Originally Posted by Weave

Oh and Rasmussen, the liberals love to mock but was almost dead on in 2008:
Romney 48% Obama 45%

Rasmussen is to be mocked ONLY before the final week of the campaign. As Election Day approaches, he switches from "set a narrative" mode to "get it right" mode and is at that point very good.

You can see this pattern in that he is a right-leaning outlier throughout most of the polling season, and then in the final stretch, miraculously closes the gap between his own results and those of other pollsters, and becomes very accurate.

In his earlier polling, he's trying to create an impression that the electorate is further to the right than it really is. That's the point of his whole operation. His "get it right" mode polling close to election day is in service to that and intended to give him credibility, so that people like you will cite his get-it-right polls (which are usually accurate) as if he were always reliable, when in fact most of the time he's not.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. Do they all have those thread marks from screwing their hats on their jarheads?

Just asking.

Hey, soldier, let's not get personal!

Mitt Romney Condemns Anti-Muslim Film, Echoing White House Position

Mitt Romney strongly denounced an anti-Muslim film linked to riots against U.S. diplomatic compounds in the Mideast on Thursday, accusing its director of wrongly offending Islamic sensibilities. His comments appeared to move him in line with the White House’s own position.

Romney told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that while he had not seen the film himself, he knew enough to declare it a “very bad thing.”

“You know, I think it’s dispiriting sometimes to see some of the awful things people say,” Romney said. “And the idea of using something that some people consider sacred and then parading that out a negative way is simply inappropriate and wrong. And I wish people wouldn’t do it.”

Romney said that the film is clearly legal under the Constitution.

“Of course, we have a First Amendment, and under the First Amendment, people are allowed to do what they feel they want to do,” he said. “They have the right to do that, but it’s not right to do things that are of the nature of what was done by, apparently this film.”

The Republican nominee also condemned Florida pastor Terry Jones, whose burning of a Koran sparked deadly attacks abroad in 2011, for promoting the film.

“I think the whole film is a terrible idea,” he said. “I think him making it, promoting it showing it is disrespectful to people of other faiths. I don’t think that should happen. I think people should have the common courtesy and judgment —- the good judgment — not to be — not to offend other peoples’ faiths. It’s a very bad thing, I think, this guy’s doing.”

Romney’s comments denouncing the film while simultaneously standing up for freedom of speech were nearly identical to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s statements in the wake of the deadly attacks on Libya and Egypt (although it is not yet clear in Libya how much the film contributed towards the crisis).

Clinton called the film “disgusting and reprehensible” on Thursday, but also called on national and religious leaders around the world to denounce violence in response to it. She added that in America, “we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views no matter how distasteful they may be.”

An earlier statement by the U.S. embassy in Cairo released hours before the attacks also condemned the film using similar language to Romney, though it did not contain an accompanying line strongly defending free speech. Despite the State Department’s disavowal of the embassy statement, Romney said on Tuesday that it showed the Obama administration’s “first response” to violence against diplomats was to “sympathize” with their attackers.

Here is the original Cairo embassy statement — issued before any attacks and since disavowed by the Obama administration — and Romney’s Thursday quotes, side by side:

U.S. Embassy in Egypt:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

Romney to ABC:

MITT ROMNEY: Well, I haven’t seen the film. I don’t intend to see it. I you know, I think it’s dispiriting sometimes to see some of the awful things people say. And the idea of using something that some people consider sacred and then parading that out a negative way is simply inappropriate and wrong. And I wish people wouldn’t do it. Of course, we have a First Amendment. And under the First Amendment, people are allowed to do what they feel they want to do. They have the right to do that, but it’s not right to do things that are of the nature of what was done by, apparently this film.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: We’ve seen General Martin Dempsey call Pastor Jones to say, “Please don’t promote this film.” You think that’s a good idea?

