*I swan to goodness, Leroy, I had no idea!

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, November 3rd, 2012 11:25am PDT - promote requested by bareboards2.

That was refreshingly silly enough for me to enjoy with complete disregard for the political structure on which it was based.

they are not neck and neck. That's shitty media pretending it's close so that they can increase their ratings.

Don't forget Pooky and Peanut Romney.

>> ^VoodooV:

they are not neck and neck. That's shitty media pretending it's close so that they can increase their ratings.


The polls I've seen (which aren't many, admittedly) have them pretty even with Romney being ahead in some. Apparently a local (UK) bookie has paid out on Obama winning, which although done for publicity is an expensive gimmick if they're wrong so I don't know.

Maybe it's because of the FUBAR way US politics work, only about a third of people's votes matter - what are the polls like in Florida, Ohio and such like?

>> ^Quboid:

>> ^VoodooV:
they are not neck and neck. That's shitty media pretending it's close so that they can increase their ratings.

The polls I've seen (which aren't many, admittedly) have them pretty even with Romney being ahead in some. Apparently a local (UK) bookie has paid out on Obama winning, which although done for publicity is an expensive gimmick if they're wrong so I don't know.
Maybe it's because of the FUBAR way US politics work, only about a third of people's votes matter - what are the polls like in Florida, Ohio and such like?


The polls that are most accurate in this stuff have Obama at 50% and Romney at 47%. I'm sorry but this isn't that close, Obama has it.

Only a moron would be swayed by this crack addict. Moving forward, I expect the folk that helped the GOP win by huge margins in 2009 and 2010 to push Romney into a landslide victory.

>> ^TangledThorns:

Only a moron would be swayed by this crack addict. Moving forward, I expect the folk that helped the GOP win by huge margins in 2009 and 2010 to push Romney into a landslide victory.


What evidence do you have that Chris Rock is a crack addict?
The color of his skin?

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^TangledThorns:
Only a moron would be swayed by this crack addict. Moving forward, I expect the folk that helped the GOP win by huge margins in 2009 and 2010 to push Romney into a landslide victory.

What evidence do you have that Chris Rock is a crack addict?
The color of his skin?


Here ya go.

http://www.mondostars.com/entertainment/chrisrock.html

Is that not close? I know US margins are tiny, IIRC Obama won in '08 with about 54% of the vote and that was described as nearly a landslide which sounds to me like a narrow margin. What about the margins of error in these polls, they're not going to be especially accurate. Also, what about electoral college votes, rather than the popular vote: i.e. what about the swing states, how are they polling?

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Quboid:
>> ^VoodooV:
they are not neck and neck. That's shitty media pretending it's close so that they can increase their ratings.

The polls I've seen (which aren't many, admittedly) have them pretty even with Romney being ahead in some. Apparently a local (UK) bookie has paid out on Obama winning, which although done for publicity is an expensive gimmick if they're wrong so I don't know.
Maybe it's because of the FUBAR way US politics work, only about a third of people's votes matter - what are the polls like in Florida, Ohio and such like?

The polls that are most accurate in this stuff have Obama at 50% and Romney at 47%. I'm sorry but this isn't that close, Obama has it.

CBS News is reporting that the Irish bookmaker Paddy Power declared Obama the winner which is bull since paddypower are still taking bets on it.

>> ^TangledThorns:

Only a moron would be swayed by this crack addict. Moving forward, I expect the folk that helped the GOP win by huge margins in 2009 and 2010 to push Romney into a landslide victory.


Truly, only the least intelligent of morons would be swayed by the argument presented in this video.
But what does that say about those who thought this was a serious attempt at political discourse?

According to Monte Carlo simulation of aggregated poll results it's over.>> ^Quboid:

Is that not close? I know US margins are tiny, IIRC Obama won in '08 with about 54% of the vote and that was described as nearly a landslide which sounds to me like a narrow margin. What about the margins of error in these polls, they're not going to be especially accurate. Also, what about electoral college votes, rather than the popular vote: i.e. what about the swing states, how are they polling?
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Quboid:
>> ^VoodooV:
they are not neck and neck. That's shitty media pretending it's close so that they can increase their ratings.

The polls I've seen (which aren't many, admittedly) have them pretty even with Romney being ahead in some. Apparently a local (UK) bookie has paid out on Obama winning, which although done for publicity is an expensive gimmick if they're wrong so I don't know.
Maybe it's because of the FUBAR way US politics work, only about a third of people's votes matter - what are the polls like in Florida, Ohio and such like?

The polls that are most accurate in this stuff have Obama at 50% and Romney at 47%. I'm sorry but this isn't that close, Obama has it.

Interesting @bmacs27, but only as reliable as its data. @moodonia, that's the bookie I was referring to, I guess that was nonsense, although I see their odds are very short on Obama. Bookies aren't fools, they'll have looked at the swing states so that's good to see.

So much talk of polls these days and so much BS. Yes, if one candidate has a 2% lead on a poll with a margin of error of + or - 5% then that result is not very significant. If you do 50 polls and that candidate has that same 2% lead on almost all of them then the result is statistically significant.

Of course. What isn't. However it has the advantage of being aggregated across all of the data, and thus increasing sample size. It's true, if there is a consistent bias in the sampling techniques of all polling agencies that happens to consistently favor Obama, it might be off a little. However, it would have to be wildly off (and extremely anomalous given that the historical accuracy of polling is also factored in) for that to happen. But yes, it could happen. However, I'd be happy to bet that it won't, especially that most odds makers have him as about a 3-1 favorite. The narrowest moneyline I ever saw was right after the first debate when Obama commanded a -165. That's still better than a 3-2 favoring. Since you seem to think it's a tossup, you must be happy to give me even odds. Whaddya say... $10,000 bet?

>> ^Quboid:

Interesting @bmacs27, but only as reliable as its data. @moodonia, that's the bookie I was referring to, I guess that was nonsense, although I see their odds are very short on Obama. Bookies aren't fools, they'll have looked at the swing states so that's good to see.

Nice try, Chris Rock. Chris doesn't understand that white people are pretty good at reading between the lines, at least when it comes to Obama's administration. It's Obama's handling of the current issues that have turned off the independent voters like myself, rather than swayed us to his side again.

Actions speak louder than words, and Obama's actions have not earned him the chance for a second term, at this point in time. Perhaps in the near future Obama will become enlighted and unshackle himself from his leftist handlers: learning that in being a president one has to be more bipartisan to the issues. Cliton was an excellent President along those lines.

And the leftists on here have done a terrible job making your case for Obama in the months leading up to the election. Attacking the other candidate has nothing to do with making the case for your chosen candidate, and also has had no effect on the outcome.

To be fair, where is Chris Rock's special message to black voters? If a right-wing comedian had made a special message video to black voters in support of Romney, I'm sure people on here would have called attention to aspects of racism in that comedic message.

I don't think it's a toss up, I said that I don't know how close it is and that the polls I've seen had them neck and neck - and you quoted me saying that it looks like Obama is going to win.

>> ^bmacs27:

Of course. What isn't. However it has the advantage of being aggregated across all of the data, and thus increasing sample size. It's true, if there is a consistent bias in the sampling techniques of all polling agencies that happens to consistently favor Obama, it might be off a little. However, it would have to be wildly off (and extremely anomalous given that the historical accuracy of polling is also factored in) for that to happen. But yes, it could happen. However, I'd be happy to bet that it won't, especially that most odds makers have him as about a 3-1 favorite. The narrowest moneyline I ever saw was right after the first debate when Obama commanded a -165. That's still better than a 3-2 favoring. Since you seem to think it's a tossup, you must be happy to give me even odds. Whaddya say... $10,000 bet?
>> ^Quboid:
Interesting @bmacs27, but only as reliable as its data. @moodonia, that's the bookie I was referring to, I guess that was nonsense, although I see their odds are very short on Obama. Bookies aren't fools, they'll have looked at the swing states so that's good to see.