2012 Presidential Election Run-Up

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:
Again- if you look at all of the polls as a whole, then this is over.

[/quote]

I am happy to see your input, but can you put a bit more effort into it than this?

Your statement by itself is just an appeal to authority at this point.

If you are right, can you explain why? And no “look at the polls as a whole” isn’t explaining it, seeing as when I read things like this http://www.nationalpolls.com/stories/2012/0911-examiner-romney.html your post seems… I don’t know, baseless.[/quote]

Beans-

That is a very fair request. If you head over to realpolitics you can get all of the data from this seasons polls. If you look at the majority of the polls (something like 138 in the last year, only a small number go towards Romney). The law of large numbers tells me that any one poll is useless (hope you read that ZEB), but the combined results from all of the polls is really telling. This perspective says that Romney carried less than 20% of the polls. All of them were close, but Obama leads in so many it is hard to ignore.

I might be wrong, but the combined effect of all of those polls going in the same direction gives me enough confidence that you don’t need a chi-square test to see the trend.

jnd[/quote]

One quick note as you actually try to analyze what’s happening. A poll in general, any poll, is like a given time on your watch. Look at your watch right now it might say that it is 1:00. You are convinced it’s 1:00 and become the town crier running everywhere claiming that it’s 1:00. The only problem is you suddenly you look again and it’s 1:10.

When we have such a close race it doesn’t matter that Romney is behind in 80% of the polls, as long as that margin is only a few points. When that occurs there can be very minor shifts that turn it the other way around.

Many things go into such polling:

-Who asked the questions
-How they were asked
-Time of day (did you know that when being polled people tend to pick the incumbent later in the day and the challenger earlier in the day?

Then there are events that can take place which can change things:

-Economic numbers
-World events (as we’ve seen recently)
-Various endorsements
-Debates

Did you know that Ronald Reagan trailed Jimmy Carter by 10 points weeks before the election? Guys like you were running around trying to bet people that Carter was a shoe in. Do you know what happened? They had their first debate and people got a look at Reagan compared him to Carter and then decided that Reagan was better. After the first debate Carter never lead again. We’ve not even had one debate yet how do you know what will happen? You don’t!

I’ll stop right here but there are many, many other things to consider when looking at polling data. But you don’t strike me as the type of person who is really interested in learning anything about polling or Presidential races. You looked saw what you saw drew your conclusion and now your good to go.

So good for you, but polling and Presidential races like life, just isn’t that simple.

42

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Ohio is the biggest thing for Romney to worry about right now. His own strategists told Politico last week that without Ohio, his road to the white house is extremely difficult. And it’s not looking great right now.[/quote]

That is one of the smartest things said on this thread!

This is an electoral battle not a popular vote battle.

And as you say Romney must win Ohio or he loses the Presidency.

He also must win Florida or he loses. But I think he has a very good chance to win Florida, Ohio is not looking good. And that’s why I questioned his pick of Paul Ryan. While I love Ryan I think politically he should have gone with someone, anyone who could have delivered Ohio. Perhaps Portman would have been a better pick.

43

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:
what is your evidence for Romney?

jnd
[/quote]

Why Romney has a chance:

  1. “A man can fail many times, but he isn’t a failure until he begins to blame somebody else.”
    -John Burroughs

  2. The economy sucks, people are broke, out of work, and angry

  3. I feel that Obama is walking a thin line with his #1, and promoting class warfare. All it will take is one miscalculation, just one. Now I doubt this will happen because he is very very good at it, has a whole party actually backing this shit, but see the last part of #2 coupled with he thinks he is as good as he is.

  4. It doesn’t seem voter turnout will be as high as 2008.

  5. The 2010 elections

  6. Scott Brown still has a lead over Warren in MA after she spoke at her convention and he didn’t even go to his.

  7. I live in MA, and am running into more and more conservatives than ever before. One of the best things Obama ever did for me was piss me off to the point where I actually informed myself. I’m not the only one.

