Debate, lets actually discuss content
- Thread starter Necronic
- Start date
- Status
GasBandit
Staff member
I donated once to NPR because of Riders Radio Theater. BUT I NEVER RECEIVED MY TOTE BAG.
...the plot thickens.
Honestly I think PBS should release an app and website using the netflix model. $60 per year for unlimited on demand streaming of all their programs, past and present. No commercials. No pledge drives.
Or skip the content distribution themselves and license their content to netflix and hulu directly.
Or skip the content distribution themselves and license their content to netflix and hulu directly.
Is this for real?
This is the closest I got to watching the debate. I think it's more accurate and realistic.
Again, I'm not saying he did it. I'm also saying I'm sure he didn't. I'm simply stating that it wouldn't have surprised me if the fact were true.
At this point it's all moot, Obama is going to win, regardless of the way these debates turn out. I purposely took the day after the election off, JUST to listen to GoP radio all day.
At this point it's all moot, Obama is going to win, regardless of the way these debates turn out. I purposely took the day after the election off, JUST to listen to GoP radio all day.
Who's Chang? Oh shit, China Shadow Society throws in their own candidate in at the last second?!
GasBandit
Staff member
On the one hand though, the only president who ever got re-elected when his approval rating was below 50% was dubya, and he was 49% (and it was still a close thing, even with a wartime economy and 5% unemployment Kerry came surprisingly close to winning despite being Dukakis 2.0). Obama's been mid 40s for most of this campaign, though oddly enough he seems to have had a bump up to 52% after the debate, inexplicably enough. Maybe it was just a reminder to his dogwashers that they needed to carry more water for him. At any rate, it'll be interesting to see if it keeps its head above water, or if it slips back down around the 47% level it's been orbiting for months, and if the trend holds true or not.
The conventional wisdom says it'll come down to what ohio does. Seems to me every election always comes down to just what one or two states does.
"Does that seem right to you?"
The conventional wisdom says it'll come down to what ohio does. Seems to me every election always comes down to just what one or two states does.
"Does that seem right to you?"
It's not even just one or two states. It's actually more like 5 counties (or parishes or whatever your state calls them).
Honestly, Ohio really is the barometer of how things are going in the US. When the economy starts going bad (and when it starts going well), we feel it months or years before everyone else. For us, the recession started in 2004 and it's actually quite a bit better now. It's also got a fair mix of big cities (Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Toledo) and rural counties, so we have a pretty even amount of Liberal and conservative voters. It's basically a miniature version of the US, if you look at it's from a electoral standpoint.
Honestly, Ohio really is the barometer of how things are going in the US. When the economy starts going bad (and when it starts going well), we feel it months or years before everyone else. For us, the recession started in 2004 and it's actually quite a bit better now. It's also got a fair mix of big cities (Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Toledo) and rural counties, so we have a pretty even amount of Liberal and conservative voters. It's basically a miniature version of the US, if you look at it's from a electoral standpoint.
As I told you before, your tiny amount of data is not enough to constitute a true statistical trend. I checked it myself.
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, then there's some other folks out there who need to be corrected as well, because I'm not the only one saying it.
"No incumbent president has won re-election with an approval rating consistently in the 40s." - Matt Dowd, ABC News, "A Tale of Two Unelectable Candidates"
“Historically, two presidents below 50% in their final approval rating before the election — George W. Bush and Harry Truman — won, and three, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush, lost.” - Gallup, quoted in this NewsMax article.
(W. was 49, Truman was 43).
Though I guess that also brings up a good point about indicators - the infamous "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" headline was put in because the paper had to go to press before even the east coast results were in, so they had to rely on the prediction of Arthur Sears Henning who had accurately predicted 4 of the previous 5 elections. So nothing's a sure bet.
