Latest Polling Information Reveals....

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

Not really related to the Presidential Election, but California Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown makes racially charged statement, stating that those who donate to anti-tax campaigns are members of the KKK…

Gov. Jerry Brown appeared to make a racially charged reference to the Ku Klux Klan during a speech to the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People on Friday, comparing the secretive Arizona nonprofit trying to defeat his tax-hike measure to people ?who liked to run around in hoods.?

According to the Sacramento Bee, Brown used part of his speech to criticize the Arizona group, which has pumped $11 million into California campaigns while refusing to disclose its donors.

?I don’t know where these people are from, because they’re hiding, they’re wearing masks," Brown said. “Remember the people who liked to run around in hoods because they didn’t want people to see who the hell they are?”

202

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
Heh why not:

Nate Silver on Rasmussen’s performance in 2010:

The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight?s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.

Moreover, Rasmussen?s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen?s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases ? that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.

Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com

and

Nate Silver: “While 2000 was generally a fairly rough year for pollsters, who had to deal with an unenthusiastic electorate, some third-party challengers, and some late-breaking developments like Bush’s DUI charge, Rasmussen was the worst of the lot, missing by an average of 5.7 points. They also called 7 states wrong. Some of this was the result of bias, as they were 3.5 points too high on Bush’s margin in the states they surveyed, on average.”

And showing Rasmussen as middle of the road
http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/2008%20poll%20accuracy%20panagopoulos.pdf in 08
[/quote]

You attack Rasmussen using 2000?

Really now, how many called it right in 2000? How many said specifically that Gore would win the popular vote and Bush the electoral?

And I would bet if it were not for the (typical) left wing sleaze October surprise regarding the Bush DWI it would have been spot on.

You are a funny little man, just like your hero Nate Silver.

Here this is just for you:

Thats the thing he’s not my hero. And I’m really not that personally invested. I have long ago come to the conclusion that the vast majority if not all national politicians are mostly if not all self serving. At worst I will take a very gleeful pleasure if Romney wins and all of your dreams come true and we see the results from it. At best the status quo will stay the same and I can hear bitching and moaning for the next four years.

Anything that conflicts with your worldview you call into question by either an appeal to tradition or questioning its ethos.

I am perfectly ok with stating we’ll shortly see who’s model is more accurate. I think it’s Silver especially in regards to Rasmussen and their methodology. He already has a not statistically insignificant chance of Romney winning the popular and losing the electoral though its not the most probable outcome he’s predicting its there which seems to indicate he’s predicting a very tight race just not with the outcome your licking your finger and sticking in the air is.
[/quote]

That’s the thing, if you mention Silver’s name in any context other than an expression of pure hatred, he’s your hero and you are a deluded fool.

Again, a sign of the times. If an alternate version of Nate Silver–same credentials and track record–were predicting a Romney win, people on these boards would be lining up to blow him. I said it before: I doubt he was such a villain around here in 2010 when he was predicting a big GOP win.

As election day nears, nerves are really starting to fry. I expect that by November 6 we’ll all be shaking uncontrollably and posting gibberish.[/quote]

At least I addressed why I thought that Silver was not the best go to guy for a Presidential election prediction.

You still have your fingers in your ears regarding my equivalent to your junk political Science.

Want to talk about this yet?

Now I know Silver was correct about 2008 (wow that was a tough one) but these guys have been right since 1980.

Thoughts? Or do you just want to keep pretending that it doesn’t exist?

[/quote]

See above.

I don’t think Silver is the be all and end all. Just another educated guesser.

203

A vandal keys “Obama” on the cars of Romney supporters, one of which is an Iraq war veteran…

204

Only in politics…

In a contest where two contestants are in a statistical dead heat, how is it possible that one of the two contestants can be given a 75% chance of winning? While being championed as an (objective) expert?

If Silver nails this election (which I admittedly do not expect), I may have to revisit my common sense, objective (hopefully) approach to analyzing situations. That, and perhaps give this pecota system thing another chance in my fantasy baseball endeavors… :wink:

205

[quote]punnyguy wrote:
Only in politics…

In a contest where two contestants are in a statistical dead heat, how is it possible that one of the two contestants can be given a 75% chance of winning? While being championed as an (objective) expert?

