Trust me. It doesn't go unnoticed that we are now hearing that numbers can be skewed anyway you like when in 2007 all we hard was the definitive negative impact of then candidate Obama's healthcare plan. I don't recall all of my friends on here saying then that all of those numbers should be questioned.

 

Talking economy and jobs. I don't recall hearing a plan, just promises. Debt cut in half, unemployment, what was it 5. something. There was a plan, it just wasn't let out of the bag.

Talking economy and jobs. I don't recall hearing a plan, just promises. Debt cut in half, unemployment, what was it 5. something. There was a plan, it just wasn't let out of the bag.

 

So you don't remember every jackball's study in the world being put on here if it wasn't favorable to the President? Links were flying all over the place.

Not sure about rules but I found it effective as it stopped the Governor from carrying on. Again, she admitted he was partially correct. It should be a non-issue.

 

If she had said he was wrong about his tax policy which obviously is open to much interpretation then I'd have a problem with it.

 

Did she apply that function equally throughout the debate?

As I've stated I always use FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right for a guage.

 

On Oct 11 the the chance of winning dropped to its lowest point for the President at 61%. Today it's at almost 66%.

 

Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com

 

Fivethirtyeight???? What does using them as a gauge tell you? How did they come up with that calculation?

Did she apply that function equally throughout the debate?

 

It could only be applied on questions of fact vs opinion or where numbers could be interpreted differently. This was probably one of the few cases where that could happen. However, it would also require her to know every fact that may come up . In other words, how would we know?

 

Again, she only did it once AND she said he was wrong and he was right. What's the harm?

So you don't remember every jackball's study in the world being put on here if it wasn't favorable to the President? Links were flying all over the place.

 

I remember both sides posting their favorites, same as now.

Fivethirtyeight???? What does using them as a gauge tell you? How did they come up with that calculation?

 

I use them because they were almost perfect last time. I cannot say I know their science behind it.

 

The guy that does it is a baseball nerd guy. Created PECOTA .

I remember both sides posting their favorites, same as now.

 

But last time the anti-President were stated as definitives. There was not a case of "numbers can be skewed so I don't trust anyone."

It could only be applied on questions of fact vs opinion or where numbers could be interpreted differently. This was probably one of the few cases where that could happen. However, it would also require her to know every fact that may come up . In other words, how would we know?

 

Again, she only did it once AND she said he was wrong and he was right. What's the harm?

 

The harm is that she injected herself into one side in a debate. If there were no harm we wouldn't be talking about it.

But last time the anti-President were stated as definitives. There was not a case of "numbers can be skewed so I don't trust anyone."

 

I think you're misremembering the debates.

I use them because they were almost perfect last time. I cannot say I know their science behind it.

 

The guy that does it is a baseball nerd guy. Created PECOTA .

 

If you're talking about 2008 as last time just about everybody hit it.

As I've stated I always use FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right for a guage.

 

On Oct 11 the the chance of winning dropped to its lowest point for the President at 61%. Today it's at almost 66%.

 

Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com

 

Good stuff Clyde.

The harm is that she injected herself into one side in a debate. If there were no harm we wouldn't be talking about it.

 

Why has everyone focused so much on Crowley telling Romney that Obama did say "act of terror" and no one is saying a word about her going on to say that Romney is right that it took Obama two weeks to declare it a terrorist attack?

Why has everyone focused so much on Crowley telling Romney that Obama did say "act of terror" and no one is saying a word about her going on to say that Romney is right that it took Obama two weeks to declare it a terrorist attack?

 

I've mentioned that a few times. This is a non-issue other than it being unusual. Poor Jim Lehrer would still have been trying to gain control. She nipped it.

I've mentioned that a few times. This is a non-issue other than it being unusual. Poor Jim Lehrer would still have been trying to gain control. She nipped it.

 

I agree with you. Honestly, she likely stopped Romney from embarrassing himself further. It seemed rather clear that he had no clue Obama had used the words "act of terror" the next day. He was attacking Obama strongly on that. Obama told him that he said "act of terror" the next day and said Romney needs to check the transcript but Romney was still calling Obama out strongly because he thought he had Obama hung on something. I could argue that Crowley saved Romney. If she says nothing and Romney continues on the attack, I think we hear even more about how Obama did say "act of terror" and people questioning why Romney did not know Obama had said that.