  8. The economy sucks
    [/quote]

The strongest point that you have above is number 4. As I said earlier 8 million blacks did not vote in 2008. If that number grows to even 9 million Romney could win it. There are also many who are very disapointed in Obama for his lack of ability to turn this economy around. They may “say” they support him in a poll. But taking time out of their day and going out and actually voting for him is another matter. The anti Obama vote however is quite strong.

44

[quote]ZEB wrote:

The strongest point that you have above is number 4. As I said earlier 8 million blacks did not vote in 2008. If that number grows to even 9 million Romney could win it. There are also many who are very disapointed in Obama for his lack of ability to turn this economy around. They may “say” they support him in a poll. But taking time out of their day and going out and actually voting for him is another matter. The anti Obama vote however is quite strong.

[/quote]

I feel like Obama is losing the Jewish and Strong Chirstian votes as well. Whether they don’t vote or vote for Romney, the race seems close enough where, like you said, just a couple points drop off could make or break a county, which could make or break a state.

45

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

The strongest point that you have above is number 4. As I said earlier 8 million blacks did not vote in 2008. If that number grows to even 9 million Romney could win it. There are also many who are very disapointed in Obama for his lack of ability to turn this economy around. They may “say” they support him in a poll. But taking time out of their day and going out and actually voting for him is another matter. The anti Obama vote however is quite strong.

[/quote]

I feel like Obama is losing the Jewish and Strong Chirstian votes as well. Whether they don’t vote or vote for Romney, the race seems close enough where, like you said, just a couple points drop off could make or break a county, which could make or break a state. [/quote]

Yeah, unless some unforseen circumstance changes things this is going to be a nail biter.

But I don’t believe that people are hurting even though unemployment has been over 8% for 43 straight months.

Crime rates are at a low which is never the case during hard economic times. Usually during a deep recession crime rates are high. The reason they are so low is that there are more people on government aid. Hence, people are not hurting they’re taking the Obama hand out and in turn most will vote for Obama instead of against him. He has created an entire constituency by the many give-a-way programs.

If he wins it will be because of this factor as no President has ever won reelection with economic numbers such as what Obama has delivered.

And this must also be driving the Romney people crazy as they realize exactly what I’ve just said. How do you get around those facts?

Obama tanks the economy but then uses taxpayer dollars to give to the people that he harmed with his policies. Free money usually equals a new voting block.

Sad but true.

46

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:

Some of these reasons are totally based on your opinion. 130+ polls are not my opinion, but the facts.

jnd
[/quote]

Serious with this post?

You asked me for my opinion first off. Secondly how on earth is a poll of other people’s opinion a “fact”?

It is a fact that a poll has presented other people’s opinions in the way it has. But just because you lump a small sample of opinions together doesn’t suddenly turn opinion into fact. It very well may be an accurate prediction of what will happen, but it in no way turns opinion into facts.[/quote]

I asked for evidence- not your opinion. They are not the same.

130+ polls all basically going in the same direction is a fact…

jnd

47

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:
Again- if you look at all of the polls as a whole, then this is over.

[/quote]

I am happy to see your input, but can you put a bit more effort into it than this?

Your statement by itself is just an appeal to authority at this point.

If you are right, can you explain why? And no “look at the polls as a whole” isn’t explaining it, seeing as when I read things like this http://www.nationalpolls.com/stories/2012/0911-examiner-romney.html your post seems… I don’t know, baseless.[/quote]

Beans-

That is a very fair request. If you head over to realpolitics you can get all of the data from this seasons polls. If you look at the majority of the polls (something like 138 in the last year, only a small number go towards Romney). The law of large numbers tells me that any one poll is useless (hope you read that ZEB), but the combined results from all of the polls is really telling. This perspective says that Romney carried less than 20% of the polls. All of them were close, but Obama leads in so many it is hard to ignore.

I might be wrong, but the combined effect of all of those polls going in the same direction gives me enough confidence that you don’t need a chi-square test to see the trend.

jnd[/quote]

One quick note as you actually try to analyze what’s happening. A poll in general, any poll, is like a given time on your watch. Look at your watch right now it might say that it is 1:00. You are convinced it’s 1:00 and become the town crier running everywhere claiming that it’s 1:00. The only problem is you suddenly you look again and it’s 1:10.