If Silver nails this election (which I admittedly do not expect), I may have to revisit my common sense, objective (hopefully) approach to analyzing situations. That, and perhaps give this pecota system thing another chance in my fantasy baseball endeavors… ;-)[/quote]

It seems like Silver may be placing too much emphasis on state-by-states and too little on the national tracking polls. If Romney’s performance in the national popular vote looks like his performance in the tracking polls at the moment, I don’t believe that the swing states could be some how exempted from this, and I don’t believe he can lose.

But, again, the swing state polls matter some, and at the moment most people who are paid to guess based on the whole picture are calling it a narrow Obama lead.

It would make much more sense to me if, over the next week, the national tracking polls and the swing state polls meet somewhere in the middle. And that really will be a dead heat.

206

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Interesting.

“Truth is, nobody knows what will happen on Election Day. But here is what we do know: 220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008. And 30,000 more Republicans have cast their ballots compared with four years ago. That is a 250,000-vote net increase for a state Obama won by 260,000 votes in 2008.”

Read more: Obama's fuzzy Ohio early vote math - POLITICO
[/quote]

Yep, this is not good for Obama at all. To me this is more telling than any poll.

207

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
Heh why not:

Nate Silver on Rasmussen’s performance in 2010:

The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight?s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.

Moreover, Rasmussen?s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen?s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases ? that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.

Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com

and

Nate Silver: “While 2000 was generally a fairly rough year for pollsters, who had to deal with an unenthusiastic electorate, some third-party challengers, and some late-breaking developments like Bush’s DUI charge, Rasmussen was the worst of the lot, missing by an average of 5.7 points. They also called 7 states wrong. Some of this was the result of bias, as they were 3.5 points too high on Bush’s margin in the states they surveyed, on average.”

And showing Rasmussen as middle of the road
http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/2008%20poll%20accuracy%20panagopoulos.pdf in 08
[/quote]

You attack Rasmussen using 2000?

Really now, how many called it right in 2000? How many said specifically that Gore would win the popular vote and Bush the electoral?

And I would bet if it were not for the (typical) left wing sleaze October surprise regarding the Bush DWI it would have been spot on.

You are a funny little man, just like your hero Nate Silver.

Here this is just for you:

Thats the thing he’s not my hero. And I’m really not that personally invested. I have long ago come to the conclusion that the vast majority if not all national politicians are mostly if not all self serving. At worst I will take a very gleeful pleasure if Romney wins and all of your dreams come true and we see the results from it. At best the status quo will stay the same and I can hear bitching and moaning for the next four years.

Anything that conflicts with your worldview you call into question by either an appeal to tradition or questioning its ethos.

I am perfectly ok with stating we’ll shortly see who’s model is more accurate. I think it’s Silver especially in regards to Rasmussen and their methodology. He already has a not statistically insignificant chance of Romney winning the popular and losing the electoral though its not the most probable outcome he’s predicting its there which seems to indicate he’s predicting a very tight race just not with the outcome your licking your finger and sticking in the air is.
[/quote]

That’s the thing, if you mention Silver’s name in any context other than an expression of pure hatred, he’s your hero and you are a deluded fool.

Again, a sign of the times. If an alternate version of Nate Silver–same credentials and track record–were predicting a Romney win, people on these boards would be lining up to blow him. I said it before: I doubt he was such a villain around here in 2010 when he was predicting a big GOP win.

As election day nears, nerves are really starting to fry. I expect that by November 6 we’ll all be shaking uncontrollably and posting gibberish.[/quote]

At least I addressed why I thought that Silver was not the best go to guy for a Presidential election prediction.

You still have your fingers in your ears regarding my equivalent to your junk political Science.

Want to talk about this yet?

Now I know Silver was correct about 2008 (wow that was a tough one) but these guys have been right since 1980.

Thoughts? Or do you just want to keep pretending that it doesn’t exist?

[/quote]

See above.

I don’t think Silver is the be all and end all. Just another educated guesser.[/quote]

208

[quote]ZEB wrote:

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/23/electoral-college-model-predicts-big-romney-win/[/quote]

Jesus, did you not see the post where I addressed it specifically? It’s like a page back now.

209

^^@smh23: I have read that in Ohio (which is so important because it is supposedly a great proxy for the composition of the general electorate), it is highly unusual for the national vs. individual state result to be off more than 1 percent or so when the actual votes are tallied.

