Elvis

I've seen so many intelligence insults against the other side, so why don't we settle this right now? Those who think they are smarter than the other side, please state whether you are liberal or conservative and then say anything you want that demonstrates how intelligent you are. I don't care what you talk about, just say something that makes me think that you are somewhat intelligent.

A Monica Lewinsky Swimsuit Calendar?

Before you answer, have a good look at this photo:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/monica-lewinsky...

If you don't say at least $20, then I'm calling you a liar!

The right-wing Heritage Foundation has come out with a ranking of the most "econimically free" countries in the world: http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking

Nine of the top ten have government provided health care:

#1 Hong Kong has government provided health care

#2 Signapore has government provided health care

#3 Australia has government provided health care

#4 New Zealand has government provided health care

#5 Switzerland has government provided health care

#6 Canada has government provided health care

#7 Ireland has government provided health care

#8 Denmark has government provided health care

#10 Bahrain has government provided health care

#9 USA is the only country that does not!

If you disagree with the rankings, take it up with Heritage, not me. I'm just the messenger here folks.

Doesn't this suggest that USA can learn something from these "socialist" (as the Conservatives label them) countries?

If it were a liberal making this claim, everybody would laugh at him. But it is not! This is the results of the right-wing Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom:

http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking

At least 7 of the 8 countries ahead of America are socialist: Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada, Ireland and Denmark. (The only one I am unsure about is Hong Kong). These countries all have government run health care. They all have stronger labor protections than America, including higher minimum wage and stronger unions. These countries all have stronger consumer protections than America.

Could America learn something from these socialist countries?

This whole election, you have been claiming that Rasmussen as the only accurate poll, even though it was consistently the anomaly. The results are in now and beyond any doubt it is proved that Rasmussen had a big bias towards the Republican party.

See the New York Times analysis here: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/0...

Documented previous claims from the right-wing that they believe Rasmussen to be most accurate can be found here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Avn2e...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqWUa...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvMz4...

It is normal for a polling agency to be off by a few percentage points for a single poll, but when a polling agency is off in favor of the same party for every poll, then this by definition is a bias. That's exactly what happened when one looks at the results of the Senate race in comparison to Rasmussen's predictions.

RealClearPolitics keeps an archive of all polling data, which can be found here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_pol...

Summary:

For Nevada, Rasmussen picked Angle by 4%. The result was Reid by 5%. So Rasmussen had overrated the Republicans by 9% on that one.

For California, Rasmussen picked Boxer by 3%. The result is Boxer by 9%. So Rasmussen overrated Republicans by 6% on that one.

For Colorado, Rasmussen picked Buck by 4%. The result is Bennet by 2. So Rasmussen had overrated the Republicans by about 6% on that one.

For Illinois, Rasmussen picked Kirk by 4%. The result is Kirk by 2%, so Rasmussen had overrated the Republicans by about 2% on that one.

For Pennsylvania, Rasmussen picked Toomey by 4%. The result is Toomey by 2%, so Rasmussen had overrated the Republicans by 2% on that one.

For West Virginia, Rasmussen picked Raese by 7%. The result is Manchin by 11%, so Rasmussen had overrated the Republicans by 18% on that one. This may be the biggest error ever recorded by any poll!

For Washington, Rasmussen picked Rossi by 1%. The votes are currently tied but still being counted, so Rasmussen had overrated the Republicans by about 1%

For Delaware, Rasmussen picked Coons by 11%. The result is Coons by 16%, so Rasmussen had overrated the Republicans by 5% on that one.

For Alaska, Rasmussen picked Miller by 1%. Murkowski wins by 7%, so Rasmussen had overrated the Republicans by 8% on that one.

For Wisconsin, Rasmussen picked Johnson by 7%. He only won by 5%, so Rasmussen had overrated the Republicans by 2% on that one.

For Connecticut, Rasmussen overrated Republicans by 1%.

For Indiana, Rasmussen overrated Republicans by 3%.

For Kentucky, Rasmussen actually got it exactly right.

For Louisiana, Rasmussen overrated Republicans by 2%.

For New York, Rasmussen overrated Republicans by 4%.

For Oregon, Rasmussen overrated Republicans by 4%.

For Ohio, Rasmussen overrated Republicans by 6%.