MITT ROMNEY: I think the whole film is a terrible idea. I think him making it, promoting it showing it is disrespectful to people of other faiths. I don’t think that should happen. I think people should have the common courtesy and judgment- the good judgment- not to be- not to offend other peoples’ faiths. It’s a very bad thing, I think, this guy’s doing

Hey, JPT, Weave, Wallace et al, I think your boy, Romney, just went over to the commie Left apologists who just hate free speech. I think you owe it to yourselves, to the very principles you stand for, to just stay out of this election. I know you can't vote for Obama, but you can show your disgust by staying home on election day, and getting all your friends to stay home as well. That will show that pinko Romney turncoat!

Here, this illustrates what I'm saying about Rasmussen:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-1171.html

Right now, he's in set-a-narrative mode, and he's visibly a right-leaning outlier. Of all these pollsters he's the only one that gives Romney the edge, with a difference of up to 9 points. The RCP average gives Obama a 3.1 point lead.

That will continue until the election is very nearly on us. At that point, Rasmussen will cease to be an outlier, have results very close to what other pollsters are saying, and be very accurate. At the present, though, he's not to be taken seriously.

Originally Posted by Weave

A good article from Dick Morris about why the polls you quote cannot be taken too seriously...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...in_115452.html

The most relevent portion:
"But it's not really a tie at all. All pollsters are using 2008 models of voter turnout. Some are combining '04 and '08 but skewing their samples to '08 numbers. African Americans cast 11 percent of the national vote in '04, but their participation swelled to 13 percent in '08.

No, it's not really a tie at all. There is a clear bounce for Obama's convention.
And as for the sampling this is a presidential election. There will be a turnout at or above 60 percent as happened in 2004 and 2008. Midterm elections such as 2006 and 2010 are always closer to teh 40 percents mark. Basically for every 2 voters in a midterm a 3rd voter turns out for the presidential election. And these demographic groups tend to favor the Democrats. Morris blowing smoke, but that what he's getting paid to do.

For example, when a poll shows an Obama lead among likely voters of, say 47-45, it is based on an assumption that blacks will cast 13 percent of the vote. But the lack of enthusiasm among Obama's base for his candidacy and their doubts about the economy make an 11 percent black turnout more likely. In this event, Romney would actually win in this sample by 46-45.

Bad math. If Obama has a twp point lead and two "points" worth of black voters don't vote that could drop the race into a tie but it wouldn't gain Romney an extra "point".

I hope that the subject that you teach isn't math.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

... It suffered from the same thing that most of Bill's productions do: Too much Maher and not enough everybody else. In most of the segments I found myself wishing that Maher would just shut the fuck up and let those being interviewed speak....

LMAO, and pretty much true. It was kind of an ode to his own superiority.

That interview, however, with the Vatican priest about how science in the bible proves creationism was absolutely a brilliant segment. The priest pointed out that science was not a concept at the time of the bible's creation and that creationists are idiots. Now he was informative and funny.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Here, this illustrates what I'm saying about Rasmussen:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-1171.html

Right now, he's in set-a-narrative mode, and he's visibly a right-leaning outlier. Of all these pollsters he's the only one that gives Romney the edge, with a difference of up to 9 points. The RCP average gives Obama a 3.1 point lead.

That will continue until the election is very nearly on us. At that point, Rasmussen will cease to be an outlier, have results very close to what other pollsters are saying, and be very accurate. At the present, though, he's not to be taken seriously.

From electoral-vote.com, which gives an explanation about Rasmussen

There is much to criticize about Rasmussen's methods. All polls are conducted within a 4-hour window, the person who answers the phone (even a child) is sampled, phones that are not answered are not called back, and much more. All of Rasmussen's polls are done by computer; live interviewers are never used. However, other firms that do robopolling such as SurveyUSA and PPP get much more accurate results with no bias, so the problem is not the robopolling per se.