210

[quote]punnyguy wrote:
^^@smh23: I have read that in Ohio (which is so important because it is supposedly a great proxy for the composition of the general electorate), it is highly unusual for the national vs. individual state result to be off more than 1 percent or so when the actual votes are tallied.[/quote]

Ya, something will have to give. And in the balance will hang the election–if the state polls end up looking like the tracking polls, Romney. If otherwise, Obama.

The thing about early “turnout” in Ohio v. 2008’s numbers looks real good for Romney though.

211

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Yep, this is not good for Obama at all. To me this is more telling than any poll. [/quote]

Agreed, it’s the eventual “weighting” that determines the election, and that “weighting” - significant decrease in Democrat voting but increase in Republican voting - is not good news for Obama.

Also, the statistics across the board show Obama in deep trouble with independents. I wonder - has anyone ever won the national election with this kind of awful polling with independents?

I have nothing but hunch to back this claim, but I think if Obama wins while losing the independent vote along the lines of the polling, I think that will be historically unprecedented.

Again, I could be wrong on that, but I just can’t imagine someone winning in the past so underwater with independents.

212

[quote]smh23 wrote:

But, again, the swing state polls matter some, and at the moment most people who are paid to guess based on the whole picture are calling it a narrow Obama lead.[/quote]

According to Rasmussen

[quote]In the 11 swing states, Mitt Romney earns 50% of the vote to Obamaâ??s 46%. Two percent (2%) like another candidate in the race, and another two percent (2%) are undecided.

Romney has now led for 12 straight days with margins of four to six points most of that time[/quote]

According to Politico Romney is up 66 to 44 in the swing state electoral count as of today.

The Blaze (which highligts various polls) shows Romney beating Obama in electoral votes in the key swing state category

Again, Polls are all over the place. Keep your eye on Rasmussen and Gallup and I bet between them they will nail the final result!

213

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/23/electoral-college-model-predicts-big-romney-win/[/quote]

Jesus, did you not see the post where I addressed it specifically? It’s like a page back now.[/quote]

Didn’t see it repost it for me. I bet it was a spectacular read.

214

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Again, Polls are all over the place. Keep your eye on Rasmussen and Gallup and I bet between them they will nail the final result!

[/quote]

I do agree with you that they are the most solid, though far from infallible.

215

Interesting read, with links, for the red team

216

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Interesting read, with links, for the red team[/quote]

Can you imagine that, someone claiming that the best two pollsters to watch are Gallup and Rasmussen?

Also…

[quote]Romney’s early voting lead in Gallup may not jive with the CorruptMedia narrative, but it does with actual early vote totals that have been released and show Romney’s early vote totals either beating Obama in swing states such as Colorado and Florida or chipping away at the President’s advantage in the others. For example, here’s what we know about Ohio’s early voting numbers, thus far:

But here is what we do know: 220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008. And 30,000 more Republicans have cast their ballots compared with four years ago. That is a 250,000-vote net increase for a state Obama won by 260,000 votes in 2008.[/quote]

Hold on now Obama is supposed to be crushing Romney in early voting. Do you think NBC, CBS and ABC are lying?

Oh my…

217

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Interesting read, with links, for the red team[/quote]

“Romney currently leads Obama 52% to 45% among voters who say they have already cast their ballots. However, that is comparable to Romney’s 51% to 46% lead among all likely voters in Gallup’s Oct. 22-28 tracking polling. At the same time, the race is tied at 49% among those who have not yet voted but still intend to vote early, suggesting these voters could cause the race to tighten. However, Romney leads 51% to 45% among the much larger group of voters who plan to vote on Election Day, Nov. 6.”

Woah

218

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Interesting read, with links, for the red team[/quote]

“Romney currently leads Obama 52% to 45% among voters who say they have already cast their ballots. However, that is comparable to Romney’s 51% to 46% lead among all likely voters in Gallup’s Oct. 22-28 tracking polling. At the same time, the race is tied at 49% among those who have not yet voted but still intend to vote early, suggesting these voters could cause the race to tighten. However, Romney leads 51% to 45% among the much larger group of voters who plan to vote on Election Day, Nov. 6.”

Woah[/quote]

That is very surprising.

219

Romney up 1 in a national poll, NPR, D +4

220

Pretty much…