When we have such a close race it doesn’t matter that Romney is behind in 80% of the polls, as long as that margin is only a few points. When that occurs there can be very minor shifts that turn it the other way around.

Many things go into such polling:

-Who asked the questions
-How they were asked
-Time of day (did you know that when being polled people tend to pick the incumbent later in the day and the challenger earlier in the day?

Then there are events that can take place which can change things:

-Economic numbers
-World events (as we’ve seen recently)
-Various endorsements
-Debates

Did you know that Ronald Reagan trailed Jimmy Carter by 10 points weeks before the election? Guys like you were running around trying to bet people that Carter was a shoe in. Do you know what happened? They had their first debate and people got a look at Reagan compared him to Carter and then decided that Reagan was better. After the first debate Carter never lead again. We’ve not even had one debate yet how do you know what will happen? You don’t!

I’ll stop right here but there are many, many other things to consider when looking at polling data. But you don’t strike me as the type of person who is really interested in learning anything about polling or Presidential races. You looked saw what you saw drew your conclusion and now your good to go.

So good for you, but polling and Presidential races like life, just isn’t that simple.[/quote]

Thanks for explaining polling to me-- I was confused about what they represent. You can try and reason past the individual polls, but the law of large numbers is really hard to deny. You might want to belly up to the bar with your 2 cents, but your speculation is not evidence at all- whereas the numbers are.

jnd

48

[quote]ZEB wrote:
How do you get around those facts?

Free money usually equals a new voting block.

Sad but true.

[/quote]

I have a long winded, and half formulated responce to that I will post at a later date, but:

I say if Romney fades after the debates, he layes it all out on the table. Fuck it, swing for the fences. Bring this up, show all the charts and graphs on how this type activity keeps people poor. Point out how the dems have a vested interest in keeping poor people poor, if poor people vote for them.

I say go big or go home, because if Obama wins, and the economy doesn’t get working again, and fast, by the time 2016 rolls around, the country will be broken, ashamed and have no choice but to cut these people off. That hardship will be the opportunity for the republicans to actually fix something, assuming they can formulate a good plan, and gain support from all demographics that are interested in their success, their kid’s freedom and the country’s greatness.

49

[quote]jnd wrote:

I asked for evidence- not your opinion. They are not the same.

130+ polls all basically going in the same direction is a fact…

jnd

[/quote]

Yes the adulterated aggregation of other people’s opinions are now “fact”, while my opinion of what happening and what people’s opinion might be, which you asked for, is moot. The race is over 60 days out.

You win the internet.

50

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Ohio is the biggest thing for Romney to worry about right now. His own strategists told Politico last week that without Ohio, his road to the white house is extremely difficult. And it’s not looking great right now.[/quote]

That is one of the smartest things said on this thread!

This is an electoral battle not a popular vote battle.

And as you say Romney must win Ohio or he loses the Presidency.

He also must win Florida or he loses. But I think he has a very good chance to win Florida, Ohio is not looking good. And that’s why I questioned his pick of Paul Ryan. While I love Ryan I think politically he should have gone with someone, anyone who could have delivered Ohio. Perhaps Portman would have been a better pick.

[/quote]

I agree completely, I’d have gone with Portman. I actually like the guy too. We’ll see if Ryan’s popularity with the base is enough to justify his pick–it may well be.

If I had to bet from looking at the numbers right now, I’d say Ohio goes blue and Florida red. I do think that turnout will give Romney enough of an edge to overcome a one or two point deficit in the polls, but he should be worried about anything over 4.

Of course, these things change. And I’m sure Ohio is going to see one hell of an ad blitz from Romney. Anyone saying that the race is over is wrong and is setting themselves up to look like a fool. This in particular caught my eye: Why Barack Obama Will Win the Election Easily | The Fiscal Times

51

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

The strongest point that you have above is number 4. As I said earlier 8 million blacks did not vote in 2008. If that number grows to even 9 million Romney could win it. There are also many who are very disapointed in Obama for his lack of ability to turn this economy around. They may “say” they support him in a poll. But taking time out of their day and going out and actually voting for him is another matter. The anti Obama vote however is quite strong.