Just to look at one methodological issue, if no one answers the phone, Rasmussen picks a different random phone number instead of calling back two, three, four or more times as other pollsters do. Why does this matter? Because 20-somethings (who skew Democratic) are often out, whereas 60-somethings (who skew Republican) are often in. By not being persistent in finally getting through to a randomly chosen phone number, the sample is inherently biased towards Republicans because they are easier to reach. This may not have been intentional but it is understandable if you want to finish your survey in 4 hours. Nevertheless, cutting corners in the name of speed and cost don't improve accuracy.

So it's not necessarily that Rasmussen is skewing things his way, it's just that his methods of polling aren't designed to reflect the most diverse audience. My hypothesis for the change so close to the election? The people being called care more about the election then and are more likely to pick up the phone then.

~Chas'88

Chas, there are two reasons why I don't buy that.

1) Rasmussen is consistently biased to the right, which to me is evidence of intent, not incompetence.

2) In the run up to the election, he becomes very accurate, which also does not speak of incompetence.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Chas, there are two reasons why I don't buy that.

1) Rasmussen is consistently biased to the right, which to me is evidence of intent, not incompetence.

2) In the run up to the election, he becomes very accurate, which also does not speak of incompetence.

The critique I just quoted you:

covered only polls taken during the final three weeks of the campaign and compared them to the actual election results

The supposedly "most accurate" time of Rasmussen.

Here's the link, if you want to read the whole damn thing. Personally, I say it's best not to attribute malice from ANYONE when there are still other avenues to explore.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by playwrite

LMAO, and pretty much true. It was kind of an ode to his own superiority.

That interview, however, with the Vatican priest about how science in the bible proves creationism was absolutely a brilliant segment. The priest pointed out that science was not a concept at the time of the bible's creation and that creationists are idiots. Now he was informative and funny.

Catholics tend to be extremely reasonable towards science. Really they embrace it completely as it is not-religious and they are right. It isn't.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

The critique I just quoted you:



The supposedly "most accurate" time of Rasmussen.

Here's the link, if you want to read the whole damn thing. Personally, I say it's best not to attribute malice from ANYONE when there are still other avenues to explore.

~Chas'88

The irony is the fact that the analysis you're linking was done by Nate Silver, who is monumentally biased, served as a campaign consultant for Obama in '08, and had the House rated as a "toss-up" throughout the summer of 2010. He refuses to divulge his methods at all, and he's on the payroll of the New York Times.

Perhaps Rasmussen is biased, or perhaps most of the other polls, done by the "mainstream media" (i.e. left wing organizations) are biased. What has been clear all year is that Rasmussen's numbers and Gallup's have been tracking together pretty closely, while the ones done by left wing media outlets have been far more favorable to Obama. I suppose Gallup is right wing as well. Although being threatened by the Obama Justice Department might have re-organized their thinking a little. One thing to consider about the Rasmussen poll: it's a 3-day tracking poll, and as a result covers the most recent period of any poll in the RCP average. The Gallup tracking poll is a 7-day average, which still includes the DNC and its immediate aftermath. Rasmussen had a big Obama lead over the weekend. Watch and see if Obama's numbers don't come down once the older polls drop out.

Dick Morris may be a little overly optimistic, but the fact that most polls are using 2008 as a baseline is true. Which should frighten Democrats to death considering whats happened in every election since then. That, on top of the fact that Obama cannot reach 50%. Overall, the race has been extremely stable. Romney got a bounce of 3.8 points from the time he announced Ryan as VP through the end of the RNC. Obama got a bounce of 2.6 points out of the DNC. However, the onslaught of negative attacks at the DNC also succeeded in driving Romney's numbers down by 1.9 points. Obama had a similar 2 point drop over Romney's bounce period.

