astra"
Gunpla is amazing!
Still 2 debates to go. And the VP debate where people expect Biden will be going very aggressive. And man, I am really wondering if Obama wins conservatives will go violent.
People keep saying Biden is a gaffe machine, including my mom. I've never seen him do anything weird though. Can any of you give me some examples or something? Because I'm kind of confused over here.
I think that's just something news networks say because they're desperate for ratings and don't know any other way to get people interested in Vice Presidents.
"It takes an idiot to do cool things, that's why it's cool" - Haruhara Haruko
The Potato's Choice
I believe it's lines like these: "Look at what they [Republicans] value, and look at their budget. And look what they're proposing. [Romney] said in the first 100 days, he's going to let the big banks write their own rules — unchain Wall Street. They're going to put y'all back in chains." "This is deadly earnest, man. This is deadly earnest," Biden told the crowd at the Charlotte, N.C. event. "How they can justify raising taxes on the middle class that's been buried the last four years? How in the Lord's name can they justify raising their taxes with these tax cuts?" He says a lot of correct things, but they're easy to clip into bullshit Fox News-ian zingers and "look at how the left's FUCKING UP".
edited 9th Oct '12 3:18:13 AM by PotatoesRock
Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. - Douglas Adams
Biden is the kind of person who says exactly what he means, which gets him into a lot of trouble.
Obama still has a significant edge in the electoral votes: he's losing ground on a national scale but a lot of his losses are either in deep red or deep blue states where it doesn't matter. This does undermine his ability to claim a mandate to push his policies, though (the recent use of the term "mandate of the people" is IMO a dangerous thing anyway so I'd be glad to see it go). Right now I'd put it at maybe 60-40 Obama-Romney: if things stay where they are Obama will win, but Romney only has to pull upsets in a few states and it's getting easier and easier for him to manage that. @Thorn: Nobody will go violent on an Obama win who didn't go violent 4 years ago. Lots of us will be extremely unhappy, but at this point we won't be very surprised and we aren't that excited about Romney anyway.
I think it's a good thing that I simply avoided the Obama hype back in 2008. Yes, I voted for him and endorsed him (assuming my endorsement means anything since I'm no big fish). No, I was not terribly excited about voting for him; I simply voted for him. Frankly, I keep telling myself over and over again not to get emotionally invested in any political candidate, especially anyone running close. Doesn't always work, though... And I fully agree that using one's margin of victory to claim a certain amount/size of a "mandate" to govern is a load of crap. The only thing that the margin will say is whether the politician has overwhelming support or doesn't. And chances are, if you have to ask, it's "doesn't". Having overwhelming support allows a politician to get more stuff done in the sense of not having to think as much about the political ramifications of a certain policy choice, but given that it's rare enough, you basically always have to care about political ramifications anyway. Since the "mandate" concept—apart from being an instrument of political bludgeoning—answers a relatively useless question, the concept itself is also pretty useless.
People are looking at Rush Limbaugh, endorsing violence against liberals, and getting worried. Now, if he did the exact same thing the first time around, then I guess you're right, there's not too much to worry about. Many of us weren't as involved back then, so it's hard to tell. But still, he's the voice of the right-wing, and he's spreading that narrative of good versus evil. It makes everyone wince.
Rush Limbaugh was being Rush Limbaugh long before anybody had even heard of Obama. Most people don't take him seriously, even though they may agree with some of his principles.
I think you may be underestimating the influence that Rush Limbaugh and people like him can have, really.
Regarding Rush Limbaugh:
Rush Limbaugh's show has been the number one commercial talk show since at least 1991 when record keeping began.To paraphrase O'Reilly (because this is one of the very few times I'm going to agree with him), hate is popular.
edited 9th Oct '12 9:29:26 AM by Karkadinn
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
Rush Limbaugh is a waste of human flesh and he makes me want to apologize to the radio waves for inflicting him on them.
Wait, what? You're the one who developed the formula for Limbaugh in that secret lab all those years ago? You've created a monster, Dr. Fighteer!
Apologize on behalf of the human race as a whole. But you knew that. I will say one thing about Rush: he does help identify the Republican version of the infamous "47%" — those people who are so rapidly conservative that they cannot and will not ever come down from Bullshit Mountain. Namely, his listeners.
My supervisor claims doctors are going to quit in mass because Obamacare is making it impossible for them to make money. Any truth to this? Also, he's not a goddam Muslim godammit!