Tonight Obama WON the election

fast and furious baby!

I cringed a couple of times for Romney tonight. Obama won this one.

the sh1t he won it is

both liars never mentioned the outsourcing of tons of middle-class jobs to india. that's the main reason new graduates cannot find jobs

you only think that because he didn't suck as much as last time.

Mitt and Paul's focus on the Libya issue isn't a winning strategy.

The CNN and CBS insta-polls both agree Obama won the debate.

http://www.businessinsider.com/debate-poll-obama-romney-independents-colorado-ppp-public-policy-polling-2012-10

His odds are way up on intrade etc.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-election-odds-improved-at-intrade-ladbrokes-and-william-hill-2012-10

Did he win the election? Not so soon. We will see.

Several more polls say the same thing - O won the night. We will see about the election.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/instant-reaction-polls-show-narrow-obama-advantage-in-second-debate/

Has there ever been a presidential debate where the moderator played the role of fact checker and gave interpretation/opinion during the debate?

It's all very entertaining, but the debates don't matter much because Romney was too far behind when they started. He lost this election in September when he allowed Obama to define him and he otherwise had given the electorate no specific reason to vote for him.

The debates only affect Obama's margin of victory. 2 pts, 4 pts, whatever.

Obama won the election the day Romney was nominated. These debates mean little except for giving our 24 hour news cycle on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc something to talk about. Obama's margin of victory will likely be similar to the Republican margin when Dukakis and McGovern were the Democratic nominees. Romney might get lucky and win 2 or 3 states.

I think Fox News still shows that Romney won.

"Has there ever been a presidential debate where the moderator played the role of fact checker and gave interpretation/opinion during the debate?"

Probably SOMETIME, but it should not have. Candy of course realized her mistake, as you will note she quickly also said Romney was right about the 14-day period to balance it out. Of course she was correct on both corrections.

no but wouldn't it be a lot better?

but why bam lie so easily?

I said on the other thread- Romney probably swayed more undecideds his way last night than Obama did.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx

Problem with her quickly trying to cover her mistake is that it was too late. It was a huge mistake and she really wasn't correct on the first part. She wasn't even supposed to ask follow up questions and she thought she could interject as a fact checker on the fly? It was her interpretation of what Obama said. It's clear that Obama said acts of terror. But it was a generalization before he mentioned the Libya situation and he never specifically called it an act of terror. It doesn't really matter much because Romney shouldn't have focused on that specific speech or what Obama said in the Rose Garden. He should have focused on the cover up and blundering over the next week or so.

i think candy crawley's "fact checking" did more damage obama than anything else. it demonstrated in real time a member of the media misrepresenting the truth to help his case. that's all anyone saw, anyone with a working brain, anyway. whether or not he used the words "acts of terror" in the rose garden even attention span challenged americans still remember susan rice and HIMSELF in the following days pushing the movie story. they only perp walked that guy like 3 weeks ago!

How can anyone vote for Obama after seeing this blatant cover up on Natioal television ....?

Look, I don't think Team Obama handled communication surrounding the incident in Libya well at all, but Team Romney's focus on this issue to me seems like a waste of time. Please articulate their point for me. Come on, do your best, and tell me if you think that is a winning focus for Team Romney.

And I am glad to see a substantive comment from CC for a change. My husband and I had the same discussion re new debate format with both sides being able to call for fact check at any time - THAT is a debate that would be worth watching.

It will be a blow out.

Election 2012 Likely Voters Trial Heat: Obama vs. Romney
Among likely voters
Download complete trend
OBAMA ROMNEY
10/10-16/2012 45% 51%
10/9-15/2012 46% 50%
10/8-14/2012 47% 49%
10/7-13/2012 47% 49%
10/6-12/2012 47% 49%
10/5-11/2012 47% 49%
10/4-10/2012 47% 48%
10/3-9/2012 48% 48%
10/2-8/2012 47% 49%
10/1-7/2012 48% 48%

it'a a real life government calamity, played out on our televisions, with coverups, lies, bombs, dead people, spies, deals, possible gays.. anything you could possibly imagine is in this story, and it makes this administration look at best like a bunch of condescending liars and at worst completely incompetent even at supporting and protecting their own staff in a violent country. why WOULDN'T they focus on it?

