• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

ABC/WP: Obama +1, Sample D+10

Can you imagine the kind of lead Romney would have if the msm was actually impartial? With a constant flow of misinformation coming at him from the news media he's still up 8 points. It will be interesting to see how the news out of Egypt today will be spun if it's reported at all. Leading from behind looks like something leftover from the Carter administration. Carter lost Iran and Obama is busy losing the rest of the Middle East that supported the US.
 
Fruityfact said:
One may say that, "Carter lost Iran", but I would one could also say that by no means did Reagan win it...
Click to expand...

Reagan contained it. Once the Ayatollah was in power with Carter's blessing there was no going back. Until the civilian uprising in 2009 which Obama ignored the west never had a crack in Iran's armor to exploit. Leading from behind has led to US support of the ouster of an ally in Egypt, an illegal war against a leader in Lybia who had been neutered for years and the ignoring of revolts against the governments of the 2 biggest US enemies in the area, Iran and Syria. An honest person would have to seriously wonder which side Obama's on.
 
Mr. Obama said the US "will continue to pursue a tough direct dialogue between our two countries and we’ll see where it takes us. But even as we do so, it would be wrong for me to be silent about what we’ve seen on the television over the last few days and what I would say to those people who put so much hope and energy and optimism into the political process, I would say to them that the world is watching and inspired by their participation regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was."

The president said the disputed election would not change his belief in greater diplomatic efforts with Iran.

“I have always felt that, as odious as I feel some of President Ahmadinejad ‘s statements (are), as deep as the differences that exist between the United States and Iran on core issues, the use of tough hard headed diplomacy, diplomacy without illusions, is critical when it comes to pursuing a core set of national security interests," the president said. “We will continue to pursue a tough direct dialogue between our two countries.”

He added that the United States had no observers watching the election so he could not comment on allegations of fraud. He noted that the Iranian government promised an investigation, and said he hoped it would be done fairly and without any further violence.
Click to expand...

President Obama on Protests in Iran: “It Would Be Wrong for Me to Be Silent” - ABC News

even as we remain committed to negotiating with the holocaust deniers in tehran, it would be wrong to remain silent?

he'd prefer to remain silent (for a fourth day, he'd already let 3 go by on bloody tv), he just can't quite?

it would be wrong?

no comment on allegations of fraud?

he couldn't even say the allegations were troubling?

such an abject apologist

some more results of that hard headed diplomacy without illusions from the nobel peace prize winner:

So Much for Sanctions: China, Iran Iron Out Oil Agreement - WSJ
 
Last edited:
Since when does "I don't have enough information to make an opinion" equate to apologist. What should he say, we know there has been voter fraud in Iran because the Iranian government is bad? How does that make any sense.
 
well, those numbers do make me feel a bit better. looks like someone is trying to juice the post-convention bounce numbers for the President, intentionally or not.
 
cpwill said:
well, those numbers do make me feel a bit better. looks like someone is trying to juice the post-convention bounce numbers for the President, intentionally or not.
Click to expand...

It's likely unintentional, and probably more accurate than it looks. I don't know in this case specifically, but good pollsters generally don't weight for party ID. Which they shouldn't. Party affiliation is different than most of the other demographics in that it isn't immutable. People tend to waver on the question, and trying to weight for it actually makes polls less accurate most of the time. Same goes for who people voted for last time. It's why the national polls in '04 that showed people voted for Bush over Gore by 6% actually ended up being accurate in the 2004 election.
 
Anagram said:
It's likely unintentional, and probably more accurate than it looks.
Click to expand...

Democrats have an affiliation edge, but it's way smaller than that. This poll basically assumes that in 2012 the Democrat Party will outperform 2008.

But yeah, I would bet on "unintentional confirmation bias".
 
cpwill said:
Democrats have an affiliation edge, but it's way smaller than that. This poll basically assumes that in 2012 the Democrat Party will outperform 2008.

But yeah, I would bet on "unintentional confirmation bias".
Click to expand...

It's just that the way they ask the question, party affiliation is more of a mood. In 2010 polls showed party affiliation of Republicans higher than it actually was and, outside of a few cases, most of those polls turned out to be pretty close to accurate. I think the edge in Democratic affiliation in this poll is just a result of being in the middle of Obama's bounce. The poll is probably accurate, and in a week or two when Obama's bounce goes away, the Party ID will also go down to normal levels.
 
Wiseone said:
Since when does "I don't have enough information to make an opinion" equate to apologist. What should he say, we know there has been voter fraud in Iran because the Iranian government is bad? How does that make any sense.
Click to expand...

Since when has that stopped him? Remember "The Cambridge police acted stupidly"?
 
Grim17 said:
Since when has that stopped him? Remember "The Cambridge police acted stupidly"?
Click to expand...


You didn't say anything that actually addressed what I was saying. Since when does saying "I dont have enough info" equate to an apologize? And why should we assume Iran has voter fraud problems?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom