"Who won the veep debate" thread

[Barb]

cnn

They already had to admit they over represented conservative voters in that poll.

Uh....not quite. They overrepresented Republicans according to their polls of registered voters regarding party identification; not the actual statistics of party identification. That means that according to their polls only 25% of the registered voters in the United States is Republican. Riiiiiiiiiiigggghhhhhtttttt! When you apply a likely voter model which is usually 32/32/36 (Democrat/Republican/Independent respectively) then the CNN poll is damn near right on the nose with their sampling and the overall swing would be less than 0.5%. That's the kind of shit that jackoffs like Nate Silver try to pull all the time.

Baffling yourself with bullshit, BP?

 

[BluePhantom]

They already had to admit they over represented conservative voters in that poll.

Uh....not quite. They overrepresented Republicans according to their polls of registered voters regarding party identification; not the actual statistics of party identification. That means that according to their polls only 25% of the registered voters in the United States is Republican. Riiiiiiiiiiigggghhhhhtttttt! When you apply a likely voter model which is usually 32/32/36 (Democrat/Republican/Independent respectively) then the CNN poll is damn near right on the nose with their sampling and the overall swing would be less than 0.5%. That's the kind of shit that jackoffs like Nate Silver try to pull all the time.

Baffling yourself with bullshit, BP?

No I just have a brain (apparently unlike you). Let's see here:

Polling Center: CNN Poll: Who won the VP debate? - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

"SPECIAL NOTE OF CAUTION #2: The sample of debate-watchers in this poll were 31% Democratic and 33% Republican. That indicates that the sample of debate watchers is about eight points more Republican than an average CNN poll of all Americans, so the respondents were more Republican than the general public."​

Ok first of all, I watch the polls like a hawk and have multiple threads on in depth polling analysis. This is the first time I have ever seen a poll that is released with a disclaimer. In other words, they didn't like the results of the poll so now they are getting into the political game of trying to make excuses for their own results.

Secondly, they say the 33% Republican sample is "eight points more than the average CNN poll of all Americans." Note the language, genius. They didn't say eight points more than registered voter statistics. They didn't say eight points more than historic turnout. They said eight points more than their poll. Not only is it compared to simply their poll, it's a poll of "all Americans", not registered voters (as I said before, I stand corrected), not likely voters...all Americans.

Ok...no one gives a fuck about "all Americans" when it comes to election projections since nearly half of the electorate doesn't bother to vote. Furthermore, while there are more registered Democrats than Republicans in the US, Republicans vote at a higher rate because of the difference between seniors (mostly GOP who vote steadily) and young voters (mostly Democrat who vote if they run out of beer and have nothing better to do). In the end of the people who actually go vote, historically it's 32% Democrat, 32% Republican, and 36% unaffiliated. So the CNN sample of 33% Republican, 31% Democrat, and 36% unaffiliated is pretty much right on the nose.

Perhaps if you spent a little time actually researching such things instead of just blathering on and parroting whatever the Daily Kos says you wouldn't so proudly make an ass of yourself on such topics.

 

[Barb]

Uh....not quite. They overrepresented Republicans according to their polls of registered voters regarding party identification; not the actual statistics of party identification. That means that according to their polls only 25% of the registered voters in the United States is Republican. Riiiiiiiiiiigggghhhhhtttttt! When you apply a likely voter model which is usually 32/32/36 (Democrat/Republican/Independent respectively) then the CNN poll is damn near right on the nose with their sampling and the overall swing would be less than 0.5%. That's the kind of shit that jackoffs like Nate Silver try to pull all the time.

Baffling yourself with bullshit, BP?

No I just have a brain (apparently unlike you). Let's see here:

Polling Center: CNN Poll: Who won the VP debate? - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

"SPECIAL NOTE OF CAUTION #2: The sample of debate-watchers in this poll were 31% Democratic and 33% Republican. That indicates that the sample of debate watchers is about eight points more Republican than an average CNN poll of all Americans, so the respondents were more Republican than the general public."​

Ok first of all, I watch the polls like a hawk and have multiple threads on in depth polling analysis. This is the first time I have ever seen a poll that is released with a disclaimer. In other words, they didn't like the results of the poll so now they are getting into the political game of trying to make excuses for their own results.

Secondly, they say the 33% Republican sample is "eight points more than the average CNN poll of all Americans." Note the language, genius. They didn't say eight points more than registered voter statistics. They didn't say eight points more than historic turnout. They said eight points more than their poll. Not only is it compared to simply their poll, it's a poll of "all Americans", not registered voters (as I said before, I stand corrected), not likely voters...all Americans.

