Good explanation! nm
Posted By: amanda on 2009-02-14
In Reply to: down but not out - mk
x
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
A good explanation of the polls and margins...sm
Pollsters Struggle to Handicap Presidential Race
Barack Obama's leading in virtually every national poll, but his margin fluctuates wildly -- suggesting that in some cases, the numbers do in fact lie.
Barack Obama's been leading John McCain in almost every national poll since late September, and it may seem like he's got the election all sewn up.
But the Democratic presidential nominee's margin has fluctuated wildly, anywhere from 1 to 13 points in the past two weeks alone. And a few recent polls are even within the margin of error, suggesting McCain could actually be leading among certain sets of voters.
This doesn't mean the surveys are masking a widespread McCain advantage -- he's still trailing in most major battlegrounds needed to secure the election. But survey disparities are so great this year as to suggest that the numbers, contrary to the old adage, sometimes do lie.
Part of the problem? The sheer amount of polls being conducted across the country.
FOX News political analyst Karl Rove said by his count, there have been 177 national polls conducted as of Oct. 24, compared with 55 at the same time in 2004.
"The proliferation of polls, particularly polls run by universities that may not have the skill and capability that a professional polling outfit has, are really not helpful to the process, in my opinion," Rove said.
But some of the inconsistencies in the polls this year can also be traced to the method used by the pollsters.
The "expanded" Gallup poll, unlike the "traditional" one, includes those citizens who call themselves likely voters but who've never actually voted before.
"This year, I think all pollsters are concerned about how they're defining 'likely' voters, and trying to understand turnout," FOX News polling director Dana Blanton said. "There's been so much attention placed on new registration and enthusiasm among the electorate, and it's just -- it's extremely hard to figure out that, that piece of the puzzle."
Obama held a 10-point lead Monday in Gallup's expanded poll, but only a 5-point lead in their traditional poll.
Karlyn Bowman, who studies public opinion for the American Enterprise Institute, urged voters to examine the wording and sequencing of a poll's questions, to be wary of sudden spikes -- and to shop around.
"If you see a huge change in let's say the McCain-Obama margin overall, you might want to think about whether or not there has been something that's happened that would produce that kind of extraordinary change," she said. "But I think it's important to look at one poll, and then to compare that poll to other polls, and that's the way you can be an educated consumer."
A survey of the polling landscape shows the latest CBS News/New York Times poll to be the outlier, placing Obama up by 13 points.
A FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll last week had Obama up by 9 points.
Investor's Business Daily, which came closest to nailing the race between President Bush and John Kerry in 2004 (within four-tenths of a point), has the current presidential race within the margin of error. And The Associated Press recently reported a virtual tie.
With polls still fluctuating but mostly showing Obama in the lead, the Illinois senator says he's taking nothing for granted.
"Don't believe for a second this election is over. Don't think for a minute that power concedes," Obama said Monday in Canton, Ohio. "We have to work like our future depends on it in this last week, because it does depend on it in this last week."
McCain, meanwhile, is pledging to stun the pundits on Election Day.
"Let me give you the state of the race today. There's eight days to go. We're a few points down. The pundits have written us off, just like they've done before," McCain said Monday in Ohio. "Senator Obama's measuring the drapes ... You know I guess I'm old fashioned about these things. I prefer to let the voters weigh in before predicting the outcome."
Both Blanton and Bowman said there appears to be no evidence of a so-called "bandwagon effect" in American elections -- the idea that widespread dissemination of polling data trending a certain way will cause voters to in turn move in that direction. Such an effect might have led to a Hillary Clinton-Rudy Giuliani pairing, once the favorites in their respective races.
Experts say the "bandwagon" effect might be more common in places like Israel or Great Britain, where election cycles are much shorter.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/dont-like-polls-wait-minutes/
explanation
It is the thought that everyone, no matter what situation they were born in, is solely responsible for their own misfortunes. It is the thought that what is yours is yours and you are never under any obligation to help anyone in need. It is the philosophy that government's only duty is to fight wars and sometimes pave the roads. It is the philosophy that if you are 80, handicapped, and have no family or vehicle in which to escape a natural disaster, it is your choice to remind in a natural disaster and the consequences are your problem.
No one had given me an explanation still. Because you don't have one. nm
x
explanation
I haven't seen him show any disrespect to the flag, EVER! Can you show an example of actual DISRESPECT?