The biggest deal is probably the fact that Obama's convention bounce, which is generally the peak for any incumbent's campaign, only got him to 49%. Simply put, the majority of voters do not want to re-elect Obama, but many are still unsure about Romney. Which is pretty much the way it has been since Romney secured the Republican nomination. As I"ve said from the beginning, it's Romney's election to lose. If his campaign seals the deal he will win comfortably. If he doesn't step up to the plate, he could lose in an extremely close election. The jury is still out, and the election is getting near, which is why some Republicans are getting restless.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Is it in any way reasonable to dismiss a position held by more than half the followers of a religion as a "fringe" position?

Your math is in error. The pro-choice "Christians" aren't TRUE Christians, don't ya know?

So to sum up: people who attack Islam are hateful bigots. People who attack Christianity are enlightened defenders of reason.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

So to sum up: people who attack Islam are hateful bigots. People who attack Christianity are enlightened defenders of reason.

wrong. people who attack bigotry are enlightened defenders of reason. it is not necessary to be a bigot to be a christian.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

So to sum up: people who attack Islam are hateful bigots. People who attack Christianity are enlightened defenders of reason.

No, these particular filmmakers were hateful bigots.* Islam is fully open to criticism, as is Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, atheism, agnosticism, Wicca and whatever else people might believe in. You don't get to shield beliefs from criticism just because they happen to be about god(s).


* Technically, this is mostly because some of their critiques involved genuine bigotry, such as implying that Islam is bad because Mohammed was allegedly gay. The critique that Islam promotes male-only polygamy, violence against non-Muslims and that Mohmamed married a 9-year old are all basically true. The bigotry is implying that Muslims necessarily support these things today. That would be like saying that genuine Christians must be pro-slavery because Colossians 3:22 endorses it, or, more precisely, claiming that all Christians are secretly pro-slavery because of that and similar verses.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

No, these particular filmmakers were hateful bigots.* Islam is fully open to criticism, as is Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, atheism, agnosticism, Wicca and whatever else people might believe in. You don't get to shield beliefs from criticism just because they happen to be about god(s).


* Technically, this is mostly because some of their critiques involved genuine bigotry, such as implying that Islam is bad because Mohammed was allegedly gay. The critique that Islam promotes male-only polygamy, violence against non-Muslims and that Mohmamed married a 9-year old are all basically true. The bigotry is implying that Muslims necessarily support these things today. That would be like saying that genuine Christians must be pro-slavery because Colossians 3:22 endorses it, or, more precisely, claiming that all Christians are secretly pro-slavery because of that and similar verses.

Can't weasel your way out of this one. You should really stop trying. The hypocrisy of the left is loud and clear.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

As it turns out -- there was no mass protest in Benghazi. It was a terrorist attack, pure and simple -- nothing to do with a putrid flick.

Duh?

Do people really think that coordinated riots over a film that no one has actually seen just suddenly sprang up complete with a plan for overwhelming site security and included knowledge of the safe house locations that the ambassadors fled to?

Oh wait, nevermind. It appears they do as several folks here are still commenting on a badly-made unreleased movie created by an Egyptian (hmmm) film maker (that no one seems to know or remember) with alleged, very thin ties to an Egyptian Christian sect as though this film (again that no one has seen) were somehow the cause or even worthy of mention.

Oh and you should stop thinking along the lines of the "terrorist attacks" euphemism. To them, you happen to be "a terrorist" and not without some good reasons I might add. Whether you consider our dealings over there right or wrong we are still every bit the killers they are. Time to start accepting responsibility for that.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Can't weasel your way out of this one. You should really stop trying. The hypocrisy of the left is loud and clear.

Your lack of rebuttal is noted.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Your lack of rebuttal is noted.

If unsurprising.

I wonder what he'd make of my own exploration of the so-called "Satanic verses" of the Qu'ran, or some of the things I've said that were critical of Islam on my blog, including the most recent post?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The irony is the fact that the analysis you're linking was done by Nate Silver, who is monumentally biased, served as a campaign consultant for Obama in '08, and had the House rated as a "toss-up" throughout the summer of 2010. He refuses to divulge his methods at all, and he's on the payroll of the New York Times.