Ok...no one gives a fuck about "all Americans" when it comes to election projections since nearly half of the electorate doesn't bother to vote. Furthermore, while there are more registered Democrats than Republicans in the US, Republicans vote at a higher rate because of the difference between seniors (mostly GOP who vote steadily) and young voters (mostly Democrat who vote if they run out of beer and have nothing better to do). In the end of the people who actually go vote, historically it's 32% Democrat, 32% Republican, and 36% unaffiliated. So the CNN sample of 33% Republican, 31% Democrat, and 36% unaffiliated is pretty much right on the nose.

Perhaps if you spent a little time actually researching such things instead of just blathering on and parroting whatever the Daily Kos says you wouldn't so proudly make an ass of yourself on such topics.

Odd that you have to be hoisted by your own petard on this. Surely, if the hated CNN is actually so accurate, it must be matched by some or ANY other poll...

 

[BluePhantom]

Baffling yourself with bullshit, BP?

No I just have a brain (apparently unlike you). Let's see here:

Polling Center: CNN Poll: Who won the VP debate? - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

"SPECIAL NOTE OF CAUTION #2: The sample of debate-watchers in this poll were 31% Democratic and 33% Republican. That indicates that the sample of debate watchers is about eight points more Republican than an average CNN poll of all Americans, so the respondents were more Republican than the general public."​

Ok first of all, I watch the polls like a hawk and have multiple threads on in depth polling analysis. This is the first time I have ever seen a poll that is released with a disclaimer. In other words, they didn't like the results of the poll so now they are getting into the political game of trying to make excuses for their own results.

Secondly, they say the 33% Republican sample is "eight points more than the average CNN poll of all Americans." Note the language, genius. They didn't say eight points more than registered voter statistics. They didn't say eight points more than historic turnout. They said eight points more than their poll. Not only is it compared to simply their poll, it's a poll of "all Americans", not registered voters (as I said before, I stand corrected), not likely voters...all Americans.

Ok...no one gives a fuck about "all Americans" when it comes to election projections since nearly half of the electorate doesn't bother to vote. Furthermore, while there are more registered Democrats than Republicans in the US, Republicans vote at a higher rate because of the difference between seniors (mostly GOP who vote steadily) and young voters (mostly Democrat who vote if they run out of beer and have nothing better to do). In the end of the people who actually go vote, historically it's 32% Democrat, 32% Republican, and 36% unaffiliated. So the CNN sample of 33% Republican, 31% Democrat, and 36% unaffiliated is pretty much right on the nose.

Perhaps if you spent a little time actually researching such things instead of just blathering on and parroting whatever the Daily Kos says you wouldn't so proudly make an ass of yourself on such topics.

Odd that you have to be hoisted by your own petard on this. Surely, if the hated CNN is actually so accurate, it must be matched by some or ANY other poll...

Irrelevant. Whether it is or isn't is totally irrelevant to the argument you made that CNN oversampled Republicans. That's an argument that only responates with someone who is ignorant of how polling works; someone who doesn't know the difference between an (A) poll [all americans], a RV Poll [registered voters], and an LV poll [likely voters]. The language CNN uses in their bullshit disclaimer is attempting to discredit their own data by comparing LV information to A information. They are two totally different animals and anyone with even a basic understanding of polling knows that...or are you suggesting that only 25% of the people who show up to vote on election day are Republicans?

 

[decker]

No I just have a brain (apparently unlike you). Let's see here:

Polling Center: CNN Poll: Who won the VP debate? - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

"SPECIAL NOTE OF CAUTION #2: The sample of debate-watchers in this poll were 31% Democratic and 33% Republican. That indicates that the sample of debate watchers is about eight points more Republican than an average CNN poll of all Americans, so the respondents were more Republican than the general public."​

Ok first of all, I watch the polls like a hawk and have multiple threads on in depth polling analysis. This is the first time I have ever seen a poll that is released with a disclaimer. In other words, they didn't like the results of the poll so now they are getting into the political game of trying to make excuses for their own results.

Secondly, they say the 33% Republican sample is "eight points more than the average CNN poll of all Americans." Note the language, genius. They didn't say eight points more than registered voter statistics. They didn't say eight points more than historic turnout. They said eight points more than their poll. Not only is it compared to simply their poll, it's a poll of "all Americans", not registered voters (as I said before, I stand corrected), not likely voters...all Americans.