And there is still no explanation..(sm)
of *the reality of O.*
Explanation...........
They ALL spend like drunken sailors. Didn't Clinton (at least) leave us with a balanced budget? I have a granddaughter in Brownsville, Tx, and kids in Houston so I get a weekly report on how bad the illegal situation is.
People can blame the Democrat congress of the past 2 years and don't get me wrong, I think they all need to be sent to the moon, but Bush and his Republican majority didn't work out so well did they?
I'll take the promise of change over more of the same. At least we can change the change we don't like if we're of a mind to. But before we do that the "rabid" Republicans AND Democrats need to get over it.
DEFINITION OF RABID REPUBLICAN/DEMOCRAT: A person who has such tunnel vision regarding their "party" that they can't see past the end of their nose.
Explanation
Republicans on this board have been calling Democrats sheeple...sheep people I think.
Partial explanation perhaps?
I've been noticing that quite often when there is a conservative belief/claim being put forth repeatedly on this board (right now it's that Republicans always do the right thing and admit to their behavior and resign versus the Democrats who never do the right thing/can't admit their behavior and never resign), when doing research I find that the posters on this board are simply regurgitating what they are reading on the many far-right blogs/newsletters/publications. It's almost word for word. THere have been many examples in the past besides this most recent rant. At this point it seems that the far-rights are guilty of being unable to have original thoughts. Now let's see if they can do the right thing and admit it.......(laughter here, please).
On a more serious note, I never saw Clinton referred to as a serial rapist until reading this board. Once again, upon checking this out I see multiple, multiple references on -- you guessed it - multiple far-right-crazy political blogs/newsletters, etc......you get the idea. The thing that I find worrisome, though, is that we have been requested repeatedly not to bash Bush on this board in any fashion, yet past presidents (especially those that are Democrats) are fair game for any manner of accusations. If we shouldn't question Bush's decisions (as an example) because of how it will look to other countries who might read this forum, how does it look to call our former president a serial rapist?
Sam explains it very well, see her explanation below....nm
This is not an intelligent explanation
First, if the administration was pushing for good things for our country, not taking the country down the path of socialism/communism and had a good plan for the future to get us on the road to recovery, everyone would want him to succeed. But since he is not and we're on the brink of depression/socialism with no hopes for the future and no plans to help Americans, more unemployment ahead, more people losing homes, etc, yes we want "that" to fail (not "him", we want "that" to fail). If it was anyone else in the seat doing the same actions I would wish for the same thing. If Hillary, Mit Romney, John Edwards, Mike Huckabee, etc had the same exact failing policies that are being pushed on us now I would have the same opinion.
I've listed to plenty of their lies they are spewing. This is not an "intelligent explanation about the plan for this country". This is another distortion and lies to us and we are tired of it.
Calling people un-American because they are tired of being lied to is really un-Patriotic.
It's quite simple and doesn't need an explanation...sm
Get your hands (control) in areas that product oil, i.e., Iraq.
Thx - your explanation helped me understand it better
I understand that it had to be done, however, I guess I'm wondering is who is going to end up paying for it. Is it going to be us (people who make around $30K or so), or will it be the super wealthy millionaire, billionaire, and then the gluttonous people like Soros - now there's someone whose a slime lizzard). I did find this article written by Motley Fools. They are pretty good for writing things that even I can understand and they wrote an article listing the people responsible. So, I guess my questions is...Are the people who are responsible for letting this happen going to be responsible to get it fixed. After all, if I have a business and I run it into the ground nobody but me is going to pay for it. Anyway...think this is a good article...
http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2008/09/10/the-people-responsible-for-fannie-mae-and-freddie-.aspx
Thats a great explanation (no message)
x
Not that you are owed any explanation for what we chose to post...sm
because anyone who wants to come on the liberal board and post liberally and respectfually can. From your tone, I would think you were not a liberal.
FYI, we have discussed the Gitmo decision, and you or anyone else is welcome to post *important legislation* coming up. I'm sure there will be in response to the Gitmo judgement.
The firing off of misses by North Korea is a few days old and I'm waiting to see how the government reacts. I mean we went into Iraq for so-called stockpiles of WMDs and yet N. Korea is test firing their missles and the White House says there is no threat, so this tells me one or two things. #1. There was equally no threat in Iraq. OR #2. We are more ambivalent to fight in N. Korea than we were in Iraq, especially since our troops are already spread out.