[/quote]

I feel like Obama is losing the Jewish and Strong Chirstian votes as well. Whether they don’t vote or vote for Romney, the race seems close enough where, like you said, just a couple points drop off could make or break a county, which could make or break a state. [/quote]

Yeah, unless some unforseen circumstance changes things this is going to be a nail biter.

But I don’t believe that people are hurting even though unemployment has been over 8% for 43 straight months.

Crime rates are at a low which is never the case during hard economic times. Usually during a deep recession crime rates are high. The reason they are so low is that there are more people on government aid. Hence, people are not hurting they’re taking the Obama hand out and in turn most will vote for Obama instead of against him. He has created an entire constituency by the many give-a-way programs.

If he wins it will be because of this factor as no President has ever won reelection with economic numbers such as what Obama has delivered.

And this must also be driving the Romney people crazy as they realize exactly what I’ve just said. How do you get around those facts?

Obama tanks the economy but then uses taxpayer dollars to give to the people that he harmed with his policies. Free money usually equals a new voting block.

Sad but true.

[/quote]

This speaks to what you are saying here.

52

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

The strongest point that you have above is number 4. As I said earlier 8 million blacks did not vote in 2008. If that number grows to even 9 million Romney could win it. There are also many who are very disapointed in Obama for his lack of ability to turn this economy around. They may “say” they support him in a poll. But taking time out of their day and going out and actually voting for him is another matter. The anti Obama vote however is quite strong.

[/quote]

I feel like Obama is losing the Jewish and Strong Chirstian votes as well. Whether they don’t vote or vote for Romney, the race seems close enough where, like you said, just a couple points drop off could make or break a county, which could make or break a state. [/quote]

Yeah, unless some unforseen circumstance changes things this is going to be a nail biter.

But I don’t believe that people are hurting even though unemployment has been over 8% for 43 straight months.

Crime rates are at a low which is never the case during hard economic times. Usually during a deep recession crime rates are high. The reason they are so low is that there are more people on government aid. Hence, people are not hurting they’re taking the Obama hand out and in turn most will vote for Obama instead of against him. He has created an entire constituency by the many give-a-way programs.

If he wins it will be because of this factor as no President has ever won reelection with economic numbers such as what Obama has delivered.

And this must also be driving the Romney people crazy as they realize exactly what I’ve just said. How do you get around those facts?

Obama tanks the economy but then uses taxpayer dollars to give to the people that he harmed with his policies. Free money usually equals a new voting block.

Sad but true.

[/quote]

This speaks to what you are saying here.[/quote]

"Barack Obama in his grave acceptance speech fears that “this nation’s promise is reserved for the few.”

You know the President is right just for the wrong reasons. The American dream is reserved. Reserved for the few willing to work for it.

53

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:
Again- if you look at all of the polls as a whole, then this is over.

[/quote]

I am happy to see your input, but can you put a bit more effort into it than this?

Your statement by itself is just an appeal to authority at this point.

If you are right, can you explain why? And no “look at the polls as a whole” isn’t explaining it, seeing as when I read things like this http://www.nationalpolls.com/stories/2012/0911-examiner-romney.html your post seems… I don’t know, baseless.[/quote]

Beans-

That is a very fair request. If you head over to realpolitics you can get all of the data from this seasons polls. If you look at the majority of the polls (something like 138 in the last year, only a small number go towards Romney). The law of large numbers tells me that any one poll is useless (hope you read that ZEB), but the combined results from all of the polls is really telling. This perspective says that Romney carried less than 20% of the polls. All of them were close, but Obama leads in so many it is hard to ignore.