Doesn't this prove a Republican bias? Please do not answer if you do not know the mathematical definition of bias, since I've already had enough ignorant replies in a previous attempt at asking this.

It has long been claimed by Democrats that Rasmussen is biased towards Republicans, and Republicans have long claimed that it is the most accurate polling agency. Now that the results are in, I thought I'd compare Rasmussen's predictions to them.

All this data comes from RealClearPolitics which has a history of polling results among all polling agencies, here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senat...

I selected for comparison all the tossup Senate races + all the leans Democrats Senate races + all the leans Republican Senate and a few high-profile other ones.

Here is the data:

For Nevada, Rasmussen picked Angle by 4%. The result was Reid by 5%. So Rasmussen had overrated the Republicans by 9% on that one.

For California, Rasmussen picked Boxer by 3%. The result is Boxer by 10%. So Rasmussen overrated Republicans by 7% on that one.

For Colorado, Rasmussen picked Buck by 4%. The current result (votes still being counted) is Bennet by 1. So Rasmussen had overrated the Republicans by about 5% on that one.

For Illinois, Rasmussen picked Kirk by 4%. The result is Kirk by 2%, so Rasmussen had overrated the Republicans by about 2% on that one.

For Pennsylvania, Rasmussen picked Toomey by 4%. The result is Toomey by 2%, so Rasmussen had overrated the Republicans by 2% on that one.

For West Virginia, Rasmussen picked Raese by 7%. The result is Manchin by 11%, so Rasmussen had overrated the Republicans by 18% on that one. This may be the biggest error ever recorded by any poll!

For Washington, Rasmussen picked Rossi by 1%. The votes are currently tied but still being counted, so Rasmussen had overrated the Republicans by about 1%

That's all the tossup states. We can keep going with high-profile non-tossup states:

For Delaware, Rasmussen picked Coons by 11%. The result is Coons by 16%, so Rasmussen had overrated the Republicans by 5% on that one.

For Alaska, Rasmussen picked Miller by 1%. Murkowski wins by 7%, so Rasmussen had overrated the Republicans by 8% on that one.

For Wisconsin, Rasmussen picked Johnson by 7%. He only won by 5%, so Rasmussen had overrated the Republicans by 2% on that one.

For Connecticut, Rasmussen overrated Republicans by 1%.

For Indiana, Rasmussen overrated Republicans by 3%.

For Kentucky, Rasmussen actually got it exactly right.

For Louisiana, Rasmussen overrated Republicans by 2%.

For New York, Rasmussen overrated Republicans by 4%.

For Oregon, Rasmussen overrated Republicans by 4%.

For Ohio, Rasmussen overrated Republicans by 6%.

In summary, every one had a bias towards Republicans except for one. The one exception was Kentucky which Rasmussen correctly predicted.

It is normal for polls to be off by a few percent, but it is not normal for a polling agency to always be off in favor of the same political party, and especially by a large percentage error much of the time.

Does this data confirm that Rasmussen is biased towards Republicans? Explain you answer (preferably mathematically).

Six epic accomplishments of the Obama administration:

1. Fixing Wall Street. Never again will we have to bail out big banks.

2. Repairing relations with Russia and working towards nuclear arms reductions. For people who think relations with Russia don't matter, pay close attention to the implications with Iran.

3. Turned around the economy, from what was predicted to be potentially "worse than the Great Depression" (in the words of Bush's own economic advisors while he was still in office), to a period of growth.

4. Repairing health care, which will give health insurance to more than 30 million Americans while at the same time reduce long term deficits according to CBO analysis.

5. Move towards cleaner energy. It is no coincidence that electric cars are coming out that get 200+ mpg ever since oil industry men (Bush/Cheney) are replaced by the Obama administration.

6. The successful management of TARP which is now expected to turn a profit, contrary to all Republican claims and attacks.

Read before replying.

Bush himself acknowledged that he was ending his tenure with a severe economic crisis: "I can remember sitting in the Roosevelt Room with Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke and others, and they said to me that if we don't act boldly, Mr. President, we could be in a depression greater than the Great Depression". Think about it, folks. This is the same guy who told us most of his tenure that despite all the problems, the foundations of the economy are strong. He eventually got to the point where he had to retract all these optimistic outlooks and declare that we're in a situation that could be worse than the Great Depression.