>but Team Romney's focus on this issue to me seems like a waste of time.

Exactly. Americans don't care about Libya. It is such a non-issue to the undecided or swing voter.

Can anyone say White Knight Prophesy?

Lucille, I am inclined to really like you based on your handle alone because I miss that show (I read that Netflix has bought rights to all the unaired episodes; have not checked to see whether they are showing them yet). With that said, they wouldn't want to focus on it because as HB points out, this is not of any concern to undecided swing state voters. Moreover, even those within the Republican party who are in-the-know and care about this issue know that they would have handled the incident exactly the same way. As a measure of objectivity here, I will give you this little added piece of information about myself here: I worked overseas under the Bush administration. While I am not a Republican, I am personal friends with more than one Bush admnistration appointee the media has raked over the coals. For anyone who really cares about what the Bush administration was thinking when we went to war with Iraq, I highly recommend Doug Feith's book. While I disagree with many things the Bush administration did, I do not fault the administration for going to war with Iraq.

what a coincidence, i also love arrested development and though not a republican, i, too, have a few friends who were a part of the bush administration, but it sounds like we're younger so they weren't as important as your friends. what do YOU think the undecided voter cares about? the economy? national security? what topics do YOU deem appropriate and necessary for consumption by the hapless boobs who are still undecided? will consider mr. feith's book.

syria is nothing, there's no issue at all, no one should give a sh1t about it

but the point is, why bam lied about he said something the next day but in fact what he had said was totally different

NYC, are you serious? A U.S. Ambassador was assassinated. He and our other people were in Libya, a volatile country with significant presence of al qaeda terrorists and an unstable government. Despite the 9-11 anniversary and requests from our personnel for more security, the Obama administration had no U.S. security four our people and denied the request. This is a major issue. And then, even though information was known that this was a coordinated terrorist attack/assassination, and common sense tells you there was more to this than a protest that escalated, and the Libyan president right away said this was an attack, the Obama administration, and Obama himself, for weeks puts out statements that this was spontaneous response to the dumb video and refused to say it was a terrorist attack. And to this day, over a month later, we still have no answers as to why security was denied.
This is also important because it takes away all of Obama's nonsense claims that he has crushed al qaeda into no longer being a threat, and that the Muslim world only hated us because of Bush and that Obama, by reaching out to them, will make everything ok.

Nobody cares about Libya. Or Syria.
I don't understand how we are supposed to spend more time talking about a U.S. Ambassador than mourn when young Marines or 30 Navy Seals are killed in a helicopter in Afghanistan.

Jobs
Economy
Healthcare
Women's issues
Religious rights
Entitlements and spending and the deficit and debt

do these military deaths somehow cancel out stevens's civilian death?

Cancel them out? No, but they outweigh them.

I am an undecided voter - not that it matters much in New York.

These are my key issues (no particular order):

1) Gay rights
2) Pro-choice
3) Health - single-payer, private option (like the U.K.), I'm pro-death panels, pro-rationing.
4) Taxes - increase/keep taxes, capital gains, etc. Find a way to repatriate multinational stash of
cash abroad (no tax holiday)
5) Foreign policy - Don't see Islam as bogeyman, I was here for 9/11 but unlike 99.999% of NYCers, I'm sympathetic to the frustration that much of the Islamic world has with the U.S. while being vehemently
non-tolerance of the anti-pretty-much-any-other-stuff that goes on. I'm not a cultural relativist

So pretty pro-Obama so far, and then:
1) Outsourcing/mfring - I don't know if there's a way to bring it back in the U.S. People in other
countries have much lower standards of living and expectations - in general, they can make almost anything
for cheaper. We are looking at a dramatic and unpleasant ratcheting down of our lifestyles on average.
2) Unions in the public sector
3) Illegal immigration - we should not have laws that we can't or won't enforce. No way we want to or should
concentrate on tightening the borders. But either make it extremely punitive for employers to hire illegal immigrants OR work with the fact that S./C. America is our natural low-cost source of labor. As long as the U.S. has a higher standard of living and a pool of low-skill labor jobs at any wage greater than our southern neighbors, you are not going to hold people back.
4) Race-based preferences - deader than the dodo. Becoming increasingly indefensible because of the way
it is implemented.
5) "Entitlement" spending - I'm a bit Thatcherite here.

is there any sort of scandal or alleged cover up associated with these deaths?

hi 10023! youre not a hapless boob, just the others.

