**Besides, even if it came down to religion, better the Mormon than the "Muslim," right?

President Obama had some choice words for his competitor Mitt Romney in an interview with presidential historian Douglas Brinkley that will be published in Rolling Stone Friday.

In an excerpt of the interview published in Politico today, Brinkley describes a conversation between Mr. Obama and Rolling Stone executive editor Eric Bates. Bates told the president his six-year old daughter was cheering him on.

"Obama grinned," Brinkley wrote. "'You know, kids have good instincts,' Obama offered. 'They look at the other guy and say, 'Well, that's a bulls****er, I can tell.''"

That word, it does not mean what you think it means.

The difference between Ray talking about Bill Clinton and Ray talking about Barry Bonds is really all you need to know on the subject.

You have to actually watch the 56 seconds of video to get just how devastating it was---the text alone doesn't begin to to it justice.

...

"Obama grinned," Brinkley wrote. "'You know, kids have good instincts,' Obama offered. 'They look at the other guy and say, 'Well, that's a bulls****er, I can tell.''"

The problem was that the witness doesn't get to decide what was relevant to the matter; the judge does.

"Obama grinned," Brinkley wrote. "'You know, kids have good instincts,' Obama offered. 'They look at the other guy and say, 'Well, that's a bulls****er, I can tell.''"

My all-time favorite Obama line was during the primaries when some clowns somewhere were questioning whether Obama was "really" black, or "black enough."
A reporter went to Obama with this, and Obama said, "Well, I lived in Chicago for a long time, and I can tell you, cab drivers know I'm black."

Troll attempt #2 by Bitter Mouse.

Pointing out your hypocrisy is not trolling.

Below the window in the street, laying where they had been thrown, were a pile of tiny, replicated albums from Yes, Genesis, Jethro Tull, ELP and the like.

the witness doesn't get to decide what was relevant to the matter; the judge does

"Obama grinned," Brinkley wrote. "'You know, kids have good instincts,' Obama offered. 'They look at the other guy and say, 'Well, that's a bulls****er, I can tell.''"

Ugh. Am I the only person who does this? I'll be thinking of a word and I'll write a homophone instead of the actual correct word? I catch myself doing that all the time for some reason. I suppose these days I can just claim that I was using voice recognition software and it screwed up. For the time being I'll ignore the hatchet I took the English language in that sentence, but I'll just claim I was trying to write colloquially.

It's not quite the same thing, but I must have caught myself typing "that" for "than" about a thousand times by now, and "Romeny" instead of "Romney" at least a dozen times. I think I've always caught myself in time, but I kind of identify with the 3 or 4 other Primates who've used "Romeny" themselves.

Bitter Mouse: I'm not rising any more to your bait.

I'm not rising any more to your bait.

Odds on Ray sticking to that solemn vow: About the same as Clinton sticking to his marriage vows.

Seriously though what would the reaction to her being discovered in an affair? That would be awesome, there would be something for everyone in that tempest I should think. Maybe that is why she won't run for president in 2016 (I kid).

HRC caught in steamy affair with Dick Cheney.

Didn't Powell endorse Obama in '08? Can't see what would have happened to make him switch back to the GOP in the meantime.

The Kenya line is good, but VERY obviously prepped in advance. BHO seems a little to anxious to get the rest out before the conversation moves elsewhere.

My all-time favorite Obama line was during the primaries when some clowns somewhere were questioning whether Obama was "really" black, or "black enough."
A reporter went to Obama with this, and Obama said, "Well, I lived in Chicago for a long time, and I can tell you, cab drivers know I'm black."

I wish that guy would show up more often.

Yes. I think the theory is he could easily be a classic dissapointed 08 voter. Sad because of the economy and the "huge" cuts to the military that Obama tricked the GOP into voting for (or something).

