Obama's stuttering in debate...Why

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Please direct me to any substantive point you've made about McCain or Palin. Seriously. YOU are the one attacking people. If you want to have a substantive debate, fine--let's do it. Thus far all you've done is make accusations. Oh--and you've called people names. I forgot about that one.

You must be kidding. Where is everyone getting blow from?

[villaspurs 65]

Please cite where the facts are that undecideds are going to Obama? The one thing I remember reading about undecideds was a couple weeks ago and that they were pretty much split. Also many were saying they were going to one of the independant parties.

My undecideds comment was specifically in relation to the debate:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/26/po...ry4482028.shtml

There was another poll talking specifically about Obama as Commander-in-Chief, but it will require more searching--I'll keep looking around for it.

Ok. This is not proving your argument at all. Please say you can do better.

CBS is hardly a non partisan participant. And also 500 undecideds are miniscule compared to the millions that say they are undecideds.

CBS is, in fact, about as nonpartisan as you get. It's not like we're talking MSNBC or Fox News here.

Also, 500 is a completely acceptable sample size. Once you get to a population that is larger 20,000, increasing your sample size does little to increase reliability. In this case, it more than suffices, with an acceptably low margin of error (+/- 4%; usually +/- 5% is the standard used in social science research). In case you're interested, here's a margin of error calculator you can check out: http://americanresearchgroup.com/moe.html.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I wish Colin Powell would have run. I think he would have been a strong contender.

Can't argue with that statement!

[luckytxn 2,265]

Ok Spooky I will tell you. You are my friend right? I am more of a Ron Paul voter. I lean very heavily to the Libertarian party. I know Ron Paul had no chance at all and would be frozen out but that is where my politics lie.

No bashing, I was just curious. On the Democrat side, I wasn't moved by Hillary or Obama. I wish Colin Powell would have run. I think he would have been a strong contender.

Colin Powell would have been a formidable one to beat. McCain would have crapped his pants and cried.

Hillary and Obama seemed to me that the Dems were not serious about winning the white house.

[villaspurs 65]

Please direct me to any substantive point you've made about McCain or Palin. Seriously. YOU are the one attacking people. If you want to have a substantive debate, fine--let's do it. Thus far all you've done is make accusations. Oh--and you've called people names. I forgot about that one.

You must be kidding. Where is everyone getting blow from?

Seriously, one substantive post.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Libertarian here as well.

Although I keep getting labelled as a "Librul Demoncrat" for some reason....

That can't possibly be your fault, no? If it sounds like a duck . . . Maybe you need Libertarian lessons.

[villaspurs 65]

Ok Spooky I will tell you. You are my friend right? I am more of a Ron Paul voter. I lean very heavily to the Libertarian party. I know Ron Paul had no chance at all and would be frozen out but that is where my politics lie.

No bashing, I was just curious. On the Democrat side, I wasn't moved by Hillary or Obama. I wish Colin Powell would have run. I think he would have been a strong contender.

Colin Powell would have been a formidable one to beat. McCain would have crapped his pants and cried.

Hillary and Obama seemed to me that the Dems were not serious about winning the white house.

Why would Colin Powell have run as a Democrat? (That's a serious question, by the way.)

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Colin Powell would have been a formidable one to beat. McCain would have crapped his pants and cried.

Hillary and Obama seemed to me that the Dems were not serious about winning the white house.

I agree.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Please cite where the facts are that undecideds are going to Obama? The one thing I remember reading about undecideds was a couple weeks ago and that they were pretty much split. Also many were saying they were going to one of the independant parties.

My undecideds comment was specifically in relation to the debate:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/26/po...ry4482028.shtml

There was another poll talking specifically about Obama as Commander-in-Chief, but it will require more searching--I'll keep looking around for it.

Ok. This is not proving your argument at all. Please say you can do better.

CBS is hardly a non partisan participant. And also 500 undecideds are miniscule compared to the millions that say they are undecideds.

CBS is, in fact, about as nonpartisan as you get. It's not like we're talking MSNBC or Fox News here.

