http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/...37343.html

Mitt has been known to lie.

Bill Clinton doesn't know anything more than his dumb@ss ex-adviser on Fox does. There is no evidence that Sandy caused the outcome of this election, there was a slight effect following the first debate, but by the time of the second debate Obama was already gaining that back. Sometimes the answers aren't what you want them to be, but the right should be more concerned with being 'correct' than being 'right'.

(11-15-2012 06:52 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Bill Clinton doesn't know anything more than his dumb@ss ex-adviser on Fox does. There is no evidence that Sandy caused the outcome of this election, there was a slight effect following the first debate, but by the time of the second debate Obama was already gaining that back. Sometimes the answers aren't what you want them to be, but the right should be more concerned with being 'correct' than being 'right'.

Romney was about one week from being left for dead when the first debate propelled him to even and into the lead in some places. He was being written off by the press, by the party and by pretty much everyone. That all changed after that debate. The impact wasn't "slight" by any stretch of the imagination.

(11-15-2012 06:57 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(11-15-2012 06:52 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Bill Clinton doesn't know anything more than his dumb@ss ex-adviser on Fox does. There is no evidence that Sandy caused the outcome of this election, there was a slight effect following the first debate, but by the time of the second debate Obama was already gaining that back. Sometimes the answers aren't what you want them to be, but the right should be more concerned with being 'correct' than being 'right'.

Romney was about one week from being left for dead when the first debate propelled him to even and into the lead in some places. He was being written off by the press, by the party and by pretty much everyone. That all changed after that debate. The impact wasn't "slight" by any stretch of the imagination.

Romney was never leading the election in any of the correct polling aggregate sites, the closest he ever pulled was ~60-40% in favor of Obama directly after the debate. Before the first debate, Obamas likelihood of winning per those same polls was around 92%, the night before the election, that was at 87%. The overall effect was negligible.

The only thing the debate did was give those media outlets something to point to in order to continue their windfall of profits due to increases political advertising.

(11-15-2012 07:02 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-15-2012 06:57 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(11-15-2012 06:52 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Bill Clinton doesn't know anything more than his dumb@ss ex-adviser on Fox does. There is no evidence that Sandy caused the outcome of this election, there was a slight effect following the first debate, but by the time of the second debate Obama was already gaining that back. Sometimes the answers aren't what you want them to be, but the right should be more concerned with being 'correct' than being 'right'.

Romney was about one week from being left for dead when the first debate propelled him to even and into the lead in some places. He was being written off by the press, by the party and by pretty much everyone. That all changed after that debate. The impact wasn't "slight" by any stretch of the imagination.

Romney was never leading the election in any of the correct polling aggregate sites, the closest he ever pulled was ~60-40% in favor of Obama directly after the debate. Before the first debate, Obamas likelihood of winning per those same polls was around 92%, the night before the election, that was at 87%. The overall effect was negligible.

The only thing the debate did was give those media outlets something to point to in order to continue their windfall of profits due to increases political advertising.

He didn't have to lead. He closed the gaps, changed the narrative and the dynamics of the race. That is indisputable. That is not a "slight" impact.

Throughout September 30 out of 33 polls showed Obama with a lead, some of them as high as 8 and 9 points. Two showed a tie, one showed a Romney lead. In October after the debate, of the 24 polls on RCP 9 showed a Romney lead, 10 showed an Obama lead and 5 showed a tie.

In the end it didn't mean much, but a lot happened between the first debate and the election. So to honestly assess its impact one must look at the impact of the polls and the narrative. Both went well for Romney, seeing him close the gap and lead in some.

The impact wasn't slight by any objective measure. In end it didn't matter, but you can look at the polls and the narrative before and the polls and narrative after and see quite clearly the impact was much more than slight. Saying it was a media creation to boost their ad buys is as lame as those that claimed the polls were deliberately doctored to give Obama the lead.

(11-15-2012 06:48 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/...37343.html

Mitt has been known to lie.

Is Clinton denying this?

(11-15-2012 07:30 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(11-15-2012 06:48 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/...37343.html

Mitt has been known to lie.