Thanks for your input new blood. Feel free to open a debate of your own if that's what you want to see happen, but if you are a conservative here to stir the pot spare us and yourself the annoyance.
Important: An explanation we can understand.....see inside
Please read this, as this is finally an explanation in terms we can understand, of what this 700 billion plan will entail.
I hope they go into more details once it's all decided.
September 27, 2008
President's Radio Address
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This is an extraordinary period for America's economy. Many Americans are anxious about their finances and their future. On Wednesday, I spoke to the Nation, and thanked Congress for working with my Administration to address the instability in our financial system. On Thursday, I hosted Senator McCain, Senator Obama, and congressional leaders from both parties at the White House to discuss the urgency of passing a bipartisan rescue package for our economy.
The problems in our economy are extremely complex, but at their core is uncertainty over "mortgage-backed securities." Many of these financial assets relate to home mortgages that have lost value during the housing decline. In turn, the banks holding these assets have restricted credit, and businesses and consumers have found it more difficult to obtain affordable loans. As a result, our entire economy is in danger. So I proposed that the Federal government reduce the risk posed by these troubled assets, and supply urgently needed money to help banks and other financial institutions avoid collapse and resume lending.
I know many of you listening this morning are frustrated with the situation. You make sacrifices every day to meet your mortgage payments and keep up with your bills. When the government asks you to pay for mistakes on Wall Street, it does not seem fair. And I understand that. And if it were possible to let every irresponsible firm on Wall Street fail without affecting you and your family, I would do it. But that is not possible. The failure of the financial system would mean financial hardship for many of you.
The failure of the financial system would cause banks to stop lending money to one another and to businesses and consumers. That would make it harder for you to take out a loan or borrow money to expand a business. The result would be less economic growth and more American jobs lost. And that would put our economy on the path toward a deep and painful recession.
The rescue effort we're negotiating is not aimed at Wall Street -- it is aimed at your street. And there is now widespread agreement on the major principles. We must free up the flow of credit to consumers and businesses by reducing the risk posed by troubled assets. We must ensure that taxpayers are protected, that failed executives do not receive a windfall from your tax dollars, and that there is a bipartisan board to oversee these efforts.
Under the proposal my Administration sent to Congress, the government would spend up to $700 billion to buy troubled assets from banks and other financial institutions. I know many Americans understand the urgency of this action, but are concerned about such a high price tag. Well, let me address this directly:
The final cost of this plan will be far less than $700 billion. And here's why: As fear and uncertainty have gripped the market for mortgage-related assets, their price has dropped sharply. Yet many of these assets still have significant underlying value, because the vast majority of people will eventually pay off their mortgages. In other words, many of the assets the government would buy are likely to go up in price over time. This means that the government will be able to recoup much, if not all, of the original expenditure.
Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have contributed constructive proposals that have improved this plan. I appreciate the efforts of House and Senate Democratic and Republican leaders to bring a spirit of bipartisan cooperation to these discussions. Our Nation's economic well-being is an issue that transcends partisanship. Republicans and Democrats must continue to address it together. And I am confident that we will pass a bill to protect the financial security of every American very soon.
Thank you for listening.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080927.html
The best explanation I've heard thus far for economic crisis..(sm)
The Real Deal
So who is to blame? There's plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn't fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn't do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility ... with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here's a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:
- The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
- Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
- Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
- Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
- The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
- Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
- Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
- Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
- The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
- An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
- Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.
The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation. Claiming that a single piece of legislation was responsible for (or could have averted) the crisis is just political grandstanding. We have no advice to offer on how best to solve the financial crisis. But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.
–by Joe Miller and Brooks Jackson
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.html
Finally, a clear, concise explanation of ""The Plan". check out link
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=224262&title=Elizabeth-Warren-Pt.-2
Wow, common sense!!
Good post....truth doesn't always sound good
@
Good for you! Most people would not recognize good...sm
character if it hit them over the head, just sheep who follow along without thinking for themselves, believing the political pundit spitting out garbage.
Good post - good research (sm)
History does repeat itself at times. I had forgotten about the 50s and Russia.