I honestly don't trust polls when it comes to presidential elections, especially ones performed by news networks. There is simply too much incentive for them to make people believe the race is close. This one... probably isn't. Romney is doing better with his recent debate performance and I'm almost certain Biden will bomb his debate, but I honestly don't think it's going to be enough to undo the Romney 47% comment. Even my family, who (with the exception of my brother, mother, and I) are staunch Republicans, decided that it was too much and half of them aren't even planning to vote anymore. They've literally written off the next 4 years.
Ryan is just going to pull a Romney in this debate and back-track on all their previous campaign promises/plans to make them look better in the Public's eye.
It's one thing to lie consistently in a debate, it's another to completely change your stance from one day to the next because it sounds good on TV.
It's one thing to lie consistently in a debate, it's another to completely change your stance from one day to the next because it sounds good on TV.
Necronic
Staff member
I wish people would stop perpetuating this. Do you know how much of the US debt China actually owns?
Enough for Obama to rag against china in a campaign commercial?
Yup. Media know very little about statistical analyses, despite quoting statistics incessantly.
The US has about 16 trillion debt, and china owns 1.2 trillion of it. Only about 5 trillion is owned by foreign entities, the remaining 11 trillion or so is held by US entities.
Over the last four years
- the amount of foreign owned debt went up from 3 trillion to 5 trillion
- the credit rating for the US was downgraded twice - from AA+ to AA to AA-
Chances are good these two figures are related - US entities are finding better investments to place their money in, and foreign investors are gobbling up unpurchased US bonds.
We're still rocking a 1 trillion deficit - in fact this is the fourth straight year we've increased our debt by 1 trillion dollars. If you thought 11 trillion dollars was a huge debt - it's only taken 4 years to increase that by 33%.
Jokes need not be factual to be funny. In fact some of the best jokes play off people's unreasonable fears. China is a rising economic superpower, and everybody is wondering where it's going from here. Most countries are irritated at its currency manipulation. While it's quickly becoming a world player, it still has a long way to go before it overshadows the US. However in terms of raw numbers of workers and manufacturing output, many recognize the possibility that it could do so in the long run. Further they have purchased US debt at an unprecedented rate over the last decade. So no, they don't in any way, shape, or form "own" the US or even a significant portion of it, but there is reason to consider their position in terms of our debt. While our debt is large-ish, our GDP still keeps pace with our debt even in the downturn, so it's not a big problem.
Still, dissecting a joke is like dissecting a frog. Disgusting, smelly, and everyone feels worse off for the experience.
Well, the only thing that made me scratch my head during last night's town hall debate (apart from what the candidates said, which was worthy of a lot of head scratching) was that the moderator turned into a real time fact checker at one point, and backed up President Obama's assertion that he called the embassy attack and act of terror the day after it occurred. While one could argue semantics (he did not call the attacks an act of terror, but did indicate that acts of terror would be pursued) it seems that the moderator of the debate overstepped her bounds - well beyond simply redirecting and pressing an issue (which is something she wasn't supposed to do, but I'm glad she did) she actually participated in the debate.
There are some reports floating around that CNNs on-screen time keeping showed the President got 3 more minutes of talking time than the Governer, but finding no stories on CNN's own website, nor screenshots I don't know the veracity of the report.
Obama showed a marked improvement between this debate and the first debate, though, and many instant polls have him winning this one.
I really, really wish the debate had been about foreign policy as originally advertised though.
There are some reports floating around that CNNs on-screen time keeping showed the President got 3 more minutes of talking time than the Governer, but finding no stories on CNN's own website, nor screenshots I don't know the veracity of the report.
Obama showed a marked improvement between this debate and the first debate, though, and many instant polls have him winning this one.
I really, really wish the debate had been about foreign policy as originally advertised though.
Yep, I'm by no means saying Obama was perfect, I'm not that biased but yes the reason Obama got more time was because Romney kept giving it to him.
I think my favorite part was right in the beginning when Romney tried the same shit he pulled in the first debate (always trying to get the last word, regardless of whether it was his turn to speak) and the moderator shut him down.
- Status