Is Clinton denying this?

It's important we know since Clinton is known to have never lied about anything.

(11-15-2012 06:48 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/...37343.html

Mitt has been known to lie.

Heh, Billy Boy has a track record of being, um, creative with the truth from time to time, as well.

(11-15-2012 07:19 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(11-15-2012 07:02 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-15-2012 06:57 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(11-15-2012 06:52 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Bill Clinton doesn't know anything more than his dumb@ss ex-adviser on Fox does. There is no evidence that Sandy caused the outcome of this election, there was a slight effect following the first debate, but by the time of the second debate Obama was already gaining that back. Sometimes the answers aren't what you want them to be, but the right should be more concerned with being 'correct' than being 'right'.

Romney was about one week from being left for dead when the first debate propelled him to even and into the lead in some places. He was being written off by the press, by the party and by pretty much everyone. That all changed after that debate. The impact wasn't "slight" by any stretch of the imagination.

Romney was never leading the election in any of the correct polling aggregate sites, the closest he ever pulled was ~60-40% in favor of Obama directly after the debate. Before the first debate, Obamas likelihood of winning per those same polls was around 92%, the night before the election, that was at 87%. The overall effect was negligible.

The only thing the debate did was give those media outlets something to point to in order to continue their windfall of profits due to increases political advertising.

He didn't have to lead. He closed the gaps, changed the narrative and the dynamics of the race. That is indisputable. That is not a "slight" impact.

Throughout September 30 out of 33 polls showed Obama with a lead, some of them as high as 8 and 9 points. Two showed a tie, one showed a Romney lead. In October after the debate, of the 24 polls on RCP 9 showed a Romney lead, 10 showed an Obama lead and 5 showed a tie.

In the end it didn't mean much, but a lot happened between the first debate and the election. So to honestly assess its impact one must look at the impact of the polls and the narrative. Both went well for Romney, seeing him close the gap and lead in some.

The impact wasn't slight by any objective measure. In end it didn't matter, but you can look at the polls and the narrative before and the polls and narrative after and see quite clearly the impact was much more than slight. Saying it was a media creation to boost their ad buys is as lame as those that claimed the polls were deliberately doctored to give Obama the lead.

It's continued 'effect' was absolutely a media narrative. By the second debate, all momentum in the polls had shifted back to Obama, but there was still talk of Romneys 'momentum'. That was one of the first things that got so many right-wing pundits, among others, to jump onto Nate Silver, he showed that the momentum had stopped while they kept pushing it like it was still happening.

(11-15-2012 07:44 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  It's continued 'effect' was absolutely a media narrative. By the second debate, all momentum in the polls had shifted back to Obama, but there was still talk of Romneys 'momentum'. That was one of the first things that got so many right-wing pundits, among others, to jump onto Nate Silver, he showed that the momentum had stopped while they kept pushing it like it was still happening.

Before the debate Obama's average lead was 4 points. After he never had an average lead of more than 2 in the polls he lead in and ended the election with a .07 average. So it's a little difficult to argue things and swung back to Obama.

The impact of the first debate wasn't slight. Romney's campaign was on life support before it. He was being written off. He changed the entire dynamic. That's not slight.

Well, if Clinton is right, then you just know Chris Matthews is even more pleased about a hurricane ripping up the east coast.

But I'm skeptical that anyone set to vote for Romney changed their mind in the eleventh hour after seeing Obama do a few photo opps in Jersey with Chris Christie. I guess there could've been some independents who were reeeeaaallly on the fence and that's the image that won them over. But enough to sway the election? I have my doubts.

Romney lost the election, and the republicans lost a golden opportunity to retake the senate, because they failed to give voters something to vote FOR. There were plenty of people ready to vote against Obama, but when Romney and the republicans couldn't make the convincing case that they were better, a lot of those folks lost interest.

(11-16-2012 08:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Romney lost the election, and the republicans lost a golden opportunity to retake the senate, because they failed to give voters something to vote FOR. There were plenty of people ready to vote against Obama, but when Romney and the republicans couldn't make the convincing case that they were better, a lot of those folks lost interest.