By those criteria Rasmussen is no better.

A politician can have a pollster on the campaign staff -- and the one that does the most good is the one who gives the objective truth even if such is unpleasant or counter-intuitive. Internal polls can tell a Presidential candidate where to put in effort and where to abandon effort (basically how to allocate campaign resources). Good internal polling can get a politician some surprising wins because the Other Side thinks that the states in question are sure things because of their electoral history. The Republicans didn't know what hit them as they lost Indiana and Virginia, which just never voted for Republican nominees except in electoral blowouts for Democrats -- until 2008.

Al Gore could have used a good internal pollster in 2000; maybe he would have put more effort into either Arkansas, Nevada, New Hampshire, Tennessee, and/or West Virginia and not bet everything on Florida and losing because of partisan hacks in state government. But one needs someone willing to tell the truth instead of what seems convenient at the time. A politician doesn't need a yes-man.

Perhaps Rasmussen is biased, or perhaps most of the other polls, done by the "mainstream media" (i.e. left wing organizations) are biased. What has been clear all year is that Rasmussen's numbers and Gallup's have been tracking together pretty closely, while the ones done by left wing media outlets have been far more favorable to Obama. I suppose Gallup is right wing as well. Although being threatened by the Obama Justice Department might have re-organized their thinking a little. One thing to consider about the Rasmussen poll: it's a 3-day tracking poll, and as a result covers the most recent period of any poll in the RCP average. The Gallup tracking poll is a 7-day average, which still includes the DNC and its immediate aftermath. Rasmussen had a big Obama lead over the weekend. Watch and see if Obama's numbers don't come down once the older polls drop out.

If Nate Silver does not show his methods it is because they are complicated mathematical formulas based on extant polls and time. His model seems to assume that voting is random behavior within statistical parameters. Time is significant. If Mitt Romney was behind in Michigan by 11% against President Obama in April then he had the time in which (if he were a really-good politician) to cut the lead to zero. If he is behind by 8% eight weeks before the election -- then he had better put his efforts (advertising and campaign appearances) elsewhere.

Silver modeled elections on, of all things, baseball -- which has much randomness but with differential probabilities. It is possible that a team whose starting pitcher has an ERA of 3.50 starting the game will lose to a team whose starting pitcher has an ERA of 7.80. Such just doesn't happen very often. The statistics do not indicate colorful differences, like (in the case of the team I follow most, the Detroit Tigers) the 100-mph fastball of Justin Verlander or the 'caveman-with-a-club' stance of Prince Fielder. But the stats can tell you that it might be a bad idea to do 'excessive window-shopping' against Verlander, and that giving up a single to Prince Fielder isn't the worst thing that can happen under the circumstances.

Dick Morris may be a little overly optimistic, but the fact that most polls are using 2008 as a baseline is true. Which should frighten Democrats to death considering whats happened in every election since then. That, on top of the fact that Obama cannot reach 50%. Overall, the race has been extremely stable. Romney got a bounce of 3.8 points from the time he announced Ryan as VP through the end of the RNC. Obama got a bounce of 2.6 points out of the DNC. However, the onslaught of negative attacks at the DNC also succeeded in driving Romney's numbers down by 1.9 points. Obama had a similar 2 point drop over Romney's bounce period.

Dick Morris uses a baseline of 1992-1996-- when the political realities were those of Bill Clinton, who had a strong appeal to white blue-collar workers in the Ozarks and Appalachians. President Obama cannot expect to win such voters back -- but he can work the suburbs as in 2008 and win such a state as Virginia. Dick Morris is a joke as a political analyst.