The Great Depression lasted more than 10 years. One in four people were unemployed.

Obama inherited a recession and ended it in less than one year. The unemployment is under 10% and declining (BTW, the highest unemployment since the great depression happened in December 1982 -- at the end of Reagan's second year in office, where it was 10.8%). Growth is positive. The trend of the stock market is upwards. So how can you conservatives deny that Obama's policies have had a positive effect on the economy? Try to use logic and facts to support your argument.

See Presidential Approval Ratings:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/pres...

Rasmussen has consistently polled much much different from all the other polling agencies. In the latest one, they are 15% points off the next nearest ones, which are Fox News and Associated Press/GfK. When a polling agency is far to the tight of even the right-wing Fox News, you know something has to be wrong. How can anyone with the least bit of objectivity trust Rasmussen? Anyone who knows the first thing about statistics understands that if a source consistently provides data anomalies, then something is wrong with the source.

RealClearPolitics tracking of President Obama's approval rating:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/pres...

Gallup says 46% disapprove.

Rasmussen says 57% disapprove.

CNN/OpinionResearch say 48% disapprove.

Ipsos/McClatchy say 45% disapprove.

Associated Press/GfK say 49% disapprove.

The ultra-right-wing Fox News says 45% disapprove.

ABC News/Wash Post says 45% disapprove.

Hint: there is one that is 10% from the average, and this same poll always is inconsistent with all the others. Not even the ultra-right-wing Fox News goes near what this poll claims the public believes. So even the right-wingers should be suspicious (assuming they understand what anomaly means).

If so, what and when?

Every time the topic of regulating the banks comes up, some right-winger makes an argument which they think is in opposition to regulation : "Has Obama returned his political donations to Goldmann Sachs yet?" I'm struggling to find your point. It seems you think we should not regulate them or punish them for shady business practices that have caused severe financial damage to America, but also we should reward them by giving them donated money back. Am I really so misguided to think the exact opposite: don't give them any money back, regulate them, and fine them for their dirty business practices? And the money received goes back to the American people.

Same thing with the oil spill. Whenever we see some headline about Obama going after BP and demanding that they pay for everything, you right-wingers accuse him of having received donations from BP. You somehow think we should not punish them, and even reward them by returning their donations. Sorry, I think the opposite: keep their money, regulate them, fine them, and put the proceeds towards alternative energy investments.

So please clarify your argument in a way that makes sense, please.

See: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/pres...

Gallup has Obama's approval at +9

Rasmussen has Obama's approval at -7

NBC/WSJ has it at +6

Pew Research has it at +5

Fox News has it at +5

CBS/NYT has it at +12

Resurgent Republic has it even

National Journal/FD has it at +2

Rasmussen is sticking out like a sore thumb -- the only one claiming negative approval, and blatantly claiming a huge negative approval. Even the right-wing Fox News gives Obama a +5, so Rasmussen is +12 points to the right of Fox News. Does anyone believe Rasmussen?

See:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/pres...

For about 6 months now Rasmussen has had Obama's approval ratings in the negatives and Gallup has had it in the positives. Gallup seems more consistent with the other polls so I speculate that Rasmussen is doctoring the numbers. Anyone else notice this?

Real Clear Politics Presidential approval ratings: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/pres...

Gallup says Obama has 49% approval

Rasmussen says Obama has 48% approval

Associated Press/GFK says Obama has 49% approval

CNN/Opinion Research says Obama has 51% approval

CBS News/NY Times says Obama has 50% approval

FOX News says Obama has 43% approval

GWU/Battleground says Obama has 50% approval

Hint: every survey has Obama around 50% approval except one.... And which one?

Or would that make you a *hypocrite*?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100410/ap_on_go_pr_wh...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1114

Come on Palin, show some back bone!

in less than half the time that Reagan did?

Reagan started with an unemployment level of 7.5% in January 1981, which gradually moved up to a peak of 10.8% (December 1982), and did not dip back to single digits until July 1983 (9.4%).

Obama started with an unemployment level of 7.7% in January 2009, which quickly moved up to a peak of 10.1% (October 2009), and dipped back to single digits in January 2010 (9.7%).

In one year as president, Obama did what took Reagan 2.5 years to do: turn around unemployment. What does it say to Conservatives that there hero is hugely out-performed by their worst nightmare on nearly every economic measure?