>scandal or alleged cover up associated with these deaths?

Why, do those things make a difference? Nobody cares about this so-called scandal or alleged cover up.

>unlike 99.999% of NYCers, I'm sympathetic to the frustration that much of the Islamic world has with the U.S.

What frustrations? That we send them tons of money in exchange for oil, and they turn around and use that money to teach anti-U.S. hate?

" Nobody cares about this so-called scandal or alleged cover up."

how do you know that nobody cares about this? just because you don't, and im not sure why, it's a pretty big deal. all evidence points to the contrary, that people do, in fact, care about this entire debacle and what it says about the inner workings of the current administration. i am neither republican nor democrat, though in this election i will be voting with the republicans, but what do you think coverage of this story would look like had it happened while bush was potus? would "nobody" still care about it? something tells me a whole lot of bodies would care.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/10/steve-coll-debate.html

"Essentially, their complaint is that the Obama Administration failed to accurately describe the Benghazi strike in public as a terrorist attack, rather than as violence that arose from a protest or a riot, because that would undermine the President’s claim that his counterterrorism policy had been a success. This is a pretty convoluted accusation on its face, and hard to follow."

it is a very natural conclusion considering the center piece of the democrat battle drum beating at the convention was the killing of osama bin laden and our victory over al queda. except they struck and killed again, on 9/11. it is NOT hard to follow unless you just have a hard time following things, like in general.

"he had an authentic moment of succinct, controlled fury when Mitt Romney—who has never written condolence letters to the families of fallen soldiers—pressed some conspiracy-tinted, ill-conceived talking points about the attack last month at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya"

honestly, this is such transparent fluff, how can you fall for it. it's in his job description to write letters to next of kin to fallen soldiers. i can only assume that romney is only one among many civilians not currently serving public office who has never written to a military family. wtf.

Let's follow the arc to the original 9/11: "Bin Laden determined to strike US". If you want to talk about a free pass on that not-so-subtle miss look no further. Condi was the worst Natl Security Advisor in the history of the nation and should, IMO, be held criminally negligent. Forget the earlier question "but what do you think coverage of this story would look like had it happened while bush was potus?" on Bengazhi, what do you think would have happened if this memo had gone unnoticed under a Gore administration. NOT ONE PERSON WAS HELD TO ACCOUNT!! Talk about shameful. The reps latched onto Clinton for bj's in the Oval Office. They would have still been chasing this one down.

"who has never written condolence letters to the families of fallen soldiers"

and actually i recant, THIS one candy crawly can fact check for me. romney was governor of mass. from 03-07. i find it hard to believe that he has never written a letter to the family of a dead soldier.

Lucille - Am I understanding you correctly that your issue with the administration's response to the assassination of Ambassador Stevens is that you believe the administration knew it was a terrorist attack immediately and did not publicize that because they did not want anyone to know that an act of terrorism had occurred on their watch? or is your issue that the attack happened at all? I am not judging at all here; I am just trying to understand. I agree communication was not great, but that is form over substance and makes sense to me on a lot of levels. If the issue is the attack happening at all, then Romney should focus on that, and while I don't think that would be a winning strategy, it is a line that is easier to follow.

LICC - It seems your issue is that the incident occurred at all and you still don't feel that the administration has sufficiently explained whether there were requests for security and how those requests were handled? If this is an accurate read, it brings me back to the point that Romney should just attack directly on that basis rather than what was said in the Rose Garden the following day or the United Nations. I don't think the direct attack would be successful because I think voters are aware that the terror threat remains alive and well and believe that Obama takes it seriously. Is it your belief that this would not have happened under a Romney administration? Again, I am not judging; I am just trying to understand. What part of Romney's platform differs from Obama's with respect to this issue?

