I say yes, you say no, OR People are Strange

Enjoyful

Some liberal media elitist abortion plot, no doubt.

Enjoyful

::crickets::



New question - why don't people admit when their candidate does or says something stupid or reprehensible? I certainly don't like everything Obama does and I say so. It's almost comical to watch slanted pundits try to charm a positive spin from a statement that's 100% BAD. OR take something relatively harmless (the airplane window thing was a JOKE, people!) and try to turn it into something heinous.



Objectivity! Let's try it!

Anonymous

Shall we say that Elizabeth Warren's opponent has NOTHING ELSE TO SAY.  Note, he was a state legislator, who literally FELL into the Kennedy Senate Seat when the MA Democratic Party ( which really should be demolished from the inside) blew it by selecting a non-electable candidate to run when Senator Kennedy died.  The Democratic candidate the PEOPLE OF MA wanted, didn't seem to matter to the "powers to be" of the MA Democratic party ( so what esle is new?) -  and this year, with a REAL TALENTED WOMAN of achievement and accomplishment, ELIZABETH WARREN - the rethuglicans have nothing to fight with - except the "dog whistles" ( he drives an old truck, wears jeans, once modeled for Cosmopolitan Magazine to get some $$ when he was young) and really stooooopid ( think Blue saying "idjut") hopefully scandalous "lines" - like the "birthers" tried in the 2008 national election.

Sad, but that's the state of things in politics now.  We can THANK ELIZABETH WARREN for all the Consumer Financial Protection legislation now in place.  SHE IS AMAZING.  SMART, smart, smart, truth telling ( you may have noticed that at the Democratic Convention in Charlotte).

Veep material in 2016? 2020?  WOW...an ALL WOMAN NATIONAL TICKET IN 2016...what a lovely dream to hold...

Enjoyful

I love Elizabeth Warren! I was hoping she'd run for pres in 2016. I am not sure about Clinton..

alexandria58

I was an Obama supporter in 2008.  I'm for Hilary in 2016, after, of course, a highly successful second term for Obama.  

There are so many capable women now in politics that there would be no problem having an all-women ticket, in terms of quality.  However, it ain't going to happen.  An all-male ticket is fine, no second thought there according to the pundits, but I can just hear the commentators now on an all-women ticket.  

A beautiful dream, though, that someday there will be as little comment on an all women ticket as there is on an all male ticket now.

pip57

I am thinking that an all female ticket would just turn out to be endless articles about fashion rather than politics.

pupmom

I was a Hillary supporter in '08 and I support her in '16! Just hope she does run. And alexandria, an all woman ticket would be so awesome! My vote is Elizabeth Warren for VP! WOOHOO!!

1Athena1

There is no such thing as objectivity - but there is certainly such thing as honesty. The problem is that honesty might rewquire some to admit that their positions do not hold water in any universe.

When an argument or a belief system has strong foundations, it can survive questioning. When it has none, it cannot. That's why Romney defenders literally have make it up as they go along. Some loser has decided to create these so-called "unskewed polls" because he doesn't like the ones he sees. A position or belief system with shaky foundations cannot survive without lies OR deliberate self-delusion. An analogy with countries: China needs to fool itself - it is no longer really a communist country; the Chinese leadership has to work harder and harder to keep its house of cards from collapsing, as I think one day it will. the US can criticize itself openly because our system is strong enough to withstand a variety of voices. Obama is a mature statesman who has made mistakes and is willing to say so. Romney tin man demeanour and tin man heart --and his hollow reversals on health care-- don't allow for anything "real" so if you support him you have to scramble to make up a script. There are some pretty busy fabulists out there (Rush, the Breitbart site, etc....)

Wednesday brain droppings.

1Athena1

More on "Unskewed polls" if anyone is interested. A conservative blogger named Dean Chambers, who was shocked because the polls counted more democrats than republicans, came up with this fantasy and evened up the score.

The man clearly has a few IQ points below what's needed to be considered average. Polls have more democrats than republicans because there EXIST more registered democrats than registered republicans. A poll has to have an accurate sampling of the population, such as it exists. More importantly, Gallup and other organizations are interested in likely voters - not all voters - and to come up with that scenario they use a variety of metrics, including voting history, age, etc... But Chambers took those results, discounted all the variables and applied one metric - party affiliation - and played with it until he found a result he liked. He did that for many polls. So a survey showing Obama up by, say, 2 points might "really" be Obama down by 10.

That's the story with "unskewed polls." Every election has its funny stories.

duckyb1

Was watching TV this morning, and on I believe MSNBC there was a "historian" and he was talking about Newsweek's issue this week........in it they pick the 10 best Presdients....................Obama was #10, because being the first black president born from a "slave" background, made it historical......I agree, although I called it back when he made his speech at the DNC years ago.............however..............................listed as one of the "worst" was George W........................I have to admit I voted for him 2 times................but thought that was interesting some of the others were.........FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, Ike, Regan, Woodrow Wilson, Clinton, and of course my favorite JFK...........