Ok...no one gives a fuck about "all Americans" when it comes to election projections since nearly half of the electorate doesn't bother to vote. Furthermore, while there are more registered Democrats than Republicans in the US, Republicans vote at a higher rate because of the difference between seniors (mostly GOP who vote steadily) and young voters (mostly Democrat who vote if they run out of beer and have nothing better to do). In the end of the people who actually go vote, historically it's 32% Democrat, 32% Republican, and 36% unaffiliated. So the CNN sample of 33% Republican, 31% Democrat, and 36% unaffiliated is pretty much right on the nose.

Perhaps if you spent a little time actually researching such things instead of just blathering on and parroting whatever the Daily Kos says you wouldn't so proudly make an ass of yourself on such topics.

Odd that you have to be hoisted by your own petard on this. Surely, if the hated CNN is actually so accurate, it must be matched by some or ANY other poll...

Irrelevant. Whether it is or isn't is totally irrelevant to the argument you made that CNN oversampled Republicans. That's an argument that only responates with someone who is ignorant of how polling works; someone who doesn't know the difference between an (A) poll [all americans], a RV Poll [registered voters], and an LV poll [likely voters]. The language CNN uses in their bullshit disclaimer is attempting to discredit their own data by comparing LV information to A information. They are two totally different animals and anyone with even a basic understandinf of polling knows that.

Either way i doubt vp debate will effect the election to much. Larry sabto who covered million election said only 18% of his people in his research said vp debates any impact on their votes.

 

[BluePhantom]

Either way i doubt vp debate will effect the election to much. Larry sabto who covered million election said only 18% of his people in his research said vp debates any impact on their votes.

As I have said on multiple threads...the effect will be somewhere betwen a 0.5% bounce for Romney or simply a slowing (not stop) of the current Romney trend....in other words: mostly irrelevant. I agree with you.

Doesn't mean Barb's argument is not total horseshit though.

 

[Barb]

Irrelevant

!

 

[BluePhantom]

Irrelevant

!

I repond with facts and statistics and you respond with pictures of facial hair. This one isn't worth staying up for. Wake me up when your grey matter develops to the point where you don't generate energy through photosynthesis.

 

[decker]

Either way i doubt vp debate will effect the election to much. Larry sabto who covered million election said only 18% of his people in his research said vp debates any impact on their votes.

As I have said on multiple threads...the effect will be somewhere betwen a 0.5% bounce for Romney or simply a slowing (not stop) of the current Romney trend....in other words: mostly irrelevant. I agree with you.

Doesn't mean Barb's argument is not total horseshit though.

well that your view. i think your right though vp debate has little effect and they mostly never do. big ones always be presidential debate.

romney still got big mo sadly and unless something amazing happens then that will carry on.

 

[Meathead]

cnn polls said ryan was favored by about 10% and one thing i noticed was that about halfway through the cocaine or whatever the vp was on started to wear off. i think someone in the audience had to of just gotten his attention, and told him he was making a fool of himself.

Please come up with more original stuff. I saw a talking head make the same remark. If anyone was high, or rather drunk, it was Biden.

 

[copsnrobbers]

If anything positive developed from the debate it is that women didn't like Biden. That's Big!

The only folks who liked Biden are Liberal voters. But then again, they like any one who will feed them.

 

[JoeB131]

Nah, Biden did not win but he did not lose. He did what he came to do: to show MR/PR that they could not just say anything and get away with it. MR now needs to explain his economic plans far more clearly, and he has to do it this next time will holding off the President. BHO knows that if he fails here, he will lose the election. This is going to be one heck of a show down.

Biden won brilliantly because he pointed out that a 20% tax reduction is impossible without cutting major deductions that benefit the middle class or cutting entitlement programs that favor the middle class.

Romney's economic plans are much like his religion - an outright lie.

Obama should have called him on it in the first debate, but he got cowed by the angry black man video Fox was playing wall to wall before the debate and tried to sound reasonable. Lehrer's Alzheimer's Moderation didn't help, either.

Romney won't get a pass on the next two debates.

 

[Seawytch]

Frankly Biden lied his ass off as well. Seniors haven't lost medicare advantage? My Dad would beg to differ.

He didn't say that Medicare Advantage isn't gone, it is. Medicare Advantage was a program where we overpaid private insurers to provide coverage. The care Seniors receive has not changed as a result and, in fact, has been expanded.

That's not what he said.

"RYAN: 7.4 million seniors are projected to lose their current Medicare Advantage coverage they have. That’s a $3,200 benefit cut.

BIDEN: That didn’t happen."​

Transcript: The 2012 VP Debate

"...and that 7.4 million seniors “are going to lose” Medicare Advantage plans (maybe, but they’d still be covered by traditional Medicare)."​

In other words "yeah...but..." Translation. Ryan was right and Biden lied.