I agree that Romney should have focused more on the mishandling of security rather than what words were used when by the President. I think there are two important issues- 1) Why was security so lax in a clearly dangerous situation? Why was a request for security denied? and 2) Why did this administration make clearly false statements about the attack to the American public? Was it a misguided attempt to steer the narrative away from facts that negate the President's claims that he has been tough on terrorism and that he has made things better and safer for America when it comes to the Middle East?

I disagree with your premise that these are form over substance issues that don't matter to the American public. I think both of these issues have clarified the views many people have on Obama's foreign policy, which never received much widespread scrutiny before this happened.

As for where Romney would differ- mostly that becomes a competence issue. Would a Romney administration State Department allow for such non-existent security of our personnel in such dangerous hot spots? Some have speculated that the Obama administration didn't want higher levels of security so as not to appear to have a military presence and risk offending the local community. I don't think the Romney administration would take that same approach. The other difference would bear more on how America asserts itself in the various Middle East conflicts. Obama has taken an apologetic, "lead from behind" approach and I think a Romney administration would take a more assertive approach.

I thought this quiz that determines political position on the spectum was interesting.Give it a try and see where you are. I was so far to the left I had myself 'Black Listed' immediatly. Libral New York Pinko and proud... http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2012/quiz/

LICC - Interesting; thank you for explaining your perspective.
Falco - At recent barbecue someone gave me that quiz (we are not very fun down here in DC). Which politician did it give you at the end? Gus Hall?

That was fun. I came out "Average Democrat" overall, far left on Social and "Average Independent" on Economic.

I came in dead center "average independent," which is very much me, however some questions I found deeply flawed.

Like question # 3; "The growing number of newcomers from other countries threaten traditional American customs and values" is a terrible question to determine for example, the political position on illegal aliens and ID cards,the actual political aspect of this question.
I answered "completely disagree" as I do so with the actual question, however I "mostly agree" on documenting immigrants and removing illegals.

You'll find most of these "Quizzes" are designed by the left to hope to sway some centrists.
Evidence of the flaw you'll find when you click on the demographic field for "Race."
Whites come up independent, hispanics moderate liberals, and blacks more liberal.
Apparently there are no republicans, or they're all "Asian, native american, or other."

I came in Moderage Democrat overall; Average Independent on economic issues and Very Liberal on social issues. I am not a statistician and don't know anything about the design of the survey, but I did find some of the questions difficult to answer for reasons similar what truthsk10 experienced.

Wow - now I have been hanging around with Brooks2 too much; endless typos. I like the way he handles them. I am just going to assume that people get what I mean and will overlook the typos.

Not as bad as my Yoda speak.

"Evidence of the flaw, you'll find..."

NYCNovice, that the attack happened is obviously beyond anyone's control. it's disturbing to know that the staff of that embassy, representatives of the american government and nation in that region, requested additional security and failed to receive it AND that multiple warnings about the attack taking place on 9/11 were ignored, but ultimately terrorists will carry out acts of terror, that's their job. it's my understanding that members of the intelligence community were aware that this was an attack within 24 hours and communicated this much to members of the obama administration. members of the administration were then sent out into the world to explain their clearly absurd version of what had taken place and and apologize for this movie, i believe ads apologizing for the movie were commissioned and aired across the muslim world. for weeks susan rice and jay carney perpetuated this theory of the attacks, at a point in time when any person who was remotely curious and had internet access could read accounts from intelligence officers in other countries, israel for example, which not only referred to this as an obvious terrorist attack, but were had already established that stevens knew his attackers and had possibly worked with them. i remember this clearly because it wasn't that long and even my short term memory is not THAT bad. but that's all ancient history. now that president obama has claimed during the debate to have called this a terrorist attack from day 1, the narrative is being changed before our very eyes. as if i don't have milk in my fridge older than this story. this is precisely my problem with this entire debacle. the blatant and rather insulting lies. the assumption on behalf of my leaders that i am an ignorant misinformed citizen who will simply eat up what i am fed and ask for more of the same shit. as is happening RIGHT NOW. seriously, turn on the news, there are talking heads right now on every network news channel saying that this was the administration's position all along. it's disgusting. hope that clears up my point of view.