I might be wrong, but the combined effect of all of those polls going in the same direction gives me enough confidence that you don’t need a chi-square test to see the trend.

jnd[/quote]

One quick note as you actually try to analyze what’s happening. A poll in general, any poll, is like a given time on your watch. Look at your watch right now it might say that it is 1:00. You are convinced it’s 1:00 and become the town crier running everywhere claiming that it’s 1:00. The only problem is you suddenly you look again and it’s 1:10.

When we have such a close race it doesn’t matter that Romney is behind in 80% of the polls, as long as that margin is only a few points. When that occurs there can be very minor shifts that turn it the other way around.

Many things go into such polling:

-Who asked the questions
-How they were asked
-Time of day (did you know that when being polled people tend to pick the incumbent later in the day and the challenger earlier in the day?

Then there are events that can take place which can change things:

-Economic numbers
-World events (as we’ve seen recently)
-Various endorsements
-Debates

Did you know that Ronald Reagan trailed Jimmy Carter by 10 points weeks before the election? Guys like you were running around trying to bet people that Carter was a shoe in. Do you know what happened? They had their first debate and people got a look at Reagan compared him to Carter and then decided that Reagan was better. After the first debate Carter never lead again. We’ve not even had one debate yet how do you know what will happen? You don’t!

I’ll stop right here but there are many, many other things to consider when looking at polling data. But you don’t strike me as the type of person who is really interested in learning anything about polling or Presidential races. You looked saw what you saw drew your conclusion and now your good to go.

So good for you, but polling and Presidential races like life, just isn’t that simple.[/quote]

Thanks for explaining polling to me-- I was confused about what they represent. You can try and reason past the individual polls, but the law of large numbers is really hard to deny. You might want to belly up to the bar with your 2 cents, but your speculation is not evidence at all- whereas the numbers are.

jnd[/quote]

I gave you evidence of one particular race where after the first debate the person behind by 10 ended up winning by about 5 points. There are many other examples of similar things happening in a Presidential race. But you actually have to understand and appreciate the history of it…which you do not.

Anyway, believe what you want I don’t really care. I’m here to discuss the race with those still open minded enough to look at all the evidence.

Bye.

54

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
How do you get around those facts?

Free money usually equals a new voting block.

Sad but true.

[/quote]

I have a long winded, and half formulated responce to that I will post at a later date, but:

I say if Romney fades after the debates, he layes it all out on the table. Fuck it, swing for the fences. Bring this up, show all the charts and graphs on how this type activity keeps people poor. Point out how the dems have a vested interest in keeping poor people poor, if poor people vote for them.

I say go big or go home, because if Obama wins, and the economy doesn’t get working again, and fast, by the time 2016 rolls around, the country will be broken, ashamed and have no choice but to cut these people off. That hardship will be the opportunity for the republicans to actually fix something, assuming they can formulate a good plan, and gain support from all demographics that are interested in their success, their kid’s freedom and the country’s greatness.[/quote]

I agree with you to a point. I think Romney should be just aggressive enough to sway the voters but not so aggressive that he seems over the top. So far he’s played it far too safe as if he was the incumbent and had a large lead. He’s made other mistakes as well such as allowing Obama to paint him as an evil rich guy. And picking a VP candidate that may not allow him to win Ohio. But even with those things behind him if he can win the frist debate convincingly he could take the lead and the Presidency …it’s that important!

55

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:
Again- if you look at all of the polls as a whole, then this is over.

[/quote]

I am happy to see your input, but can you put a bit more effort into it than this?

Your statement by itself is just an appeal to authority at this point.

If you are right, can you explain why? And no “look at the polls as a whole” isn’t explaining it, seeing as when I read things like this http://www.nationalpolls.com/stories/2012/0911-examiner-romney.html your post seems… I don’t know, baseless.[/quote]

Beans-

That is a very fair request. If you head over to realpolitics you can get all of the data from this seasons polls. If you look at the majority of the polls (something like 138 in the last year, only a small number go towards Romney). The law of large numbers tells me that any one poll is useless (hope you read that ZEB), but the combined results from all of the polls is really telling. This perspective says that Romney carried less than 20% of the polls. All of them were close, but Obama leads in so many it is hard to ignore.