Very scary times we live in and so many new enemies. This is definitely not a scare tactic but a very clear warning. You can't ignore facts, they are there.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
rasberries
Good point, good post. Thanks.
Good One!!!
 especially since I have four cats and no dogs....I did have a pit bull once, but he was the sweetest thing and rather lick you to death than bite!!!
Good
Great, we have something in common. *BIG HUG*. Bye, Brunson.
Well, good, cuz I am not following you at all. SM
An analogy was made and you are making it sound like a Bible verse? Please. Give it up.
LOL! That's a good one.
Contact the administrator so that you can give her more than just your ISP to use against you. Why not give her your email, so she can report back to your employer with your name, too?
Thanks, good to see
a fair sampling of papers. There are so few independent papers anymore; and they all put out the same spin due to being owned by the The Powers That Be, it is good to hear people speaking out again but my God, what it took to have that happen.
LOL! Good one!
I can't stop laughing at the row v wade line!
As far as everything else you said, I couldn't agree more. Thank you for posting your honest feelings. It helps a lot to know that all those who are born again aren't of the radical mindset that is usually shown on these boards. 
good vs bad
That is the trouble with radical right wingers..they think the world is evil or good..black or white..you are either with us or not..axis of evil..LOL..simple thinking for complicated times, if you ask me..
Good ones...sm
Especially staying the course, 911 and ownership society.
These are good :) nm
Good ones..nm
This is another good one.
This is about the power of dissent and the duty of the TRUE PATRIOT to exercise it.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0704-21.htm
Good for him...sm
(off topic: A 17-year old deputy. That's kinda young for the job I would think.)
Booze does amplify the personality. You do and say things that you would not have if you weren't 'under the influence.' I can't overlook the fact that Mel's father says the the Holocaust did not happen, and is fiction. The same father who moved his family to Australia so that his older brothers would not have to go to Vietnam mind you. What's that saying about apples?
I've learned to separated the man from the movies. Passion of the Christ, I loved.
Pol Pot...not a good example. sm
Pol Pot would have never been allowed his free reign had we stayed the course in Vietnam. The left got their wish. We withdrawn. Millions died. But the left never talks about that.
As far as *we* killing blacks and American Indians. I never killed anyone. Africans were caught and sold by their own people to the slave traders. We can sit and assign guilt until now to kingdom come. To read posts like this further illustrates the people in this country who think of the U.S. as the great Satan.
This is very good to know.
This seems to diametrically oppose what Marylandgal is saying, too.
Good for you and good for him!
I think he is going to go a long way and I think he would make a very deliberate and thoughtful president that could just lead us out of this quagmire the country is currently in, and I think he has the better national healthcare proposition on the table. I hope he maximizes on his momentum. New Hampshire may not be so quick to endorse though.
Well seeing as none are very good...
I think that because none of them are the perfect choice, I want a good speaker to represent us. I'm not in love with Obama, some of what he does is a little unnerving. What Hillary is about just downright scares the you know what out of me (as does McCain - that relic should be in some sanitarium somewhere) - how he made it I don't know because I believe there were a lot of other more qualified candidates on the repubs side. Anyway...seeing as none of them is the "ideal" candidate I at least want someone in who is a good speaker and who can represent our country in a dignified and intelligent manner. Hillary does not. I've listened to her speeches with an open mind hoping (I mean really really hoping) that I would feel differently about her because there was a possibility she could be chosen. But every time she speaks it just brings my hopes down. Her thoughts are not together. She cannot read without constantly looking at her notes, and most of what I hear is "women, women, women. We've been done wrong to and now its payback time. We're going to make them pay for what they did to us, etc, etc (of course not in those exact words - but that is the implication of her speeches). I've not once heard her give a speech of hope and promise. What she does say is more of the same retoric. More of "I'm going to give you this or that - which is what they promised when Bill was campaigning years ago, but never filled their promises back then. That is why I do not believe any of what she says. False hopes.
So yes....candidates are not all that great, but I want a great speaker to talk to other countries and not make us look like fools which is what George Bush & Bill Clinton did when they were in. I also want our leader to talk to our allies AND enemies. Everyone needs to live together in peace and if there is a slight chance that Obama can do it I'm for it. This whole idea that Clinton and McCain will "threaten" other countries with "obliteration". Well how would they feel if our enemies said do what we want or we're going to "obliterate" you. So yes, I'm for someone who is a good speaker and good negotiator.