where in dc do you live? if you don't mind saying..

oh but answer your question, yes i believe the reasoning for perpetuating this absurd theory was that the obama administration had decently declared victory over al queda and it would look pretty darn bad if they missed another biggie. on f*cking 9/11 when security everywhere is increased because that date holds such a special place in the hearts of terrorists.

Falco, there was a wee bit of space to the left of my position on the spectrum. Color me not surprised.

anyone else nostalgic for the good old days of irangate? now that was a cover-up.

See, I don't expect ANY gov't to keep me completely safe and secure. I expect that's a function of having been scarily close to millions of people who would find any way to come over to the 1st World had they any inkling of what we worry about.

Average Democrat. Plenty 'o space to the left.

i would like to also add that if i were muslim i would be pretty offended that my leaders pushed this stupid story assuming that everyone would believe it because you know, muslims are violent and crazy and mobs of them will kill you and drag your body through the streets if some guy in la youve never met makes a movie they don't like. because that was the position of this administration.

Just because I'm a liberal doesn't mean I don't find the world a scary place. And I'm not so fond of our government either.

but onto more important matters. who names their kid "Tagg"? really.

I also saw a little bit of space to the left but not much, with me I think its genetic. However, I think New York has a different spectrum and I suspect I'm probably towards the middle of it.

"Overall, your political values are closest to those of an… Independent"

Ben
Craig
Josh
Matt
& Tagg
You can tell Tagg was last and they were all hoping for a dog. Tagg's lucky he doesn't have to ride on the roof of his car. I don't know why the name would suprise you...after all we are talking about Mittens Romney. Would have thought he would marry someone like Muffin Dowdle (open house conn. broker). Can't you just see Muffin and Mittens riding their english saddled horses around the estate? See you all at the fox hunt!
Thurston Howell III would be proud.

Lucille - Thank you for sharing your perspective. Live in Forest Hills section of DC (east of Conn Ave south of Chevy Chase - pretty much in Rock Creek park). As an independent, what issue swayed your vote to Romney (if you don't mind sharing; totally understand if you don't want to discuss).

I was just to the right of Average Independent before even the designation for Moderate Republican.

"Lucille - Thank you for sharing your perspective. Live in Forest Hills section of DC (east of Conn Ave south of Chevy Chase - pretty much in Rock Creek park). As an independent, what issue swayed your vote to Romney (if you don't mind sharing; totally understand if you don't want to discuss)."

beautiful neighborhood, i know it well. did your kids go to murch?

i am voting for romney because he is a successful businessman and we have tried the government solution and it hasn't worked. it's worked in the past and i suppose was worth trying (depending on who you ask and how much closely they pay attention to government spending), but is isn't working now and it's time to try something else.

what is something else? tax cuts? you don't think we've tried that? get tough in the middle east? you don't think we've tried that?

the irony is that mitt romney is a successful investor....not a successful runner of businesses. romney does not have a track record of managing people --- he has managed assets. obama has been a huge disappointment. but it looks like he will luck out because the thought of romney as commander in chief is revolting.

"what is something else? tax cuts? you don't think we've tried that? get tough in the middle east? you don't think we've tried that?"

if by "we" you mean the obama administration in the last 4 years, no, "we" have not tried any of that. and thanks for reminding me, i have a big problem with the laissez faire attitude of this administration with regards to the middle east. i was asked a question and i answered it. you can challenge if you want but you aren't changing my mind.

" but it looks like he will luck out because the thought of romney as commander in chief is revolting."

52% of likely voters who responded to a gallup poll beg to differ with you on that. and i still say romney is winning this. ive said it for at least a year and a half.

so...we have not tried tax cuts?

so...we have not tried to get tough in the middle east?