I might be wrong, but the combined effect of all of those polls going in the same direction gives me enough confidence that you don’t need a chi-square test to see the trend.

jnd[/quote]

One quick note as you actually try to analyze what’s happening. A poll in general, any poll, is like a given time on your watch. Look at your watch right now it might say that it is 1:00. You are convinced it’s 1:00 and become the town crier running everywhere claiming that it’s 1:00. The only problem is you suddenly you look again and it’s 1:10.

When we have such a close race it doesn’t matter that Romney is behind in 80% of the polls, as long as that margin is only a few points. When that occurs there can be very minor shifts that turn it the other way around.

Many things go into such polling:

-Who asked the questions
-How they were asked
-Time of day (did you know that when being polled people tend to pick the incumbent later in the day and the challenger earlier in the day?

Then there are events that can take place which can change things:

-Economic numbers
-World events (as we’ve seen recently)
-Various endorsements
-Debates

Did you know that Ronald Reagan trailed Jimmy Carter by 10 points weeks before the election? Guys like you were running around trying to bet people that Carter was a shoe in. Do you know what happened? They had their first debate and people got a look at Reagan compared him to Carter and then decided that Reagan was better. After the first debate Carter never lead again. We’ve not even had one debate yet how do you know what will happen? You don’t!

I’ll stop right here but there are many, many other things to consider when looking at polling data. But you don’t strike me as the type of person who is really interested in learning anything about polling or Presidential races. You looked saw what you saw drew your conclusion and now your good to go.

So good for you, but polling and Presidential races like life, just isn’t that simple.[/quote]

The story of Carter leading by 10 points is pure fucking BS. Someone has his nose up Limbaugh’s ass. Check your facts before you perpetuate this myth.

Unemployment was sky high- hostages in Iran, and Carter had a 10 point lead? Bullshit sir.

go ahead, ask me for proof… Nevermind- here it is. Look a bunch of polls all trending towards Reagan. Not one poll- a bunch.

Oh you meant among single adult homes only. That’s the ticket.

jnd

56

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Ohio is the biggest thing for Romney to worry about right now. His own strategists told Politico last week that without Ohio, his road to the white house is extremely difficult. And it’s not looking great right now.[/quote]

That is one of the smartest things said on this thread!

This is an electoral battle not a popular vote battle.

And as you say Romney must win Ohio or he loses the Presidency.

He also must win Florida or he loses. But I think he has a very good chance to win Florida, Ohio is not looking good. And that’s why I questioned his pick of Paul Ryan. While I love Ryan I think politically he should have gone with someone, anyone who could have delivered Ohio. Perhaps Portman would have been a better pick.

[/quote]

I agree completely, I’d have gone with Portman. I actually like the guy too. We’ll see if Ryan’s popularity with the base is enough to justify his pick–it may well be.

If I had to bet from looking at the numbers right now, I’d say Ohio goes blue and Florida red. I do think that turnout will give Romney enough of an edge to overcome a one or two point deficit in the polls, but he should be worried about anything over 4.

Of course, these things change. And I’m sure Ohio is going to see one hell of an ad blitz from Romney. Anyone saying that the race is over is wrong and is setting themselves up to look like a fool. This in particular caught my eye: Why Barack Obama Will Win the Election Easily | The Fiscal Times

[/quote]

And of course you are correct.

But according to some posters on this thread NOTHING CAN CHANGE IT’S ALL OVER–LOL…

57

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:
Again- if you look at all of the polls as a whole, then this is over.

[/quote]

I am happy to see your input, but can you put a bit more effort into it than this?

Your statement by itself is just an appeal to authority at this point.

If you are right, can you explain why? And no “look at the polls as a whole” isn’t explaining it, seeing as when I read things like this http://www.nationalpolls.com/stories/2012/0911-examiner-romney.html your post seems… I don’t know, baseless.[/quote]

Beans-

That is a very fair request. If you head over to realpolitics you can get all of the data from this seasons polls. If you look at the majority of the polls (something like 138 in the last year, only a small number go towards Romney). The law of large numbers tells me that any one poll is useless (hope you read that ZEB), but the combined results from all of the polls is really telling. This perspective says that Romney carried less than 20% of the polls. All of them were close, but Obama leads in so many it is hard to ignore.