To me, those type of comments deserve sarcastic replies (from either side). It was a weak and poorly thought out comment by Romney. There were good and thoughtful ways to make his point (whether or not you agree with it). Instead, he went for the cheap one liner and got caught. To me, you look weak and unpresidential when your response to getting called on it is that the other guy was too mean in the way he did it.

Why Romney Doesn’t Need a Poll Lead in Ohio

The race for Ohio is slowly tightening, but Mitt Romney does not hold a lead in a single poll in the current Real Clear Politics average (he is tied in two). Two polls from Time and CBS/Quinnipiac have grabbed headlines by showing Obama a five-point lead in each. Romney is chipping away at Obama’s poll lead, but the Democratic advantage in party-ID has increased across these polls. When looking at the polls in Ohio, it is becoming entirely possible that Mitt Romney should be able to win Ohio without ever showing a consistent lead in the polls, or any lead at all.

it is becoming entirely possible that Mitt Romney should be able to win Ohio without ever showing a consistent lead in the polls, or any lead at all

Nate was getting national attention long before his Nov. 2008 projections proved accurate.

No, actually he wasn't, unless you want to completely ignore the primaries, which tend to be harder to predict, and where Nate made his reputation as a political prognosticator. But that wouldn't fit the narrative you've been creating about Nate in your head for the last two months (or longer), so it's probably just easier to pretend that the 2008 primaries never happened.

BTW if you don't like Nate's pollster quality ratings, here's ARG's rating of polls/aggregators based on 2010:

YouGov/Polimetrix 0.072
SurveyUSA 0.077
RealClearPolitics.com 0.084
FiveThirtyEight.com 0.098
Pollster.com 0.100

When was the last time a baseball blogger popped up on February 1 and then was seen sitting on the set of "Baseball Tonight" two months later? It doesn't happen, and if it doesn't happen in baseball, it's even more incredible it happened in politics.

If a pollster calls someone who says they voted already, they are automatically passed through the likely-voter screen since they have, after all, voted. The problem with this can be best summed up by Gregory House: “Everybody lies.”

I'm really not sure what you're trying to prove.

All of this proves what, exactly? Are you denying his record? Are you implying he was some sort of Democratic plant? Is your position that Nate deliberate skews his model so that Democrats will like him? You're claiming his model is biased, but your only evidence seems to be "he got invited to be on MSNBC".

As of today, Nate still has Obama getting 50.2 percent of the popular vote despite Obama not even sniffing 50 percent in the tracking polls.

All of this proves what, exactly? Are you denying his record? Are you implying he was some sort of Democratic plant? Is your position that Nate deliberately skews his model so that Democrats will like him? You're claiming his model is biased, but your only evidence seems to be "he got invited to be on MSNBC".

All because he perjured himself and obstructed justice.

Say what you will about religion, and I'm sure we can all say quite a bit, not all religious people are quite so Mourdockian in their mouth-breather stupidity.

But if we're going to treat this logically, we should note that Rep. Joe Donnelly, the conservative Democrat challenging Mourdock, co-sponsored the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act of 2011. That was the bill that, in initial drafts, created a distinction between "rape" and "forcible rape." You've got a Republican candidate who believes that life starts at conception and won't make allowances for abortion, and a Democrat who believes that life starts at conception and HEY LOOK OVER THERE.

The idea that predicting the outcome of a two-person primary in which one of them made a huge tactical error should be enough to make a previous unknown the media's go-to expert on polling is kind of amazing.

If someone is trying to create some sort of narrative that Nate was an unnknown blogger sitting in his mother's basement cranking out posts on some forum and then the next day he was writing for WSJ and getting media interviews left and right they are either trolling or incredibly ignorant.

it is clear that President Obama has built up a broad lead in early voting in Ohio, where he is over-performing Romney across important demographics and geographies.

· Overall early vote turnout is comparable to turnout at the same date four years ago, and

· Likely Democrats outnumber likely Republicans amongst those that have requested absentee ballots in the state overall, as well as in 12 of the state's 15 most populous counties.

