So what about the "Democrats got more time" thing?

[kalm]

Blaming the refs.

Easy for you to say.

[Wedgebuster]

So fucking what? These debates have done nothing to sway anybody, the lines were drawn long ago, the truly undecided is probably more undecided as to whether to even bother voting or not, the "sways" in the polls stay within their "margin of error" so basically, there has not been, nor will there be any significant swing the rest of the way.

This election is for the Supreme Court to decide..

[Bronco]

Not true
Women have been swayed.

Also Mitt's likeability has gone up


Of the 4 "impartial" moderators which one do you think will vote for Mitt

[Bronco]

I think Candy might vote for Mitt

Her credibility was destroyed by Obama in that debate and she knows it

Candy...get that transcript we gave you before the debate...this will follow her for a while
Wonder how many other transcripts she had at her desk? How did BHO know she had it?
Questions

[Wedgebuster]

Not true
Women have been swayed.

Also Mitt's likeability has gone up


Of the 4 "impartial" moderators which one do you think will vote for Mitt

No, they have been placed in "binders."

[Ibanez]

Crowley was neutral - but of course, in the eyes of the lunatic right, that means she was biased.

First debate was clearly biased towards Romney - he walked all over the Moderator.

VP and last debate were neutral as well.

Is it' always Opposite Day where you live?

[BlueHen86]

All of the complaining that some people have done about the biased moderators or extra three minutes of talking time you would think they are part of the 47 percent Mitt was talking about when he said some people consider themselves victims.

They must be closet Obama supporters.

We would have won, but the refs cheated!

[JohnStOnge]

All of the complaining that some people have done about the biased moderators or extra three minutes of talking time you would think they are part of the 47 percent Mitt was talking about when he said some people consider themselves victims.

They must be closet Obama supporters.

We would have won, but the refs cheated!

I think if a bias exists it's not conscious. The time difference is not great. But it's nevertheless true that the consistency of the situation would not, going in, likely occur by chance.

I do think what Candy Crowley did jumping in to stop Romney in mid sentence and correct him was pretty bad. You have to admit that a moderator doing something like that in the middle of a debate REALLY hurts the candidate she does it to impression wise and REALLY helps the other one.

And, you know, I don't think we run into too many situations where the refs in sports actually cheat. But they do affect the outcomes of games sometimes. Sometimes they make bad calls such that, had they made the right calls, the outcomes of the games in terms of who won or lost would have been different. We all know that's true even if some of us don't like to say it. Such things may come close to evening out during most games. But they can still, on balance, change the outcome.

There's a certain cultural thing, I think, where people say there's something wrong with recognizing that. But it's reality.

[JohnStOnge]

We would have won, but the refs cheated!

BTW to this day I think the refs cost your Delaware boys a national championship when they spotted the ball on that fourth down run by Eastern Washington. I watched that play over and over again and remain convinced that he was down short of the mark but got a good spot.

Not that I think the refs cheated. And I'm sure if one went through every play in the game one could find times where maybe they were off a little bit and it helped Delaware and maybe they were off a little bit and it helped Eastern Washington. But that play was huge. Where they spotted the ball pretty much made the difference between who won and who lost a national championship game.

[AZGrizFan]

All of the complaining that some people have done about the biased moderators or extra three minutes of talking time you would think they are part of the 47 percent Mitt was talking about when he said some people consider themselves victims.

They must be closet Obama supporters.

We would have won, but the refs cheated!

Personally, the more Obama talks without a teleprompter, the more stupid he sounds. Fire away, Barry!

[BlueHen86]

All of the complaining that some people have done about the biased moderators or extra three minutes of talking time you would think they are part of the 47 percent Mitt was talking about when he said some people consider themselves victims.

They must be closet Obama supporters.

We would have won, but the refs cheated!

Personally, the more Obama talks without a teleprompter, the more stupid he sounds. Fire away, Barry!

Which is why crying about 3 minutes is stupid. It's what you say, not how long you talk. Lincoln spoke for about 2 minutes at Gettysburg, the other guy spoke for 2 hours. Lincolns speech is what is remembered. I doubt if Abe cried about talking time after the event was over.

[89Hen]

We would have won, but the refs cheated!

BTW to this day I think the refs cost your Delaware boys a national championship when they spotted the ball on that fourth down run by Eastern Washington. I watched that play over and over again and remain convinced that he was down short of the mark but got a good spot.

Not that I think the refs cheated. And I'm sure if one went through every play in the game one could find times where maybe they were off a little bit and it helped Delaware and maybe they were off a little bit and it helped Eastern Washington. But that play was huge. Where they spotted the ball pretty much made the difference between who won and who lost a national championship game.

They actually corrected the spot, but then blew the replacing of the chains. I still (obviously) have the photo evidence that clearly shows this. There's not a person alive that can refute that blown call. But the Hens have no excuse for blowing that game.

[JohnStOnge]

They actually corrected the spot, but then blew the replacing of the chains. I still (obviously) have the photo evidence that clearly shows this. There's not a person alive that can refute that blown call. But the Hens have no excuse for blowing that game.

I forgot about the replacing the chain part. What I vividly remember is replaying it click by click over and over and every time seeing that the guy was down before the ball got to the first down spot. And I don't think I I saw that out of bias because I was pulling for Eastern Washington due to being sick of the CAA dominating the subdivision, wanting a team from West of the Mississippi to win the title because of all that East/West of the Mississippi discussion, etc.

[JohnStOnge]

Which is why crying about 3 minutes is stupid.

The point of the thread wasn't to cry about this particular instance. It was to talk about the question of whether or not a bias does exist. All of the moderators were from the portions of the media frequently accused of a liberal bias. Going in, I think most people would say they personally tend towards the liberal side of things.

The evidence for bias in a mathematical sense is fairly strong. In statistics in a situation like this, "bias" means that if you were to repeat the same type of thing infinitely the mean difference in time give to the candidates would be zero and the frequency of each candidate getting more time be 50% on each side. And we can be close to 90% confident that's not the case.

If the reason for the mathematical bias was a philosophical bias on the part of the moderator each time I don't think it was intentional. I think it was more like a thing where they consciously tried to allow each side the same amount of time, not interrupt one side more than another, ect. It's just that their subconscious bias kept them from completely succeeding in doing that. They just could not help, in actuality, tending to cut the Republican off more, more frequently not allow them to finish their thoughts, etc.

[BlueHen86]

Which is why crying about 3 minutes is stupid.

The point of the thread wasn't to cry about this particular instance. It was to talk about the question of whether or not a bias does exist. All of the moderators were from the portions of the media frequently accused of a liberal bias. Going in, I think most people would say they personally tend towards the liberal side of things.

The evidence for bias in a mathematical sense is fairly strong. In statistics in a situation like this, "bias" means that if you were to repeat the same type of thing infinitely the mean difference in time give to the candidates would be zero and the frequency of each candidate getting more time be 50% on each side. And we can be close to 90% confident that's not the case.

If the reason for the mathematical bias was a philosophical bias on the part of the moderator each time I don't think it was intentional. I think it was more like a thing where they consciously tried to allow each side the same amount of time, not interrupt one side more than another, ect. It's just that their subconscious bias kept them from completely succeeding in doing that. They just could not help, in actuality, tending to cut the Republican off more, more frequently not allow them to finish their thoughts, etc.

What? You're saying that there is such a thing as media bias? BS. Media bias is like global warming, it doesn't exist.

Obama got more time because he is rude and Romney didn't have anything else to add. Romney was being cautious.