Romney.............should he win.............would probably be fighting George W, for last spot........................hahahhahahahahahahahhaha......................

alexandria58

The Romney campaign does not believe that objective facts exist, which is the biggest problem with them.

QuinnCat

Athena - is Dean Chambers the one that has the website QStarTracking?  This is laughable.  Don't they realize that people go to school, 8 years of advanced education, that teaches them how to do polls, how to remove bias, how to stratify samples (such as "likely" or for "registered" voters)???  Now, if you want to introduce VOTER SUPRESSION and BAD COUNTING factors into your sample, maybe some of these polls will indeed skew for Romney. 

I use one meta poll, by Nate Silver.  He had been right on for the last 2 Presidential Election cycles...presumablely except for Ohio in 2004.

1Athena1

Did Newsweek really choose Obama as one of the best because he is black? How insulting to blacks and to him, if so. Wow. So the white presidents are analyzed on their achievements and the black man as a result of his color because they don't expect anything better?

I hope they didn't say he is descended from slaves because he isn't. His father was Kenyan.

I haven't see the cover, so if I'm misreading your post, Ducky, apologies.

Should clarify something I said about objectivity: I don't believe it truly exists because no one owns the truth. BUT the facts do exist, as does one's judicious use of them. I tell myself that I can't be objective, but I can be evidence-based and honest. I can also admit my bias.

Kam - I don't know. Chambers does have a web site called unskewed polls.

Anonymous

ducky - who ever created that list, must have confused President Obama's background with the First Lady.

Anonymous

(CNN) -- New polls in three swing states indicate President Barack Obama exceeding 50% support among likely voters and holding leads of nine to 12 points over Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/26/politics/battleground-polls/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Happy Dance, the 47% are finally listening....wooooo...betcha we're gonna start getting "lectures" ( "you people") frm a certain candidate's wife

River_Rat

I kind of feel sorry for those on the right not believing polls so wanting to fix them more to their liking.  I can remember in the lead up to the 2010 midterms many liberals (me included) didn't want to believe the polls, kept hoping there was a flaw that would evince itself after the Democrats managed to not get swept in the mid-terms.  Well, we know where that went.  Lesson learned, if you have to make your own corrections in the polls you're losing.

Anonymous

Best place for polling information - Nate was SO GOOD/accurate in 2008, the New York Times HIRED him - keep your eye on the ALL IMPORTANT Electoral College.  Whether you like the system or not, it's what we've got for now.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

SO good to see you river rat..

IllinoisLady

Athena....love your spot on brain droppings....hope you keep them up,

Jackie

River_Rat

Thanks, Sunflowers, I always enjoy seeing the group in here.  I've been battling a horrible cold so I've been looking in but haven't felt up to the thinking and patience involved in posting.  I was trying to post yesterday and the site kept glitching out on me so I gave up. But from what I've seen that is probably preferable to whatever was happening to others that caused so many duplicate posts.  I know I wouldn't have wanted to have to go back and delete all the dupes.

Wabbit

Your daily giggle ... trainwreck in progress.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SclDiN-lcYE&feature=colike

I would love to see Hillary run in 2016 ... she would make an awesome President.  But if I were her I wouldn't even consider it.  She has worked so hard, accomplished so much and put up with so much BS from the other side that I wonder why in the world she would want to go through all the ugliness they would sling at her again.    

1Athena1

Thanks, Jackie. They're just droppings. :-)

This site has not been working well ever since BCO transitioned to a cloud system. Posts can take forever to get processed through when you hit the submission button, and the navigation is cranky. It's cheaper....sadly, it shows.

River_Rat

Athena, thanks for the explanation.  You're usually pretty good at knowing what's going on.  I'm also appalled at the Newsweek reasoning but couldn't think of how to express it.  But one little correction, or at least I think it is, Obama is descended from slaves, but on his mother's side.  I can't remember the whole story right now and am in no shape to go research it but maybe somebody here will remember the story.  It made one of the major networks, I do remember that.

1Athena1

RR - Now that you mention it, I vaguely remember something like that. I really hate Newsweek - they are so "status quo" and simplistic BUT I supposed I'd better check and see what they say. It's not a fact of importance in the big scheme of things but now I am curious.

pupmom

River Rat, that's a surprise! I thought his mother's side was pretty much lily white. I would be very interested in learning about that aspect of his heritage.

1Athena1

Can't easily find Newsweek's story and don't have time to look properly. We'll see what the article says.

I think almost everyone is descended from slaves, whether in 19th century America, the Roman Empire or the Middle Ages. Someone is always up and later down in history.

QuinnCat

My MO just called - my MRI shows nothing!!!!   Oh, some arthrtis in the lumbar...I'll take it!  (That was fast!)

1Athena1

Yey!!

pupmom

HOORAY, Kam! My TMs were all great too! 

Wabbit

Kam ... yippee!  And more good news from yorkiemom on the TMS! 

ananda8

Kam, Great news and fast.  How truly wonderful. 

yorkiemam, Terrrrrific.