This clear lead amongst those that have already requested ballots suggests that Ohio's most intense and reliable voters support Democrats at much higher rates than they do Republicans, indicating an early lead for the President and the Democratic ticket in the state.

· We see strong evidence that Democrats are requesting and returning more early ballots than Republicans; this is evidence of superior Democratic voter mobilization programs.

· 49.5% of those that have requested absentee ballots in Ohio are likely to be Democrats. Moreover, of those that have already turned in their ballot, 55% are likely Democrats.

· Only 36.2% of those requesting ballots are likely Republicans. Of those that have returned ballots, only 33.7% are likely Republicans, implying that Republicans are facing a 13.3 percentage point partisan deficit in the early electorate, and a 21.3 percentage point deficit amongst those that have returned ballots.

· In early voting, Democrats are disproportionately turning out in Ohio.

Virginia

In Virginia, the President is leading amongst important demographics in a traditionally red state. If these trends extend to Election Day voting, the President will carry the state this fall.

The absentee voting data in Virginia show a closer race than what we're seeing in Ohio, but a distinct Democratic edge is also evident here:

· Likely Democrats have 1.4 % larger share of absentee ballot requests than likely Republicans. Among those that have returned a ballot, the Democratic edge more than doubles, to 3 percentage points.

· 42.6% of the women who have requested absentee ballots in Virginia are likely Democrats, compared with the 32% of overall requestors who are likely Republicans, indicating a 10.6 percentage point advantage for Democrats in this key constituency.

· Among unmarried women, who account for 29% of ballot requests, Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than 2.5 to 1, with 60.8% of requests coming from likely Democratic single women, while 24.2% come from Republicans. This gap widens further when we look to those that have returned their ballots, where Democrats lead more than threefold, 67% to 21.6%.

Not only are there more Democrats in the absentee voting pool, but the group of people who have already cast a ballot is more Democratic still. This is further evidence that the Democratic ground game is succeeding in getting their voters to take the actions necessary to cast a vote for the President, while Republicans are not keeping pace. If trends continue, Democrats should continue to hold an edge in absentee voting.

It's funny how the lefties feigning outrage over Mourdock's comments are conveniently overlooking the fact that Joe Donnelly cosponsored a bill that distinguished between rape and forcible rape:

The idea that predicting the outcome of a two-person primary in which one of them made a huge tactical error should be enough to make a previous unknown the media's go-to expert on polling is kind of amazing.

Whoa, you're getting very worked up here. I didn't believe it was even controversial to say that Nate's rise in the political world was both meteoric and unprecedented, but I guess some of Nate's friends or alleged friends feel like they need to put on a show every time his name is mentioned here.

I simply don't buy into the lefties' apparent belief that Nate's model is immune to being questioned.

Yeah, I'm just inventing the fact that Nate had zero track record in the political world prior to 2008. I guess, in the revisionist history being crafted, he and George Gallup were early rivals.

The crazy story is why ANYONE still puts Dick Morris in front of a camera, if for no other reason than to mock him.

It's funny how the lefties feigning outrage over Mourdock's comments are conveniently overlooking the fact that Joe Donnelly cosponsored a bill that distinguished between rape and forcible rape:

Well, in the RCP national polls list, Obama has 50% in one, while Romney has 50% in two, and the rest of them neither has 50%.
We're pretty sure that ONE of them is going to get 50%, right? Is it that unusual to assume that 538.com's system reads this, plus some state information, and decides that Obama is going to win the popular vote? If so, is 0.2% over the 50 point line really that outrageous? It's not like he has Obama with 53% of the vote.

Yeah, I'm just inventing the fact that Nate had zero track record in the political world prior to 2008.

I'm not sure of that at all. In fact, I would be willing to bet a BBTF sponsorship (up to $20) that neither candiate gets 50% of the popular vote.

If Obama gets 49.8%, I wouldn't point at a 50.2% prediction and shout "WRONG!"