I might be wrong, but the combined effect of all of those polls going in the same direction gives me enough confidence that you don’t need a chi-square test to see the trend.

jnd[/quote]

One quick note as you actually try to analyze what’s happening. A poll in general, any poll, is like a given time on your watch. Look at your watch right now it might say that it is 1:00. You are convinced it’s 1:00 and become the town crier running everywhere claiming that it’s 1:00. The only problem is you suddenly you look again and it’s 1:10.

When we have such a close race it doesn’t matter that Romney is behind in 80% of the polls, as long as that margin is only a few points. When that occurs there can be very minor shifts that turn it the other way around.

Many things go into such polling:

-Who asked the questions
-How they were asked
-Time of day (did you know that when being polled people tend to pick the incumbent later in the day and the challenger earlier in the day?

Then there are events that can take place which can change things:

-Economic numbers
-World events (as we’ve seen recently)
-Various endorsements
-Debates

Did you know that Ronald Reagan trailed Jimmy Carter by 10 points weeks before the election? Guys like you were running around trying to bet people that Carter was a shoe in. Do you know what happened? They had their first debate and people got a look at Reagan compared him to Carter and then decided that Reagan was better. After the first debate Carter never lead again. We’ve not even had one debate yet how do you know what will happen? You don’t!

I’ll stop right here but there are many, many other things to consider when looking at polling data. But you don’t strike me as the type of person who is really interested in learning anything about polling or Presidential races. You looked saw what you saw drew your conclusion and now your good to go.

So good for you, but polling and Presidential races like life, just isn’t that simple.[/quote]

Thanks for explaining polling to me-- I was confused about what they represent. You can try and reason past the individual polls, but the law of large numbers is really hard to deny. You might want to belly up to the bar with your 2 cents, but your speculation is not evidence at all- whereas the numbers are.

jnd[/quote]

I gave you evidence of one particular race where after the first debate the person behind by 10 ended up winning by about 5 points. There are many other examples of similar things happening in a Presidential race. But you actually have to understand and appreciate the history of it…which you do not.

Anyway, believe what you want I don’t really care. I’m here to discuss the race with those still open minded enough to look at all the evidence.

Bye.[/quote]

And you have to stop revising history to match your ideas. Feel free to correct me.

jeez you look really silly now.

jnd

58

[quote]jnd wrote:

The story of Carter leading by 10 points is pure fucking BS. Someone has his nose up Limbaugh’s ass. Check your facts before you perpetuate this myth.

Unemployment was sky high- hostages in Iran, and Carter had a 10 point lead? Bullshit sir.

go ahead, ask me for proof… Nevermind- here it is. Look a bunch of polls all trending towards Reagan. Not one poll- a bunch.

Oh you meant among single adult homes only. That’s the ticket.

jnd[/quote]

I wasn’t sure where you coming from but now I know after reading the slam against Limbaugh. You’re an Obama supporter. Ha…Maybe you can tell us all why Obama deserves reelection.

Anyway, Carter was indeed up by 10 as you will see on my link. And then in late September he was up by as much as 4 points just like your hero Obama! (you like em a lot :slight_smile: come on say it.

So who won that race? Oh yeah that would be Reagan.

Just as I said that lead in late September meant nothing by election day!

So pull your head out of your ass and read some political history.

Start here and then expand:

59

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:
Again- if you look at all of the polls as a whole, then this is over.

[/quote]

I am happy to see your input, but can you put a bit more effort into it than this?

Your statement by itself is just an appeal to authority at this point.

If you are right, can you explain why? And no “look at the polls as a whole” isn’t explaining it, seeing as when I read things like this http://www.nationalpolls.com/stories/2012/0911-examiner-romney.html your post seems… I don’t know, baseless.[/quote]

Beans-

That is a very fair request. If you head over to realpolitics you can get all of the data from this seasons polls. If you look at the majority of the polls (something like 138 in the last year, only a small number go towards Romney). The law of large numbers tells me that any one poll is useless (hope you read that ZEB), but the combined results from all of the polls is really telling. This perspective says that Romney carried less than 20% of the polls. All of them were close, but Obama leads in so many it is hard to ignore.