Barack Obama won big in 2008 even if he offended every one of your sensibilities. Big deal! Ronald Reagan offended about every one of my political sensibilities within the American political mainstream and won big, too. President Obama is essentially the same pol in 2012 as in 2008 -- a competent campaigner. Mitt Romney is basically an unknown over a full cycle of a campaign. As for the Carter-Reagan, Obama-Romney analogy that the Right loves -- Carter was the marginal big-league pitcher trying to keep together a mediocre career while facing Ronald Reagan, a fellow who had recently been ripping minor-league pitching not much worse than Carter. Mitt Romney is the sort of fellow who has been hitting .275 in the minor leagues (not bad, but not great) who suddenly gets to face Justin Verlander. Don;t blame me for that analogy -- Nate Silver was analyzing baseball before he analyzed politics!

The biggest deal is probably the fact that Obama's convention bounce, which is generally the peak for any incumbent's campaign, only got him to 49%. Simply put, the majority of voters do not want to re-elect Obama, but many are still unsure about Romney. Which is pretty much the way it has been since Romney secured the Republican nomination. As I"ve said from the beginning, it's Romney's election to lose. If his campaign seals the deal he will win comfortably. If he doesn't step up to the plate, he could lose in an extremely close election. The jury is still out, and the election is getting near, which is why some Republicans are getting restless.

That bounce reflects that the Democrats did just about everything right during their Convention -- and that Barack Obama remains a spell-binding speaker. More of us have already forgotten what the Republicans said than have forgotten what President Obama said -- and forgot the former verbiage faster.

Barack Obama increasingly looks like a more fitting leader for a 4T than Mitt Romney.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Can't weasel your way out of this one. You should really stop trying. The hypocrisy of the left is loud and clear.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Your lack of rebuttal is noted.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

If unsurprising.

I'm never sure, when he drops out of an exchange, if it is because he cannot rebut or because he thinks he has won. He often says things that seem obviously True to him, and absurd to a lot of others.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Really?
Maybe you shold post some links then instead of jut expecting others to take your word for it.

No one that I've read, and I'm sure that I read a lot more sites that lean left than you do, is arguing for censorship.

Unfortunately JPT is correct for once, I've been fighting a losing battle over at DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021326268

Originally Posted by B Butler

It has everything to do with the situation being discussed. We have a culture clash between a democratic western tradition nation and highly religious cultures just beginning to cast off authoritarian autocratic values. Each culture is firm in the belief that their way of perceiving the world is the only possible virtuous way. An intelligent discussion of the conflict requires a genuine attempt to understand the other culture.

If no one grows beyond my perspective is right, all other perspectives are wrong, and the correct solution is to insult anyone with a wrong perspective, the conversation remains pointless and ugly.

Those backward "closed" societies have no moral right to dictate via violence and intimidation what we in an "open" society are allowed to say. They need to grow a thicker skin. I don't murder people who tell me I'm going to Hell because I'm an Atheist.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I'm a bit confused by all the references to Bill Maher. If he were doing something comparable to what this filmmaker seems to have done, he would be (for example) calling Jesus a drunk who visited prostitutes regularly and called on his followers to masturbate in public. Or something comparable. I haven't seen more than a fraction of his shows, but I'm pretty sure if he had done something like that it would have been headline news. Has he?

I believe JP is stating correctly that (sadly) many of my fellow left wingers are hypocrites because they make fun of Christianity and then are horrified when Muslims are insulted.

Frankly, I don't give a damn if either is insulted.

Originally Posted by the bouncer

wrong. people who attack bigotry are enlightened defenders of reason. it is not necessary to be a bigot to be a christian.

Thanks for proving JPT's point make making all of us on the left look like politically correct authoritarian dicks who are terried of offending the backward beliefs of people in the 3rd World lest we look "racist" or "Neo-Colonialist". JPT mentioned that he is offended by Dawkin's, Hitchen's, etc. mockery of Christianity and considers it bigoted. I consider the attitudes and statements made by fundamentalist Christians like JPT about Atheists to be offensive and bigoted. If we made it illegal to say anything that someone might find bigoted then it would be impossible to say anything.