In further news Dems have a 55,000 person lead in ballots as of yesterday in Ohio.

The only way Obama gets to 50 percent in the polls is if at least half of the undecideds break for Obama, which runs contrary to Nate's own historical data (see second chart).

When was Clinton convicted of perjury? What lawfully-empowered adjudicating body found this as matter of law?

At press time, God’s son, Jesus Christ, offered a countering view and confirmed He strongly believes pregnancies resulting from rape are, in fact, God’s gift.

Wasn't Truman the last Dem president to get 50+% of the vote before Obama in 2008? For whatever reason Dem presidential candidates seem to only get enough votes to become President when there is a third party drawing votes away.

The crazy story is why ANYONE still puts Dick Morris in front of a camera, if for no other reason than to mock him.

I think this is actually the first time I've even written anything here about Nate, and my comments with regard to this issue had nothing really to do with the reliability or lack thereof of his model. And of course, you weren't just commenting on his "meteoric and unprecedented" rise, but rather implying that it was somehow unearned. But I understand this to be nothing more than the typical backtracking and ad hominem that you deliver when you get all butthurt about something.

Another typical distortion of what has appeared here. We use various prediction models as reference points all the time, be it with regard to baseball or politics. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone on this site who has ever referred to any prediction model as "immune to being questioned", nor would you be able to find such a belief "apparent" (nice weasel word). But again, you attack strawmen when you get butthurt, so this too is expected.

Wasn't Truman the last Dem president to get 50+% of the vote before Obama in 2008? For whatever reason Dem presidential candidates seem to only get enough votes to become President when there is a third party drawing votes away.

What's even funnier is how some people like you don't seem to know that the law right now in various states recognizes different categories of rape.

This is the perfect example of the typical Joek "change the subject non-sequitur". Great use of meaningless and moveable endpoints.

In 2008, Dems had a D+20 advantage in early and absentee voting in Ohio. What's the split so far this year?

I wonder if Nate's popular vote prediction only measures the outcome between Obama vs Romney (and doesn't factor in the 3rd party).

I'm not sure that Nate says that really happens:

2. The evidence is not very convincing that polls break toward the challenger otherwise. (This seems to be true both for presidential elections and for other types of elections.)

Yes, and Democrat Joe Donnelly cosponsored a bill to take that distinction national, at least with regards to funding.

WND calls for executions of liberals, journalists as traitors

Oh God, please don't. Just no.

And this is the part where Joe asks "Then how is 538 any better than RCP"

I wonder if Nate's popular vote prediction only measures the outcome between Obama vs Romney (and doesn't factor in the 3rd party).


Wow.

Then at LGM you see the exact opposite- looking solely at Obama up Polls, and Nate and then point out that the RCP guy made some overtly partisan remarks back in 2000...

This is comical. Nate's track record in the political world was the entire subject.

What's LGM?

What's LGM?

I get pissed off when people want to argue that Bill Clinton did not commit perjury.
HE LIED UNDER OATH

And this is the part where Joe asks "Then how is 538 any better than RCP"

I thought that was Ray

There's absolutely nothing at all "interesting" or "fishy" about projecting Obama to narrowly win a state where he leads in the polls. Do you find the RCP polling average in Ohio--which, again, is the exact same 2 point advantage 538 gives him--to be a product of bias?

I thought one of the major purposes of Nate's model was to regress to the historical mean? If not, how is Nate's model any better than the RCP average?

HE LIED UNDER OATH

It looks like he does factor in third parties - he currently has Obama at 50.2% and Romney at 48.8%.

D+21.3

or so the article says

Actually, no. His track record before he started getting national attention was the subject. You conveniently moved that to "prior to 2008", as if nothing happened between December 31, 2007 his first appearance on television. That you either dismiss or ignore what happened in between is something I can't help with.

If this is the first time you've seen me write anything about Nate, then why are you claiming that I allege that Nate's model is biased? I haven't made such allegations in the past, and I didn't do so last night.