Romney was a successful Governer, business leader and I am confident he will be a successful Commander and Chief. Especially if you measure him against the previous 3.

how did he succeed as governor? if so, why is he not even competitive in the state in which you claim he succeeded?

In the quiz, I cw out just to the left of average republican

"so...we have not tried tax cuts?"

on paper, the obama administration has, strictly speaking, cut taxes. but these are outweighed by other revenue collecting increases.

"so...we have not tried to get tough in the middle east?"

no. if you have an example proving me wrong please share it.

well. that clarifies things. nothing like an open mind.

well....we declared war on iraq.

well....we invaded afghanistan.

do either of those qualify?

........bush did those things.....yes?
and anyway, i didn't mean generally where di we go and throw down some bad shit in them middle east. i meant that this administration has missed opportunities of strategic importance and has in 4 short years undone decades of military and diplomatic efforts to ensure american influence in that region. not to mention at the un.

can you be specific?

what opportunities were missed?

what was undone?

can't believe people will decide their vote depending on gay rights. come on! people are starving, losing their jobs, innocent foreign children are being slaughtered by our army, and what you care about is gay rights%uFF1F%uFF1F%uFF1F%uFF1F

i always respect and support the gays, but whoever use this as a topic in elections, no matter they are for it or against it, should all go to hell.

stop outsourcing is easy, to raise tax for companies if any of their supporting jobs are done oversea.

stop illegal immigrant is also easy, take our troops home to protect our border, stop killing foreign people.

no caonima, reducing outsourcing is NOT easy. the horses have already left the barn. try enacting protectionist legislation that hinder free business, just try it.

you live in a land of unicorns and make believe, far more than a liberal like me who decries the system but knows its limitations. until campaign finance reform becomes a reality we can kiss any notions of decent representation goodbye. The Supreme Court fucked up, and big time, and that's why it matters who's in the White House.

I agree our troops should come home, I'm just not sure what they'll be coming home to.

Lucille, really? you think Obama's foreign policy has been inferior to that of the W's? Or that Romney would do better? You can criticize the current administration all you'd like, but I think Romney has shown that he has not an f'ng clue about foreign policy.

>romney does not have a track record of managing people --- he has managed assets.

Your naïveté (that's French for imbecile) is remarkable. You really have no idea how private equity invests do you or why an investor would look for good management? I guess that when you fudge the numbers and lie and cheat your partners, customers, family and friends, then nothing else matters, right columbiacounty?

you sound as stupid as romney.

you know nothing about me but that doesn't stop you.

you know nothing about private equity, but that doesn't stop you.

nothing stops you, right?

pe? or lbo?

chop shops or investments. romney has not done jack in terms of running a business, other than tearing them apart and leaving the dying parts to the vultures and leaving the successful parts to the vultures.

i wish 30years were still on here to discuss bain, where i think he was employed.

columbiacounty, that was pathetic.

>chop shops or investments. romney has not done jack in terms of running a business, other than tearing them apart and leaving the dying parts to the vultures and leaving the successful parts to the vultures.

what is a chop shop? Is that just a meaningless word thrown around to inflame, like when you attached the word risk to the words illegal and felonious, as if there is any relationship.

>romney has not done jack in terms of running a business

Absurd statement. All of his money has been made in business.

>other than tearing them apart and leaving the dying parts to the vultures and leaving the successful parts to the vultures.

Not even true, but this notion that vultures are bad, or bankruptcy is bad is nonsense. Like all business is roses, and in the case of an occasional failure, the sky crane just comes and picks it up and we all pretend.

do you want to be taken seriously or treated as the village idiot?

>do you want to be taken seriously or treated as the village idiot?

NYC or Columbia County?

your choice.

the village idiot.

king troll.

Does it make you feel superior to write in staccato?

is there anything you won't do or say?