FactCheck.org : Veep Debate Violations

What are you talking about? People who had been covered under Medicare Advantage (where we overpaid for services) are still covered under Medicare. There is no loss in benefits and we cut waste, fraud and abuse out of Medicare. How can a "fiscal conservative" not support that?

That has absolutely nothing to do with whether they have a delivery vehicle or not.

BIDEN: ...When my friend talks about fissile material, they have to take this highly enriched uranium, get it from 20 percent up, then they have to be able to have something to put it in. There is no weapon that the Iranians have at this point.​

That's a total lie. Shahab-3 has a range of 1,200 miles meaning it can hit into southern Europe and it can be easily adapted to carry a nuclear warhead. Hell they can drop a nuclear device out of a plane...we did...remember?

Iran tests long-range ballistic missiles | World news | guardian.co.uk

We aren't in danger of attack anytime soon. Sanctions are working. We don't need to invade another country for the GOP jobs plan.

The AARP endorses their medicare policy? Really? Interesting since they have gone on record saying "no we don't will you please stop making that claim?"

Yes, they do.

AARP is pleased that the Supreme Court found the critically important provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to be constitutional. This landmark legislation is already improving the health and financial security of our members and all Americans.
AARP Responds to Supreme Court Ruling on the Affordable Care Act

AARP supported passage of the Affordable Care Act because the law contains numerous protections that benefit our members, their families and other Americans age 50 and over, for whom the lack of health insurance coverage — or affordable coverage — is a serious challenge.

By starting to close the coverage gap known as the "doughnut hole," 5.3 million people with Medicare Part D have saved $3.7 billion since the law was enacted. In the first five months of 2012, 745,000 people with Medicare saved a total of $485.3 million on prescription drugs in the doughnut hole for an average of $651 in savings per person this year. Over 32.5 million Americans in Medicare used one or more free preventive services in 2011. And, over 2.2 million people with traditional Medicare benefited from the new Annual Wellness Visit in 2011.

Where AARP Stands
The Affordable Care Act

AARP has a message for President Obama: Stop using us to score political points.

Obama cited the nonpartisan senior lobby twice in Wednesday's debate when arguing against Mitt Romney's Medicare proposals.

The remarks prompted a polite statement from AARP Senior Vice President John Hishta asking candidates to refrain from mentioning the group.

"AARP has never consented to the use of its name by any candidate or political campaign," Hishta said.

"AARP is a nonpartisan organization, and we do not endorse political candidates nor coordinate with any candidate or political party."​

AARP to Obama: Stop citing us - The Hill's Healthwatch

AARP to Obama: Don

AARP objects to Obama invoking group's support during debate | Fox News

AARP’s Statement on the Denver Presidential Debate – AARP

The AARP said they don't endorse candidates...they DID endorse the Affordable Care Act.

 

[Meathead]

He didn't say that Medicare Advantage isn't gone, it is. Medicare Advantage was a program where we overpaid private insurers to provide coverage. The care Seniors receive has not changed as a result and, in fact, has been expanded.

That's not what he said.

"RYAN: 7.4 million seniors are projected to lose their current Medicare Advantage coverage they have. That’s a $3,200 benefit cut.

BIDEN: That didn’t happen."​

Transcript: The 2012 VP Debate

"...and that 7.4 million seniors “are going to lose” Medicare Advantage plans (maybe, but they’d still be covered by traditional Medicare)."​

In other words "yeah...but..." Translation. Ryan was right and Biden lied.

FactCheck.org : Veep Debate Violations

What are you talking about? People who had been covered under Medicare Advantage (where we overpaid for services) are still covered under Medicare. There is no loss in benefits and we cut waste, fraud and abuse out of Medicare. How can a "fiscal conservative" not support that?




We aren't in danger of attack anytime soon. Sanctions are working. We don't need to invade another country for the GOP jobs plan.

The AARP endorses their medicare policy? Really? Interesting since they have gone on record saying "no we don't will you please stop making that claim?"

Yes, they do.

AARP is pleased that the Supreme Court found the critically important provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to be constitutional. This landmark legislation is already improving the health and financial security of our members and all Americans.
AARP Responds to Supreme Court Ruling on the Affordable Care Act

AARP supported passage of the Affordable Care Act because the law contains numerous protections that benefit our members, their families and other Americans age 50 and over, for whom the lack of health insurance coverage — or affordable coverage — is a serious challenge.