I might be wrong, but the combined effect of all of those polls going in the same direction gives me enough confidence that you don’t need a chi-square test to see the trend.

jnd[/quote]

One quick note as you actually try to analyze what’s happening. A poll in general, any poll, is like a given time on your watch. Look at your watch right now it might say that it is 1:00. You are convinced it’s 1:00 and become the town crier running everywhere claiming that it’s 1:00. The only problem is you suddenly you look again and it’s 1:10.

When we have such a close race it doesn’t matter that Romney is behind in 80% of the polls, as long as that margin is only a few points. When that occurs there can be very minor shifts that turn it the other way around.

Many things go into such polling:

-Who asked the questions
-How they were asked
-Time of day (did you know that when being polled people tend to pick the incumbent later in the day and the challenger earlier in the day?

Then there are events that can take place which can change things:

-Economic numbers
-World events (as we’ve seen recently)
-Various endorsements
-Debates

Did you know that Ronald Reagan trailed Jimmy Carter by 10 points weeks before the election? Guys like you were running around trying to bet people that Carter was a shoe in. Do you know what happened? They had their first debate and people got a look at Reagan compared him to Carter and then decided that Reagan was better. After the first debate Carter never lead again. We’ve not even had one debate yet how do you know what will happen? You don’t!

I’ll stop right here but there are many, many other things to consider when looking at polling data. But you don’t strike me as the type of person who is really interested in learning anything about polling or Presidential races. You looked saw what you saw drew your conclusion and now your good to go.

So good for you, but polling and Presidential races like life, just isn’t that simple.[/quote]

Thanks for explaining polling to me-- I was confused about what they represent. You can try and reason past the individual polls, but the law of large numbers is really hard to deny. You might want to belly up to the bar with your 2 cents, but your speculation is not evidence at all- whereas the numbers are.

jnd[/quote]

I gave you evidence of one particular race where after the first debate the person behind by 10 ended up winning by about 5 points. There are many other examples of similar things happening in a Presidential race. But you actually have to understand and appreciate the history of it…which you do not.

Anyway, believe what you want I don’t really care. I’m here to discuss the race with those still open minded enough to look at all the evidence.

Bye.[/quote]

And you have to stop revising history to match your ideas. Feel free to correct me.

jeez you look really silly now.

jnd
[/quote]

And you look like one more Obama apologist.

Read some history learn a few things and then post…

60

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:

The story of Carter leading by 10 points is pure fucking BS. Someone has his nose up Limbaugh’s ass. Check your facts before you perpetuate this myth.

Unemployment was sky high- hostages in Iran, and Carter had a 10 point lead? Bullshit sir.

go ahead, ask me for proof… Nevermind- here it is. Look a bunch of polls all trending towards Reagan. Not one poll- a bunch.

Oh you meant among single adult homes only. That’s the ticket.

jnd[/quote]

I wasn’t sure where you coming from but now I know after reading the slam against Limbaugh. You’re an Obama supporter. Ha…Maybe you can tell us all why Obama deserves reelection.

Anyway, Carter was indeed up by 10 as you will see on my link. And then in late September he was up by as much as 4 points just like your hero Obama! (you like em a lot :slight_smile: come on say it.

So who won that race? Oh yeah that would be Reagan.

Just as I said that lead in late September meant nothing by election day!

So pull your head out of your ass and read some political history.

Start here and then expand:

[/quote]

So you are going to ignore the details of the link that I attached with MANY polls, and focus only on one poll? What’s so special about that poll is that it supports your point of view.

Christ- you are a tool. Push your head further into the sand and keep perpetuating a false idea. You are hopeless.

Now that you “know where I am coming from” you can ignore reality and sit in your echo chamber- but you are still wrong.

Good luck dude- you obviously need it.
jnd