Also, 500 is a completely acceptable sample size. Once you get to a population that is larger 20,000, increasing your sample size does little to increase reliability. In this case, it more than suffices, with an acceptably low margin of error (+/- 4%; usually +/- 5% is the standard used in social science research). In case you're interested, here's a margin of error calculator you can check out: http://americanresearchgroup.com/moe.html.

CBS is actually considered very partisan. Remember the Dan Rather fiasco?

500 would be acceptable if the vote was 20,000 or so but the undecideds in this country are many millions. Hardly come even close to being relaible. Maybe the 500 were all in one area close by then that would suffice for a decent size city but the country? Hardly.

Took the non out of non partisan.

Edited September 28, 2008 by luckytxn

[Hollis 0]

For the MISINFORMED individuals:

Like I stated earlier - Do your homework !!

Refrain from excessive media coverage or tabloids ( This is a form of someone's opinion) mainly rubbish or to creat a hipe.

Seek the facts.

"Empty vessels make the most noise"

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Please direct me to any substantive point you've made about McCain or Palin. Seriously. YOU are the one attacking people. If you want to have a substantive debate, fine--let's do it. Thus far all you've done is make accusations. Oh--and you've called people names. I forgot about that one.

You must be kidding. Where is everyone getting blow from?

Seriously, one substantive post.

I haven't seen a substantive post from you, or at least one that isn't funny. But, it's a known fact that Obama supporters are not the best arbitors of substance, so that wuld be an exercise in futility.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Ok Spooky I will tell you. You are my friend right? I am more of a Ron Paul voter. I lean very heavily to the Libertarian party. I know Ron Paul had no chance at all and would be frozen out but that is where my politics lie.

No bashing, I was just curious. On the Democrat side, I wasn't moved by Hillary or Obama. I wish Colin Powell would have run. I think he would have been a strong contender.

Colin Powell would have been a formidable one to beat. McCain would have crapped his pants and cried.

Hillary and Obama seemed to me that the Dems were not serious about winning the white house.

Why would Colin Powell have run as a Democrat? (That's a serious question, by the way.)

Actually Powell is thought to be a Dem by most. In college he supported a democrat and had a sticker and his buds said he was. He could have changed though but then I remember reading his book and read up on him and he is definately Dem material.

[villaspurs 65]

Please cite where the facts are that undecideds are going to Obama? The one thing I remember reading about undecideds was a couple weeks ago and that they were pretty much split. Also many were saying they were going to one of the independant parties.

My undecideds comment was specifically in relation to the debate:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/26/po...ry4482028.shtml

There was another poll talking specifically about Obama as Commander-in-Chief, but it will require more searching--I'll keep looking around for it.

Ok. This is not proving your argument at all. Please say you can do better.

CBS is hardly a non partisan participant. And also 500 undecideds are miniscule compared to the millions that say they are undecideds.

CBS is, in fact, about as nonpartisan as you get. It's not like we're talking MSNBC or Fox News here.

Also, 500 is a completely acceptable sample size. Once you get to a population that is larger 20,000, increasing your sample size does little to increase reliability. In this case, it more than suffices, with an acceptably low margin of error (+/- 4%; usually +/- 5% is the standard used in social science research). In case you're interested, here's a margin of error calculator you can check out: http://americanresearchgroup.com/moe.html.

CBS is actually considered very non partisan. Remember the Dan Rather fiasco?

500 would be acceptable if the vote was 20,000 or so but the undecideds in this country are many millions. Hardly come even close to being relaible. Maybe the 500 were all in one area close by then that would suffice for a decent size city but the country? Hardly.

Again, once you go over 20,000 you only get incrementally smaller margins of error by increasing your sample size. This is a more than acceptable sample size, even for millions of voters. There is an abundance of sampling science behind this that exists outside of politics and political polling. A major city requires comparable sample sizes to the national population--that's how statistics work.

Oh and as far as the Dan Rather fiasco, surely you aren't negating decades of quality journalism by one piece?

Edited September 28, 2008 by villaspurs

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Colin Powell is a Republican. Smart man!

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Why would Colin Powell have run as a Democrat? (That's a serious question, by the way.)

I didn't mean it to read that way! I meant that I would have prefered Powell as the Republican candidate. I don't adhere to a strict party line. I vote for who I think is the best suited for the job, party affiliation isn't the decidiing factor.