Romney was on to tonight again, Obama stale.
Romney funny, charismatic. Obama boring

"Before examining the Gallup Poll, it may be worth considering some general advice: If one poll produces results that are at odds with nine others -- for whatever reason and no matter who produced it -- that one poll is probably off." I mean even RASMUSSEN, which literally has a two point GOP basis (final polls versus actual results for the past two cycles) only has Romney ahead by two....

... "...In 2000, for example, Gallup's daily tracking survey showed Republican nominee George W. Bush going from a 9 percentage point deficit against Democrat Al Gore to an 8 point lead in just three days following the first presidential debate. Other polls done at the same time also showed movement to Bush, but the average overall shift in the margin separating Bush and Gore was roughly 2 percentage points, not 17. ....In 2010, Gallup's final poll reported Republicans leading Democrats by 15 percentage points (55 to 40 percent) among likely voters on the national "generic" ballot -- the question that asks voters whether they will support the Democratic or Republican candidate for Congress in their district. No other national poll had reported Republicans with as big a lead.

While Republicans gained 63 seats in the House in 2010, their margin in votes cast nationwide was just 6.8 percentage points (51.6 to 44.8 percent). Gallup's final estimate among all registered voters, which gave Republicans a 4 percentage point lead, came far closer...."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/18/gallup-poll_n_1982004.html

"...However, its results are deeply inconsistent with the results that other polling firms are showing in the presidential race, and the Gallup poll has a history of performing very poorly when that is the case...

...You do not need to look any further than Gallup’s track record over the past two election cycles to find a demonstration of this.

In 2008, the Gallup poll put Mr. Obama 11 points ahead of John McCain on the eve of that November’s election.

That was tied for Mr. Obama’s largest projected margin of victory among any of the 15 or so national polls that were released just in advance of the election. The average of polls put Mr. Obama up by about seven points.

The average did a good job; Mr. Obama won the popular vote by seven points. The Gallup poll had a four-point miss, however.

In 2010, Gallup put Republicans ahead by 15 points on the national Congressional ballot, higher than other polling firms, which put Republicans an average of eight or nine points ahead instead.

In fact, Republicans won the popular vote for the United States House by about seven percentage points — fairly close to the average of polls, but representing another big miss for Gallup.

Apart from Gallup’s final poll not having been especially accurate in recent years, it has often been a wild ride to get there. Their polls, for whatever reason, have often found implausibly large swings in the race.

In 2000, for example, Gallup had George W. Bush 16 points ahead among likely voters in polling it conducted in early August. By Sept. 20, about six weeks later, they had Al Gore up by 10 points instead: a 26-point swing toward Mr. Gore over the course of a month and a half. No other polling firm showed a swing remotely that large..."

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/gallup-vs-the-world/?hp

Oh dearie. I find myself agreeing most with CC. Some disenchantment with Obama (I was always a Hilarite) but many more doubts about Romney.

Caonima: yes, it seems frivolous to care about gay rights and abortion, when it should be economy all the time and fix the mess in the Middle East. But it says something about us as a people and a nation (now that I'm American I can say that) when we deny fundamental science (i.e. sexual orientation is biological) to trample basic rights that other people have in this country. We can't stuff human rights here just because the economy is in the crapper and we're spending trillions fighting what? again?

It is not frivolous to care about gay rights and abortion. Particularly since the president has a lot more control over these issues than jobs. How does the president (any president) create jobs? Only through fiscal stimulus which has become virtually impossible. Lets remember Romneys closed door speech about this. He plans to create jobs through he magic of being elected.

Lets bring back Herman Cain and 9 9 9. At least it was worth a laugh.

"I think Romney has shown that he has not an f'ng clue about foreign policy."

I am comfortable with romney's grasp of foreign policy and national security issues and fairly confident he will surround himself with people who have the experience and wisdom to at least try to make American foreign policy once again benefit America.

"How does the president (any president) create jobs?"

Things to consider before running a campaign based on "hope" and the promise of creating a bunch of jobs.

"We can't stuff human rights"

We must differ in our definitions of human rights.

Don't remember so much scrutiny to the nuances of Gallup polling when they were showing Obama winning. I'm sure I just missed it at the time.