By starting to close the coverage gap known as the "doughnut hole," 5.3 million people with Medicare Part D have saved $3.7 billion since the law was enacted. In the first five months of 2012, 745,000 people with Medicare saved a total of $485.3 million on prescription drugs in the doughnut hole for an average of $651 in savings per person this year. Over 32.5 million Americans in Medicare used one or more free preventive services in 2011. And, over 2.2 million people with traditional Medicare benefited from the new Annual Wellness Visit in 2011.

Where AARP Stands
The Affordable Care Act

AARP has a message for President Obama: Stop using us to score political points.

Obama cited the nonpartisan senior lobby twice in Wednesday's debate when arguing against Mitt Romney's Medicare proposals.

The remarks prompted a polite statement from AARP Senior Vice President John Hishta asking candidates to refrain from mentioning the group.

"AARP has never consented to the use of its name by any candidate or political campaign," Hishta said.

"AARP is a nonpartisan organization, and we do not endorse political candidates nor coordinate with any candidate or political party."​

AARP to Obama: Stop citing us - The Hill's Healthwatch

AARP to Obama: Don

AARP objects to Obama invoking group's support during debate | Fox News

AARP’s Statement on the Denver Presidential Debate – AARP

The AARP said they don't endorse candidates...they DID endorse the Affordable Care Act.[/QUOTE]I worked for AARP. The idea that they are non-partisan is only to not alienate members, or prospective members.

 

[Seawytch]

Nah, Biden did not win but he did not lose. He did what he came to do: to show MR/PR that they could not just say anything and get away with it. MR now needs to explain his economic plans far more clearly, and he has to do it this next time will holding off the President. BHO knows that if he fails here, he will lose the election. This is going to be one heck of a show down.

Biden won brilliantly because he pointed out that a 20% tax reduction is impossible without cutting major deductions that benefit the middle class or cutting entitlement programs that favor the middle class.

Romney's economic plans are much like his religion - an outright lie.

Obama should have called him on it in the first debate, but he got cowed by the angry black man video Fox was playing wall to wall before the debate and tried to sound reasonable. Lehrer's Alzheimer's Moderation didn't help, either.

Romney won't get a pass on the next two debates.

The President showed up to debate "Severely Conservative" Willard, but that's not the Reversible Mittens that showed up...Moderate Mitt did. Romney shook the Etch-A-Sketch right before he stepped on stage. Don't expect the President to make that mistake twice. Not to mention, he can hammer him even more on his flip flops.

 

[JoeB131]

The President showed up to debate "Severely Conservative" Willard, but that's not the Reversible Mittens that showed up...Moderate Mitt did. Romney shook the Etch-A-Sketch right before he stepped on stage. Don't expect the President to make that mistake twice. Not to mention, he can hammer him even more on his flip flops.

I think the thing is, he made a decision early on to not hit Romney on his flip flops, but to hit him on his extremism...

he should have been hitting him on both all along.

Romney is getting away with shaking the etch-a-sketch at this point because he's figured that the extremists are stuck with him regardless at this point.

 

[hazlnut]

 

[BecauseIKnow]

LOL even Paul Ryan laughed at the Jack Kennedy line Ha Ha Ha!

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is going to be a very good debate format, I think.

MR needs to beat down the President again to ice the election.

I think he can

.

Nah, Biden did not win but he did not lose. He did what he came to do: to show MR/PR that they could not just say anything and get away with it. MR now needs to explain his economic plans far more clearly, and he has to do it this next time will holding off the President. BHO knows that if he fails here, he will lose the election. This is going to be one heck of a show down.

Biden won brilliantly because he pointed out that a 20% tax reduction is impossible without cutting major deductions that benefit the middle class or cutting entitlement programs that favor the middle class.

Romney's economic plans are much like his religion - an outright lie.

Obama should have called him on it in the first debate, but he got cowed by the angry black man video Fox was playing wall to wall before the debate and tried to sound reasonable. Lehrer's Alzheimer's Moderation didn't help, either.

Romney won't get a pass on the next two debates.

The President showed up to debate "Severely Conservative" Willard, but that's not the Reversible Mittens that showed up...Moderate Mitt did. Romney shook the Etch-A-Sketch right before he stepped on stage. Don't expect the President to make that mistake twice. Not to mention, he can hammer him even more on his flip flops.

 

[Jroc]

LOL even Paul Ryan laughed at the Jack Kennedy line Ha Ha Ha!

As he said Ryan is a lot closer to JFK then that nutjob Biden

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AAEp0J_hzU]kennedy tax cut - YouTube[/ame]