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

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

 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 (31-40):
FromAtoZ
by AllieCat on Oct. 4, 2012 at 9:13 PM


Quoting katy_kay08:

Why I think Romney actually lost, all anyone is talking about is his trying to cut the legs out from under Big Bird.  While he may have had style it's pretty obvious he didn't have substance because no one is dancing around praising anything he said.  

Exactly.

He lacks professionalism and class but no one cares about that. lol

Seriously though, he said what, exactly.............that could possible sway some one to feel they could trust him, to possibly consider voting for him?  Nothing.  He deflected a lot and he acted like a 3rd grader.  


"A bird doesn't sing because it has an answer, it sings because it has a song." ~ Maya Angelou

katy_kay08
by on Oct. 4, 2012 at 9:14 PM


Quoting turtle68:

 

Quoting katy_kay08:

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.

 I dont really see how that is that stupid.  If I like the incumbent then Im going to vote for the incumbent.  If I am sitting on the fence its because Im not happy with the incumbent but just as not happy with the opponent.  I could be swayed to the new guy / gal

However if something was to swing me it would be the leadup policies that they stand for over a period of time...not an hour show where answers arent given or policies detailed.

It's stupid to make claims that are not supported by the facts.  

turtle68
by Mahinaarangi on Oct. 4, 2012 at 9:15 PM

 

Quoting MomTiara19:

The debate is important but you really should know the candidates policies and why you are voting for them.This election is extremely crucial to me because in all my 45 years I actually fear Romney.I have NEVER before been so frightened of a candidate.He lies and acts fake like he breaths. Romney changes his views and policies constantly.He says whatever lies he needs to to win...and to win presidency only for the rich.He may be a charming performer and actor on stage but in reality he has no concern for the poor and middle class and government assistance.

Who is the real Mitt....the one who said I have no concern for %47 of those people.

~Tia

 

 The highlighted is probably why I asked the question....If it is that important and you already know the candidates policies HOW is a hour debate going to solidify your stance on their policies.  Especially as it would seem they dont express them at all in the debate.

6Fish
by Member on Oct. 4, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Hello pot, you're black!  LOL  You want MR to somehow find time in that debate to give us every detail about his plan; the same way BO disclosed what was in the health care plan before ramming it down our throats?  As Nancy Pelosi says, "you have to PASS the plan, THEN you can know what's in the plan."

Quoting Sisteract:

He expects that we will vote MR and trust him.

UM, trust a man that was caught on tape throwing 47% of our citizenry, many in his own base, under the bus?

Does he really think people are that ignorant and desperate?

If his plan is so great and superior, disclose it- convince us all.

Quoting FromAtoZ:


turtle68
by Mahinaarangi on Oct. 4, 2012 at 9:18 PM

 

Quoting katy_kay08:


Quoting turtle68:

 

Quoting katy_kay08:

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.

 I dont really see how that is that stupid.  If I like the incumbent then Im going to vote for the incumbent.  If I am sitting on the fence its because Im not happy with the incumbent but just as not happy with the opponent.  I could be swayed to the new guy / gal

However if something was to swing me it would be the leadup policies that they stand for over a period of time...not an hour show where answers arent given or policies detailed.

It's stupid to make claims that are not supported by the facts.  

 True....you dont believe that people could lean towards the opponent if they are undecided?

katy_kay08
by on Oct. 4, 2012 at 9:21 PM


Quoting turtle68:

 

Quoting katy_kay08:


Quoting turtle68:

 

Quoting katy_kay08:

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.

 I dont really see how that is that stupid.  If I like the incumbent then Im going to vote for the incumbent.  If I am sitting on the fence its because Im not happy with the incumbent but just as not happy with the opponent.  I could be swayed to the new guy / gal

However if something was to swing me it would be the leadup policies that they stand for over a period of time...not an hour show where answers arent given or policies detailed.

It's stupid to make claims that are not supported by the facts.  

 True....you dont believe that people could lean towards the opponent if they are undecided?

sure they can, but that isn't what the author was calling stupid.  The facts don't support the claim that undecided voters always go against the incumbent.

toomanypoodles
by Ruby Member on Oct. 4, 2012 at 10:21 PM

 

Quoting FromAtoZ:


Quoting toomanypoodles:

 

Quoting turtle68:

 So whoever "wins" the debate....wins the presidential race.

Quoting toomanypoodles:

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

 Watch those poll numbers increase now for Romney.  His support went up last night.  There's a very good chance that he will win the election based on his stellar performance last night.

Sorry, Obama bombed. 

The fact that some feel Romney's performance was stellar scares me.

If he should win the election and it is found to be based, in part, on his performance last night, this country is far worse off, intellectually and otherwise, than I thought.

My statement above has nothing to do with the President. I am basing my opinion on Romney and what people call his 'stellar' performance.  

What do you think those who are undecided learned about Romney last night, that is of importance and not just that he can attack?

 Attack?

This guy?

lol

FromAtoZ
by AllieCat on Oct. 4, 2012 at 10:24 PM


Quoting toomanypoodles:

 

Quoting FromAtoZ:


Quoting toomanypoodles:

 

Quoting turtle68:

 So whoever "wins" the debate....wins the presidential race.

Quoting toomanypoodles:

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

 Watch those poll numbers increase now for Romney.  His support went up last night.  There's a very good chance that he will win the election based on his stellar performance last night.

Sorry, Obama bombed. 

The fact that some feel Romney's performance was stellar scares me.

If he should win the election and it is found to be based, in part, on his performance last night, this country is far worse off, intellectually and otherwise, than I thought.

My statement above has nothing to do with the President. I am basing my opinion on Romney and what people call his 'stellar' performance.  

What do you think those who are undecided learned about Romney last night, that is of importance and not just that he can attack?

 Attack?

This guy?

lol

Could you answer my question.........please.

"A bird doesn't sing because it has an answer, it sings because it has a song." ~ Maya Angelou

toomanypoodles
by Ruby Member on Oct. 4, 2012 at 10:27 PM

 

Quoting FromAtoZ:


Quoting toomanypoodles:

 

Quoting FromAtoZ:


Quoting toomanypoodles:

 

Quoting turtle68:

 So whoever "wins" the debate....wins the presidential race.

Quoting toomanypoodles:

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

 Watch those poll numbers increase now for Romney.  His support went up last night.  There's a very good chance that he will win the election based on his stellar performance last night.

Sorry, Obama bombed. 

The fact that some feel Romney's performance was stellar scares me.

If he should win the election and it is found to be based, in part, on his performance last night, this country is far worse off, intellectually and otherwise, than I thought.

My statement above has nothing to do with the President. I am basing my opinion on Romney and what people call his 'stellar' performance.  

What do you think those who are undecided learned about Romney last night, that is of importance and not just that he can attack?

 Attack?

This guy?

lol

Could you answer my question.........please.

 If I respond I am in agreement that R attacked.  I can't agree with the question. 

OneToughMami
by on Oct. 4, 2012 at 10:28 PM
Poods I know you are smart enough to know that there's people who believe Obama shined...

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. 

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
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)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN