The General American Politics Thread

[Autosaver]

Btw, my communist post was a reference to this. I don't think anyone got the joke.

[tenchibr]

Btw, my communist post was a reference to this. I don't think anyone got the joke.

After years of studying on Obama, I have to admit: He makes Communism look cool.

538's updated forecast, based on yesterday's polling:

No new articles have been posted since the last one went up, but the press at large is still referring to this race as being a tossup, neck and neck, which clearly isn't reflected in the battleground state polls. While there is a distinct possibility that it might yet end up being incredibly close, a real tossup race just wouldn't produce 20 swing state polls, with 19 of them going for one candidate. There's not much of a chance that that many pollsters are that biased. So, no, I don't think that it's that close an election at all, and I think that the press is placing entirely too much weight on these national polls, to the point where the battleground polls are excluded.

The only reason why the media keeps saying toss-up here and there is because they are trying to portray neutrality; some people believe that by saying "Obama is winning," you are marketing yourself as a Democrat now and your news is biased. Yes, it's that stupid these days.

[Patticus]

The only reason why the media keeps saying toss-up here and there is because they are trying to portray neutrality; some people believe that by saying "Obama is winning," you are marketing yourself as a Democrat now and your news is biased. Yes, it's that stupid these days.

Neutrality would, to my mind, be displaying all the polls from a given day (say, the previous one) for the battleground and/or whole nation (or providing the polls from the past week or more if you're at the week or month's end), saying something like this:

"Here are this day's polls, and as you can clearly see, candidate x holds a lead in this many, and candidate y holds a lead in this many. X's lead has gone up/down, Y's lead has gone up/down, X/Y appears from this data to be doing better now than before. It's looking like a trend toward candidate x/y is developing/being blunted, and the election becoming an impossible-to-call tossup is becoming more remote/real every day. Based on this polling data, as well as their experiences on the ground in these states, here's pundit a, b, c and d's forecasts etc."

Would that be so hard? Would that really draw cries of partisanship? Oh wait, yes it would, this is perhaps the one nation on Earth (outside North Korea) where Cold War-era paranoia continues to find a happy home.

[Stacy]

Would that be so hard? Would that really draw cries of partisanship? Oh wait, yes it would, this is perhaps the one nation on Earth (outside North Korea) where Cold War-era paranoia continues to find a happy home.

Well to be fair Russia is just as stupid with Vladimir "Dobby" Putin at the helm and his occasional nationalist bullshit, China is another paranoid nation.

If Romney gets in welcome to Cold War 2.0 where once Europe becomes Americas, Russias and Chinas bitch.

[Patticus]

Mr. Silver has run his simulations with Sunday's polling added. Here are the results, as of 10:20pm (it may be updated later on):

Electoral Vote

Obama: 306.4 (-0.5)

Romney: 231.6 (+0.5)

Chance of Winning

Obama: 85.5% (+0.4%)

Romney: 14.5% (-0.4%)

Popular Vote

Obama: 50.5% (-0.1%)

Romney: 48.5% (+0.2%)

There's not a lot of movement for either candidate there, which is I suppose a bit worse for Obama. Why? Well, it shows (on the last Sunday before election day, no less), an apparent slowing in the polling gains he has made this past couple of weeks, with Romney regaining a small amount of that lost ground in the projected electoral college and popular vote tallies. That's not to say that Romney has gotten his mojo back by any means; you'd have to be looking at 1-2+ percentage point gains over several days for theories of a renewed polling surge to begin circulating, and that's just not what we're seeing. And even if there is a renewed appreciation for the GOP candidate, to be reflected in polling over the coming fortnight, it's too late now for that to have much of an impact, given the proximity of election day, unless Romney saves an orphanage full of cute babies and pandas and American jobs before Tuesday night.

Mr. Silver has also posted an article about the state and national polling today, here. It's actually a pretty interesting read, as the national polls seem to be looking a bit more like the state polls right now (though still with some differences). Obviously it'd be wrong to ignore one or the other group of polls outright (although the state polling is historically a bit more accurate so is necessarily given more weight by 538), but as Mr. Silver remarked...

[...] the fact that the national polls now suggest a slight lead for Mr. Obama removes one of the better reasons to think that our forecast might have been underrating Mr. Romney’s chances.

[...]

On Saturday, we wrote that state polls would have to be statistically biased against Mr. Romney for him to win the Electoral College. Now, it may be the case that the national polls would have to be biased against him as well.

Below are the national polls from today:

Sweet Breaking News Edit:

UTTERLY MAD CHAOS! FLORIDA GOES TO THE POLLS, WAITS FOR HOURS, RICK SCOTT STILL EXISTS!

Early voters in Miami-Dade County reported six-hour lines and broken voting machines when they tried to cast ballots.

[...]

While Republican Gov. Rick Scott had declined to extend early voting past Saturday, the Florida Democratic Party filed a lawsuit early Sunday to extend voting hours in southern Florida.

The League of Women Voters had asked Scott last week to extend voting hours into Sunday, a particularly popular voting day with African-American churches that often organize "souls to the polls" trips the weekend prior to Election Day. But Scott and other state officials denied the request, calling it unnecessary.

The Republican-controlled state legislature cut early voting to eight days from 14 last year.

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/early-voters-florida-face-chaotic-polling-sites/story?id=17638972#.UJcM8sVY3HQ

[...] in Florida this year, it has been a nightmare for voters, who have faced record wait times, long lines in the sun and a Republican governor, Rick Scott, who has refused to budge and extend early voting hours.

"People are getting out to vote. That's what's very good," said Scott.

People are getting out to vote -- but many of them are having to wait in line for three or four hours to do so. One contributor to DailyKos claimed it took 9 hours to vote. In Miami-Dade on Saturday, people who had gotten in line by 7:00 p.m. were allowed to vote; the last person wasn't checked in until 1 a.m., meaning it took some individuals six hours to cast a ballot.

"We're looking at an election meltdown that is eerily similar to 2000, minus the hanging chads," said Dan Smith, a political science professor at the University of Florida.

[...]

Miami-Dade attempted to deal with the problem on Sunday by allowing voters to cast absentee ballots in person between 1:00 and 5:00 p.m. However, after just two hours, the Miami-Dade elections department shut down the location after too many people showed up. People outside the locked doors were reportedly screaming, "We want to vote!"

[...]

But losing that final Sunday isn't the only problem. Smith said that he and Dartmouth professor Michael Herron found that in 2008, voters 65 or older were much more likely to cast ballots in the first five days of early voting than members of other age groups, alleviating some of the pressure at the polls in the remaining days. Those extra days, however, are gone this year, leading to a compression that the system has been unable to handle.

Scott has refused to extend early voting hours, essentially arguing that there is no problem, despite calls from Democrats, independent groups and even a Republican elections supervisor. He is arguing that he can extend early voting hours only when there is a true emergency -- like a natural disaster -- that warrants it.

"I'm focused on making sure that we have fair, honest elections," said Scott. "One thing to know, these early voting days and on Election Day, if you're there by the time the polls close, you get to vote."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/04/florida-early-voting_n_2073119.html

Oh boy. We're going to see a lot more of this over the next few days, aren't we?

[Emmett L. Brown]

Read this harrowing story about how lying scumbag Bill Clinton RAPED and BEAT a campaign supporter.

http://shadowgov.com...apeSummary.html

It's this sort of ethic, and how the media COMPLETELY ignores it, that makes me resent the Democratic party.

How can you be so cruel to the republican party, Spikysprinter? You know darn well that if that story was even remotely true, then they'd be on it like a viper. I won't stand to hear you bad-mouth the fair and balanced Fox News like this, you liberal slanderer, you.

[Tornado]

Meanwhile, Republican senators happily condemn homosexual relationships, then trawl gay bars for anonymous sex in restrooms.

(And no, I didn't even bother reading past the first few paragraphs)

I mean, you really don't want to get into a "which skeletons are hidden where" shit slinging match over alleged things in Clinton's life when just a few years prior to that Republicans had Tricky Dicky in the White House, do you?

Edited November 5, 2012 by Tornado

[Candescence]

Spiky, I'm just gonna be blunt: you're making it extremely difficult for everyone else to take you seriously at this point. It's getting ridiculous.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

Spiky, I'm just gonna be blunt: you're making it extremely difficult for everyone else to take you seriously at this point. It's getting ridiculous.

It was getting ridiculous about 3 - 5 pages ago. I've never seen anyone be this zealous before.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Malpercio

[tenchibr]

I personally believe that it's time for the media to become more transparent and just let the cat out of the bag, alright?

We know CNN has a liberal agenda, and we know by contrast Fox News is the opposite. Why is it so hard to just admit the truth?

Because it's unethical? Horse-motherf...

I know why I don't watch Fox News, and if you don't watch CNN, you know why as well. I don't believe there's such thing as neutrality anymore; sure, there always are shades of grey, but it's never 50/50.

Even as a (non-voting, non-American Citizen) Democrat, I would have a lot more respect for venues like Fox News if they came out of their political closet.

[Nepenthe]

CNN's agenda isn't one of liberalism but rather one of neutrality, sometimes to the point of ineffectiveness. They deliberately go out of their way to not seem too biased for any particular side that political coverage can become lukewarm and frustrating; I think they were one of the outlets calling the vice presidential debate a tie when Biden clearly slaughtered Ryan. It's generally MSNBC that has the liberal slant, but I don't really mind that because they don't parade themselves around as bastions of "fairness" and "balance" like Fox News does all the time; they shit on conservatism amid taglines of progression and moving forward and call it a day.

[tenchibr]

CNN's agenda isn't one of liberalism but rather one of neutrality, sometimes to the point of ineffectiveness. They deliberately go out of their way to not seem too biased for any particular side that political coverage can become lukewarm and frustrating; I think they were one of the outlets calling the vice presidential debate a tie when Biden clearly slaughtered Ryan. It's generally MSNBC that has the liberal slant, but I don't really mind that because they don't parade themselves around as bastions of "fairness" and "balance" like Fox News does all the time; they shit on conservatism amid taglines of progression and moving forward and call it a day.

Hm... I don't know; I think CNN is as liberal as they come, but they try harder to hide than any other network.

But I agree that MSNBC is more honest about their stance than Fox News and CNN. In fact, here's a summary of 3 in MY OPINION:

CNN - Liberal stance, tries to pretend it's neutral;

Fox News - Conservative stance, tries to pretend it's neutral;

MSNBC - Liberal stance and doesn't hide it.

Putting the lack of transparency on CNN's part, I feel like their news are more trustworthy than the other two.

[Tornado]

It warms my heart that, a day before the election as I sit here in the lounge area in an academic institution, I can easily overhear people getting in shouting matches over a political debate; but the most informed that are managing to be on what they are saying is repeating obviously-idiotic shit from attack ads from both sides.

"Romney wants to outsource your money to the rich and your job to the Chinese."

"If Obama isn't a Socialist, then why did he pass Obamacare?

Particularly great because someone who was walking by heard that discussion, and obnoxiously inserted herself in the conversation but did nothing more than repeat more nonsense.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Tornado

[Patticus]

Haha, damn, you'd think people would know better than to take the attack ad propaganda at face value. Maybe the huge quantities of those nasty ass ads are actually turning (gullible) people's opinions?

An update of yesterday's 538 forecast was posted in the early hours, as was an updated picture of Sunday's polling on the national and battleground level:

Electoral Vote

Obama: 307.2 (+0.3)

Romney: 230.8 (-0.3)

Chance of Winning

Obama: 86.3% (+1.2%)

Romney: 13.7% (-1.2%)

Popular Vote

Obama: 50.6% (unchanged)

Romney: 48.5% (+0.2%)

The only story here is that Obama's polling lead continues unabated, perhaps slowing a tad as we reach the big day. The closer to the election we get with one candidate polling consistently above the other, the less likely it seems that the challenger, Romney, will win. They could be wrong of course, there's still a greater than 10% chance that the polls may be biased enough to elect him, it'd be an amazing upset that'd send both it and that Denver debate into the history books... but it's not nearly as likely to happen as some in the media seem to believe.

[Stacy]

I personally believe that it's time for the media to become more transparent and just let the cat out of the bag, alright?

We know CNN has a liberal agenda, and we know by contrast Fox News is the opposite. Why is it so hard to just admit the truth?

Because it's unethical? Horse-motherf...

I know why I don't watch Fox News, and if you don't watch CNN, you know why as well. I don't believe there's such thing as neutrality anymore; sure, there always are shades of grey, but it's never 50/50.

Even as a (non-voting, non-American Citizen) Democrat, I would have a lot more respect for venues like Fox News if they came out of their political closet.

Its because most American News Stations are corporate owned which means they usually follow CEO's Political views and that they went to attract a certain Target Audience.

Not saying the BBC can't be biased either, but they all have an angle.

Edited November 5, 2012 by BW199148

[-Robin-]

Just voted abut 20 minutes ago. It was a relatively short process compared to what's going down in Florida, but obviously I would have liked it if it was shorter.

Oklahoma runs a two-party ballot, Republican and Democrat. I voted for the latter. Probably won't mean too much, but I still await the final results, since Obama got about 35% in 2008, and so am eager to see how that number changed this around.

[tenchibr]

Its because most American News Stations are corporate owned which means they usually follow CEO's Political views and that they went to attract a certain Target Audience.

Not saying the BBC can't be biased either, but they all have an angle.

Nothing wrong with that, but I just wish they would own up to it. It's not like I am gonna go and say "OH MY GOD. Fox News just officially announced they are conservative! *gasp* I am NEVER watching them again."

[Patticus]

Warning: BBC bias rant inside!

Not saying the BBC can't be biased either, but they all have an angle.

I don’t think that the BBC as an organization is biased. Individual presenters and reporters, however, almost certainly are (as everybody is).

The simple fact that the BBC has to be impartial will always lead to it being considered “lefty,” as they have to take a more measured stance on issues such as immigration or the EU. The tabloids can scream, “BLOODY IMMIGRANTS TAKING OUR JOBS,” “BRUSSELS DEMANDS STRAIGHT BANANAS,” whereas the BBC has to phrase things differently, which can look like implicit support to those who are passionately against (or for) something.

Of course, an individual reporter is going to have their own beliefs and prejudices, and that may well be reflected in the reports that they make.

But overreaching bias in the organisation that is diverse enough to have everything from Attenborough's wildlife films, to Clarkson on Top Gear, to Matt Baker on the One Show, to Gary Lineker on Match of the Day, to Andrew Marr on a Sunday morning, to Jeremy Paxman, to Blue Peter, to Tim Westwood, to Michael Portillo on This Week, to Strictly Come Dancing to Songs of Praise? Nah sorry, I just don’t see it as a biased organization as a whole.

[Dr. Mechano]

I live in a red state, but I'm going to show up to vote for Obama anyway, despite what little difference it's going to make.

I'm just ready for this election to be over. The numbers look good for Obama, but I won't be able to really relax until the results are announced.

[Jix Hedgehog]

South Park are doing another election episode (airing on Wednesday), this one's titled "Obama Wins!"

[Solkia]

Cartman: Fuck, Obama won!

Kyle or whoever the fuck the kid in red is: Shut up fatass!

and that's all the episode will be.

So how many states have their results up, if any?

Edited November 5, 2012 by Underaged Hot Anime Girl

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Just voted abut 20 minutes ago. It was a relatively short process compared to what's going down in Florida, but obviously I would have liked it if it was shorter.

That's what Early Voting's for. Cuts through the line much faster and you don't have to worry too much about it afterwards.

[Stacy]

Warning: BBC bias rant inside!

I don’t think that the BBC as an organization is biased. Individual presenters and reporters, however, almost certainly are (as everybody is).

The simple fact that the BBC has to be impartial will always lead to it being considered “lefty,” as they have to take a more measured stance on issues such as immigration or the EU. The tabloids can scream, “BLOODY IMMIGRANTS TAKING OUR JOBS,” “BRUSSELS DEMANDS STRAIGHT BANANAS,” whereas the BBC has to phrase things differently, which can look like implicit support to those who are passionately against (or for) something.

Of course, an individual reporter is going to have their own beliefs and prejudices, and that may well be reflected in the reports that they make.

But overreaching bias in the organisation that is diverse enough to have everything from Attenborough's wildlife films, to Clarkson on Top Gear, to Matt Baker on the One Show, to Gary Lineker on Match of the Day, to Andrew Marr on a Sunday morning, to Jeremy Paxman, to Blue Peter, to Tim Westwood, to Michael Portillo on This Week, to Strictly Come Dancing to Songs of Praise? Nah sorry, I just don’t see it as a biased organization as a whole.

I was referring to the News side of the BBC, Pat.

Nothing wrong with that, but I just wish they would own up to it. It's not like I am gonna go and say "OH MY GOD. Fox News just officially announced they are conservative! *gasp* I am NEVER watching them again."

They won't, it doesn't work that way sadly.

Edited November 5, 2012 by BW199148

[Sami]

That's what Early Voting's for. Cuts through the line much faster and you don't have to worry too much about it afterwards.

Even the early voting's been awful down here in Florida. I've had friends waiting for two hours over the weekend.

[Patticus]

I was referring to the News side of the BBC, Pat.

Me too, though I was also referring to the rest as well.

So ah, who's going to be staying up with me to follow the results as they come in?