Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

 Why does the debate matter? 

Will it give people a clearer picture of the policies being touted by both sides and therefore enlighten voters better?

Or is it to see if the better debater can win an hour show and therefore make the righteous feel better about their party?

by on Oct. 4, 2012 at 8:31 PM
Replies (11-20):
by on Oct. 4, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Quoting toomanypoodles:


Quoting katy_kay08:

What the debate does do is give those pesky fact checker's a chance to discredit all of Romney's lies.  

 Where did R lie?  Can you point me to one place where he lied?

I certainly could, but you won't bother reading any of it because it doesn't come from Fox in your email.  

by Whoopie on Oct. 4, 2012 at 8:45 PM

We hope to glean additional inofrmation to make a better, more educated decision.

Instead, in the case of last night, all we got was smoke, mirrors, partial truths, grandstanding and boredom.

The 2 party system is actually one big fundrai$er with 99.6$ of the American populace being the loser.

by Ruby Member on Oct. 4, 2012 at 8:45 PM


Quoting turtle68:


Quoting toomanypoodles:


Quoting katy_kay08:

You think the debate established the vote?  LMFAO!

Quoting toomanypoodles:

You're kidding right? The vote was decided last night. That debate was VERY telling.

 I know you libs are having a hard time with this, but R shined bright last night and O failed miserably.  A lot of undecideds have now made their decision, K.  Sorry that hurts to hear. 

 but do the undecideds outnumber those who are decided?

 Stats show undecideds usually vote against the incumbent. 

The polls are showing a very close race.  If all those undecideds go to Romeny's camp, that will put his numbers over Obama's. 

by Whoopie on Oct. 4, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Poods, his math does not work.

His plan will need to be adjusted to either raise taxes on everyone, cut spending ? (refuses to answer) or increase the debt load.

He says that he will cut loopholes...which ones? does that not raise taxes? Why can't/won't he give answers?

If his plan is BETTER why is he afraid to completely share it?

I doubt he would make a decision (vote) based on partial info- he'd demand more.

Why does he expect that we should be satisfied to vote for him based on partial info? 

by Platinum Member on Oct. 4, 2012 at 8:50 PM
1 mom liked this

 I do not think it matters.  It is like another political commercial. 

by on Oct. 4, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Dick Morris's Hilariously Dumb Misunderstanding of the "Incumbent Rule"

The funniest prank that Fox News plays on viewers occurs every other night, when freelance strategist Dick Morris -- a former Clintonite who now despises Democrats -- lurches in front of a camera and explains that Republicans will win everything. In 2010, Morris used his multiple media platforms, including the stages of Tea Party events, to ask for donations to his Super PAC for America. Give him enough, and "we could win an additional 50 seats, giving Republicans 100 new seats for this Congress!" (Read Brad Plumer for more about this. It was hilarious.)

This morning I gave a link to Morris's latest Fox News appearance, but I somehow missed out on his latest long treatise on why the polls are wrong and Mitt Romney's going to win. The knee-slapper comes when Morris describes the "incumbent rule."

Almost all of the published polls show Obama getting less than 50% of the vote and less than 50% job approval. A majority of the voters either support Romney or are undecided in almost every poll.
But the fact is that the undecided vote always goes against the incumbent... an undecided voter has really decided not to back the incumbent. He just won’t focus on the race until later in the game.
So, when the published poll shows Obama ahead by, say, 48-45, he’s really probably losing by 52-48!

Got that? According to Morris, literally 100 percent of "undecided" voters will eventually vote against Barack Obama. Leaving aside how the theory ignores spillover to write-ins and third-party candidates, this is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Nate Silver, bless him, has already explained why the "incumbent rule" doesn't actually exist. "The challenging candidate has typically been underrated by head-to-head polls when he is still engaged in a heated primary battle, when his name recognition is low, or both," wrote Silver. "These effects seem to evaporate by April of the election year or so, when the result of the nomination process is likely to have become clear and when the presumptive nominee is likely to have become widely known to voters."

That deals with the pre-election polls. The exit polls tell us the rest of the story about how undecided voters feel about incumbents. In the last presidential race with an incumbent on the ballot, 2004, we can define "undecided" voters as the ones who made up their mind in the polling booth. In 2004, only 52 percent of these people chose John Kerry over George W. Bush.

Back to Morris. There's literally no evidence that undecided voters will break the way he says they're breaking. But he's telling an audience of voters -- and more importantly for him, potential consumers -- that the media is covering up how Mitt Romney's winning the election. It's silly, and at the same time it lays the ground for endless paranoia if Romney doesn't win.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)