Exact same reason the Demos lost to Bush in 2004.

(11-15-2012 06:57 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(11-15-2012 06:52 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Bill Clinton doesn't know anything more than his dumb@ss ex-adviser on Fox does. There is no evidence that Sandy caused the outcome of this election, there was a slight effect following the first debate, but by the time of the second debate Obama was already gaining that back. Sometimes the answers aren't what you want them to be, but the right should be more concerned with being 'correct' than being 'right'.

Romney was about one week from being left for dead when the first debate propelled him to even and into the lead in some places. He was being written off by the press, by the party and by pretty much everyone. That all changed after that debate. The impact wasn't "slight" by any stretch of the imagination.

uh, he lost....that's all that matters.

(11-16-2012 01:34 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(11-15-2012 06:57 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(11-15-2012 06:52 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Bill Clinton doesn't know anything more than his dumb@ss ex-adviser on Fox does. There is no evidence that Sandy caused the outcome of this election, there was a slight effect following the first debate, but by the time of the second debate Obama was already gaining that back. Sometimes the answers aren't what you want them to be, but the right should be more concerned with being 'correct' than being 'right'.

Romney was about one week from being left for dead when the first debate propelled him to even and into the lead in some places. He was being written off by the press, by the party and by pretty much everyone. That all changed after that debate. The impact wasn't "slight" by any stretch of the imagination.

uh, he lost....that's all that matters.

They're arguing about the impact of the debates not who won or lost.

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

(11-16-2012 02:18 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(11-16-2012 01:34 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(11-15-2012 06:57 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(11-15-2012 06:52 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Bill Clinton doesn't know anything more than his dumb@ss ex-adviser on Fox does. There is no evidence that Sandy caused the outcome of this election, there was a slight effect following the first debate, but by the time of the second debate Obama was already gaining that back. Sometimes the answers aren't what you want them to be, but the right should be more concerned with being 'correct' than being 'right'.

Romney was about one week from being left for dead when the first debate propelled him to even and into the lead in some places. He was being written off by the press, by the party and by pretty much everyone. That all changed after that debate. The impact wasn't "slight" by any stretch of the imagination.

uh, he lost....that's all that matters.

They're arguing about the impact of the debates not who won or lost.

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

Romney did gain a lot of momentum after the first debate (although he changed his position on everything the casual voter did not know this).

But from what I read the momentum stopped after the VP debate and in the swing states Obama always had a slight advantage, even though many of them tightened.

In the exit polls, a lot of people said that the hurricane influenced their vote, but the percentage who said that it was vastly greater than the percentage who said they made their minds up in the past few days.

(11-17-2012 01:23 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(11-16-2012 02:18 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(11-16-2012 01:34 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(11-15-2012 06:57 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(11-15-2012 06:52 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Bill Clinton doesn't know anything more than his dumb@ss ex-adviser on Fox does. There is no evidence that Sandy caused the outcome of this election, there was a slight effect following the first debate, but by the time of the second debate Obama was already gaining that back. Sometimes the answers aren't what you want them to be, but the right should be more concerned with being 'correct' than being 'right'.

Romney was about one week from being left for dead when the first debate propelled him to even and into the lead in some places. He was being written off by the press, by the party and by pretty much everyone. That all changed after that debate. The impact wasn't "slight" by any stretch of the imagination.

uh, he lost....that's all that matters.

They're arguing about the impact of the debates not who won or lost.

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

Romney did gain a lot of momentum after the first debate (although he changed his position on everything the casual voter did not know this).

But from what I read the momentum stopped after the VP debate and in the swing states Obama always had a slight advantage, even though many of them tightened.

In the exit polls, a lot of people said that the hurricane influenced their vote, but the percentage who said that it was vastly greater than the percentage who said they made their minds up in the past few days.

I don't think for one second anyone changed their vote after Sandy. I do believe Romney had a significant bump after the first election and the race tightened. In the end it didn't matter. The takers now outnumber the makers and that's why Obama won. It's hard to run against Obamaclaus.