That is all well and good, but....
I still don't agree. I hear "most Muslims don't agree with," but you never hear the Muslims themselves saying so. Why don't they? Why don't they write articles, get published, come out publically against extremism? Now I know that there are Muslims who are not prone to violence and yes, they abhor it...but a personal feeling means nothing if those who feel that way don't unite and make themselves known. Of course Muslim countries denounced the attack...what would YOU do if you thought you might come into the crosshairs of the US military? Who knows what they were saying to their own people. I seem to remember footage of your regular Muslim folks dancing in the streets over there and saying we got what we deserved. They were not members of AL Qaeda, just everyday Muslim citizens. So...sorry....I don't think this gentleman gets it and I don't think Obama gets it either.
There will always be fundamentalists, and I believe more Muslims than not are fundamentalists; just will not say so, and just a few of them can do great damage and frankly, I want a President in the White House that I think those people will have a grudging respect for; I want them to think he/she will train down misery on them if they attack us again. Because, frankly, that is all they understand, and for all Bush's failures (and he has many in my books, including spending like there was no tomorrow), I believe that is one thing he HAS done and the way he reacted to 9-11 is exactly what has kept them from attacking us like that again. They don't want American boots on the ground in anymore Muslim countries. Because Bush gets it. He knows who and what he is fighting.
Just as an aside....what makes you think Obama is in favor of free trade? His votes in Congress and many of his statements are in direct contradiction to that...? I have read up on it, and while he has made statements that he is "for" free trade, all his actions speak otherwise.
Bottom line...I don't trust him, I don't think he understands Muslim extremism, and I know he is way further to the left and has rampant socialist tendencies that I don't agree with...and if he is elected, look for taxes to go up no matter what he says, because to do everything he wants to do is going to cost a lot of money. And when he starts with the taxing the "rich" and people start to jump on that bandwagon...they need to look at the income thresholds for those "rich" and realize that it will hurt the small businesses who employ a great many people in this country. If he does that, look for more jobs and companies to go offshore. A major contributor to offshoring is companies trying to get out from under the huge tax burden Democratic congresses have put on them.
As a side note...violence associated with the Muslim religion is not new...their rampage across Europe killing Christians on the way to trying to take over Jerusalem...that was many hundreds of years ago, leading to the crusades. Muslim extremists (although they were all pretty extreme in those days) were about world domination then and they are about it now...they are just more clever in how they seek to bring it about.
And look at Sharia law...how much more violent can you get? Stonings, cutting off limbs, honor killings...sorry...I don't think they get it at all...just my opinion. If you put in Sharia law in this country we would have a gazillion stonings a day and a good portion of the populace would be limbless...if even alive. And there are American citizens (though Muslim) who have participated in and fully condoned honor killings...sooo I don't think it is wise to assume that free markets and capitalism will change minds and hearts. Nice thought...just not a realistic one, in my view. While there ARE those Muslims who are not extreme in how they interpret the Koran...I do not think they are in the majority. Nothing about the world today makes me come anywhere close to believing that.
Both of those men are good men....
I was impressed with Duncan Hunter during the primaries. I really have no idea where McCain is going to go. Another real interesting aspect of this race. I have to say Obama surprised me choosing Biden. Especially when they have Biden saying on tape he would be proud to run with McCain. Now he is going to have to turn around and attack McCain. Slight loss of credibility there. Oh well. Friendships often get thrown under the political bus...on both sides.
good one!
nm
Good. nm
nm
Good one!
.
That was a good one!
Bullseye.
and we could all use a good
laugh -- breaks the tension of the past couple months.
That's a good one!
That Sarah Silverman is ignorant!
Good one... :) (NM)
xx
Good one. nm
.
Good job?
Not so good.
Constant attacks on one's opponent is not a good strategy in a debate; it backfires. Obama was better, no attacks here, only one rebuttal.
Okay, that was a good one!
No, Mickey Mouse votes in Florida, silly! The point is that no one is checking the forms so when Joe Smith comes in to vote 16 times, no one even bats an eye because there he is, all 16 times, registered to vote.
not looking good sm
What I meant was that others seem to like to make her look bad, i.e., the Couric interview. I am not on either side, I am just interested in the presentation of each side, trying to be fair to all. Undecided!
|
