Skip to main content

View Diary: Snap polling the debates (107 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Critical News (7+ / 0-)

    The snapshot polling completely dominates the post-debate narrative, which as you've mentioned, is a great thing. We know conservatives, coupled with sympathetic pundits, will push a "Romney dominated" meme on every single network.

    I suspect many posters here at DK, who have been hunting for evidence that Obama is going to lose, will also post frantically that Obama is losing the debate (they can't help themselves) because he said "um" a few times.

    Luckily, the snapshots will undoubtedly show Obama winning, because people have pre-conceived notions that Obama should win, and he is infinitely more likeable, which matters in these types of evaluations.

    Though, I also fully expect many on the right to howl that the snapshot post-debate polling samples too many Democrats, and cannot be trusted. Expect many pundits to point that out too, as a way to be able to extend their own influence.

    •  I Don't See "Many" Here Hoping or Expecting an (16+ / 0-)

      Obama loss either in the election or the debate.

      He could lose a debate in terms of audience preference, that's easy for a Democrat to do generically, but it's hard to see how that could happen to Obama against Snidely Mittlash.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 05:00:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know. I recently read a comment by a (0+ / 0-)

        long time kossack stating definitively that Obama is a lousy debater.

        Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

        by Smoh on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 05:08:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  He's not lousy, but it's not his best forum (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          madgranny, True North

          I don't know how the comment you're referencing was worded, but I've said in the past that debating isn't his strongest suit and I stand by that.

          Doesn't mean I don't want him to win.

          "...and if proud Americans can be who they are and boldly stand at the altar with who they love...then surely, surely we can give everyone in this country a fair chance at that great American Dream." ~ Michelle Obama

          by BoiseBlue on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 05:23:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  We'll See (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I think there are some that have unrealistic expectations of Obama as a debater. He's good, but he's not perfect. I remember him taking criticism here in 2007-2008 for his debate performances, and I hope most here don't focus on him saying "um" (which he will) a few times, and ignore his strengths.

        On a sidenote, what are your thoughts now on the Medicare debate? I recall you making many posts sounding the alarm that the GOP was looking to repeat the 2010 Medicare big lie? Do you think Obama and his team have been effective in combating that?

      •  True dat, how could there be much contest. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joe shikspack

        Would guess that some of us are cringing to think of the   rudeness from Romnuts we are likely to see.

        Meanwhile, some the talley is up to 18 pro-democracy groups who are after the Debate Commish  to allow a broader debate lineup.....

        FWIW the segment had some very interesting history on the debate rules and the polling catch 22 for third parties....

        Democracy Now

        As Obama, Romney Hold First Debate, Behind the Secret GOP-Dem Effort to Shut Out Third Parties


        AMY GOODMAN: What about this comment, that Gary Johnson made, the former governor of New Mexico who’s running for president on the Libertarian line, this point about what you poll and this catch-22 of how you increase your standing in the polls if you are not in the debates?

        GEORGE FARAH: Due to explicit criticism of the commission in 1992 and 1996 and an investigation by the Federal Election Commission, the commission was forced to adopting a numerical figure as a kind of decision making, at what point third-party candidates could participate in the presidential debates. So, they have announced that if a third party candidate, or any candidate gets 15% of the polls, that they will invite them to a presidential debate. Fifteen percent of the polls? Amy, that is crazy. There has not been a third-party candidate in the last 100 years that’s gotten close to 15% in the polls prior to any sort of presidential debate, it’s ridiculously high. Congress gives candidates millions of dollars of taxpayer funds if they win 5% of the popular vote. How is it that we actually can we subsidize a candidate, yet they need three times that level of support just to get into these presidential debates? Third-party candidates faced extraordinary structural barriers, discriminatory ballot access, scant media coverage, loyalties of the political class in the voting public, enormous campaign finance disparities. So, if they managed to convince a majority of Americans that they ought to be included in the presidential debates, it is outrageous that a private corporation backed by Anheuser-Busch, controlled by the two parties is telling them no. It absolutely is a catch-22. The presidential debates are the gatekeepers to credibility. If third party candidate gets in, he is instantly deemed credible, viable worthy of voter attention and worth of media attention, but if he is excluded, he is dismissed as marginal unworthy of voter attention of media attention, and his campaign is relegated in many ways to the dustbins of history. These is outrageous that the gatekeepers to our election process are not non-partisan entities like The League [of Women Voters], but partisan individuals with loyalties to the Republican and Democratic parties. It stifles debate, by design.

        Also  noticed that Democracy Now is hosting a creative format Debate Watch, giving time to a couple of the the third party candidates.   Popcorn, anyone?

        Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

        by divineorder on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 05:28:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Scratching my head as to who the 'many' are. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, wishingwell, politicalceci, coigue

      Pretty much everyone I've seen who have been looking for a Romney win this year have gotten themselves bojo'd pretty quickly.

      But maybe you're referring to the hundreds of thousands of bogus accounts created since May or so that mostly haven't been used yet.

      •  Let Me Clarify (0+ / 0-)

        I was referring to some posters here (shouldn't have typed many) who have in the past months cast doubt on the decisive nature of the coming Obama victory, and seem to be "concerned" consistently about some event or events that will cost us the election. I want them to have faith in our guy and project a winning attitude around here! That's all..

        Obama is going to win, he has been winning, and nothing tonight will change that.

        Perhaps I'm too sensitive here, as I distinctly remember posters here criticizing Obama's debate performances throughout 2007-2008, when he was performing perfectly fine, especially against McCain.  I just don't want to see a repeat of that.

        •  Perhaps revamp your own attitude (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I'm always an optimist, so even when pessimists are more on the right track (with respect to reality) than I am, I find myself having issues with the pessimists.

          So when I think my optimism is actually in line with reality, I really disagree with the pessimists.

          Some might be trolls.

          But some are the kind of people who just worry a lot, about everything. But what if? But then what if? Disaster looming, 24/7.

          We all probably know some people like this. They might even be among our family and friends.

          I'd suggest that you just accept that there are worrywarts, for whom worrying represents their way of working through things. Mostly, the ones I know can't stop themselves from verbalizing their anxieties.

          It isn't necessary to try to convince them to see things differently, unless you feel like it.

        •  Why do you place concern in quotes? (0+ / 0-)

          Maybe their concern is genuine. I find those quotes pretty douchey.

          Usually, I think of "concern" with regards to concern trolls, as in, pretend concern that is disingenuous because it comes from a thinly veiled conservative.

          (See diary on a Natural History of Trolls)

        •  Yes, you are too sensitive (0+ / 0-)

          If obama delivers, he can weather any criticism. I ran as an Obama delegate for fun in 2008 . The only thing I did not tolerate was the non american talk and the muslim talk.

    •  Sharpton just said (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      that if you turn of the tv, the candidate with the most connecting body language usually wins.

    •  What the hell are you talking about? (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site