Latest Polling Information Reveals....

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

ZEB: Of course there were trees down and power out. Do you by any chance have a timeframe for that video-it sounds like they are interviewing them the same day as the end of the storm (Tuesday). Unless I’m mistaken, they specifically said “Describing what happened here at 3:30 this afternoon”, which can’t be right. There’s a reason a lot of the tristate area didn’t have work for two days and limped in on Wednesday…

In regards to ongoing power losses, it looks as though this won’t be any kind of issue very soon:

I still maintain that the storm aftermath in Philly really won’t be a block to people voting-the damage you saw was from Tuesday (if what the video said is accurate). It isn’t NYC where there is a total destruction of infrastructure-there I would expect problems. This is personal damage, which can be planned around and handled in a week’s time. A sad occurrence nonetheless however.

You are right however, I don’t know and neither do you-we are both merely theorizing.

262

[quote]CornSprint wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CornSprint wrote:
Very intriguing about PA-while I am a resident, I haven’t noticed much either way from people I’ve talked to but as it was never impossibly far out of reach, a last minute ploy for momentum could pay off for team Romney. Even a slight bump makes things interesting. I also haven’t noticed too much in terms of ads on TV (for president-the Senate campaign has been going for a while), but then again I don’t watch much TV so I may be something of an ostrich on that one.

As far as the hurricane theory goes though-Philadelphia really didn’t get hit too badly from what I’ve seen/heard. The usual shutters missing, etc but not nearly the same mess as the northern NJ/NYC area. I would be highly surprised to see a drastic shift in voting numbers that could be attributed to the hurricane.[/quote]

Is that true? Well I’m glad to hear that the less devastation by that horrible occurrence the better. The people in down state NY are suffering horribly from what I’ve heard. I wonder what happened to all the aid that obamawitz said that he was sending?

Ah the government, just give them a chance and they will fail. Hey I have an idea let’s hand over 1/6th of the economy in the form of health care over to the government nothing could possibly go wrong with that idea right?

Another thread I guess…[/quote]

Definitely another thread-one that I think could be decent btw. You’re spot on about southern NY-a ton of people with no power, no public transport running, no cars allowed on the roads with less than 3 people in them (to allow space for emergency vehicles), some areas still pretty much with standing water. It’s truly a tragedy.

As far as the aid goes-it’s honestly more of an infrastructure issue at this point from what I’ve heard from people on the ground. The major objective is to get everyone safe/sheltered/fed-from there getting the necessary infrastructure back online takes time. Things are progressing day to day however-you only eat a cow one bite at a time.[/quote]

You’re never going to convince me that politicians actually know what they’re doing. Not when I heard about the genius Mayor of NY Bloomberg insisting on having the New York City marathon in spite of all the people suffering and the mass amount of police and power that it would take.

Of course he’s full of great decision making ability he endorsed obama. (eye roll).

263

[quote]ZEB wrote:

You’re never going to convince me that politicians actually know what they’re doing. Not when I heard about the genius Mayor of NY Bloomberg insisting on having the New York City marathon in spite of all the people suffering and the mass amount of police and power that it would take.

Of course he’s full of great decision making ability he endorsed obama. (eye roll). [/quote]

This is the same DB that wants to/has banned sodas larger than 16oz because, IDK climate change or some stupid shit.

Nanny bloomberg couldn’t manage a disaster team if someone else did it for him.

264

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

You’re never going to convince me that politicians actually know what they’re doing. Not when I heard about the genius Mayor of NY Bloomberg insisting on having the New York City marathon in spite of all the people suffering and the mass amount of police and power that it would take.

Of course he’s full of great decision making ability he endorsed obama. (eye roll). [/quote]

This is the same DB that wants to/has banned sodas larger than 16oz because, IDK climate change or some stupid shit.

Nanny bloomberg couldn’t manage a disaster team if someone else did it for him.[/quote]

Well to be fair Guliani could not either.

The only reason why he was seen in the streets after 9-11 is because he insisted on putting his crisis command center into the WTC, that fucking genius.

265

good read, and I read on AOS that Ohio will be releasing the early voting results first on election night, so unless those numbers are super heavy O…

266

[quote]smh23 wrote:

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]

Yeah, but in 2010, the members of the OJ Simpson jury would have known the Republicans were going to clean house. It’s not like it was some big contentious upset of a call back then. Now, he is clearly at odds with Gallup and Rasmussen. There’s a bit of a difference.

And the guy is cocksure enough about his relatively untested model that a little hackle raising from the opposition is not exactly surprising.

267

[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]

Woah X2

I’ve been calling this election as a massive victory for Romney on my Facebook page and my lib friends (almost all my friends are just to the right of Ho Chi Minh) have been going nuts. Even as they froth and seethe about how wrong I am, they are writing posts about how disappointed they are in this election and their choices. It’s going to be an interesting week.

268

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:

Very interesting. Caveat, the author is obviously biased in favor of Romney.

However, I definitely believe that the anti-Obama vote is much more motivated this year than in 2008. So if the author is correct, imo the Obama-campers are making a mistake with the polling bias because it will actually motivate the anti-Obama/pro-Romney turnout even more, while potentially mitigating the anti-Romney turnout.

This will definitely be a watershed election as far as the science of polling is concerned.[/quote]

Interesting that you mentioned “anti-Obama turnout in 2008” I think that was very light. Other than thinking the man was too inexperienced, or perhaps too far left to be President why would anyone be chomping at the bit to vote against him? However, after four years of actually making things worse there is strong anti-Obama sentiment. And I have a feeling that while the Tea Party has been quiet they are flying under the radar and are organizing a very strong get out the vote drive in several key states. In fact I know this to be the case ;)[/quote]

Only reason I voted for McCain was a desire to keep Obama out. I sure as hell was NOT excited about McCain as the Republican pick for President.

269

[quote]ZEB wrote:
You know before Christie ate his final jar of peanut butter last night that he knelt by the side of his bed and prayed for an Obama win. And he may get his prayer answered but that doesn’t mean that he’ll be in line in four years the GOP’s mascot is an elephant and elephants have a long memory. [/quote]

It astounds me that he did this. What in the hell was he thinking? I lost a ton of the respect I’d gained for him with the stupid stunt he just pulled. And you’re right, I will not forget it.

270

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
You know before Christie ate his final jar of peanut butter last night that he knelt by the side of his bed and prayed for an Obama win. And he may get his prayer answered but that doesn’t mean that he’ll be in line in four years the GOP’s mascot is an elephant and elephants have a long memory. [/quote]

It astounds me that he did this. What in the hell was he thinking? I lost a ton of the respect I’d gained for him with the stupid stunt he just pulled. And you’re right, I will not forget it. [/quote]

My power was out the whole time and I heard nothing of it until this morning–was it that bad? I’ve heard that Christie basically toured around with Obama and they praised each other a considerable amount. Was the election mentioned at all, or was it all just “this guy’s doing a great job leading in this crisis” etc. etc.?

271

[quote]ovember 3, Mitt Romney and Barack obama tied nationally

Mitt Romney 48% (49%)
Barack Obama 48% (47%)[/quote]

And this is the part that actually means more than most may think:

We are emotional creatures and are driven toward things and people that we “like”.

And the Ohio race is a dead heat. But as I’ve explained in previous posts because of something called voter “intensity” and most of the undecideds usually leaning to the challenger, Romney has a far better chance to win on (poll) ties.

[quote]Head-to-Head: (Previous results from October 30)

Mitt Romney 49%
Barack Obama 49%
Some other candidate 2%
Undecided 1% [/quote]

272

Campaign schedule’s for both candidates

Mitt Romney November 3

New Hampshire

Ohio

PA (yes he’s going to Pennsylvania)

Virginia

Colorado (2 stops)

Florida

Paul Ryan: Ohio, PA, Virginia & Florida

obama November 3

Ohio

Wisconsin (2 stops)

Iowa

Virginia

Joe Biden: Colorado

273

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/11/02/three-counties-that-might-deliver-michigan-for-romney/

And yet no campaign stops in Michigan scheduled for Mitt Romney on any of the remaining days.

Why would he visit PA (20 electoral votes) twice as he’s also going on November 4, and also have Ryan visiting PA and neither of them are going to Michigan (16 electoral votes)?

I submit to you that they know they cannot win Michigan. But in addition to needing either Wisconsin or Ohio are hoping to grab PA if both of those states go to Obama.

In other words they have more faith that they can win PA than Michigan. Don’t get me wrong I don’t think they can win PA, and they too know it’s a long shot. But that does tell me they have ZERO faith that they can win Michigan.

274

Team Obama hits Wisconsin twice over the next two days and Romney has no campaign stops planned. I think that’s odd. He’s going to PA twice and sending Ryan once and also going to Minnestota. Yet, no stops in Wisconsin. Do they think they have that won and now they’re trying to run the board? Or, do they think they cannot win it and they’re going for the hail mary in PA and Minnestota?

Thoughts?

275

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

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]

Yeah, but in 2010, the members of the OJ Simpson jury would have known the Republicans were going to clean house. It’s not like it was some big contentious upset of a call back then. Now, he is clearly at odds with Gallup and Rasmussen. There’s a bit of a difference.

And the guy is cocksure enough about his relatively untested model that a little hackle raising from the opposition is not exactly surprising. [/quote]

No, but like I said, the hysteria that meets his name is over the top, and it’s most reliable sources are the posters whose arguments are looking more and more like they were pre-prepared by Crossroads GPS as the election nears.

Though you’re right that he is cocksure and quite possibly setting himself up for an abrupt and disgraceful end to his career. And the Morning Joe bet thing was absolutely disgraceful for someone pretending to be unbiased (though, if he’d said “I bet my NUMBERS are more accurate than yours,” it would be OK in my book).

But still–he’s making a simple case, and he’s been making it for a while. Obama is the electoral college favorite based on the averages of the all the swing-state polls, and he has been for a long time. This is truly inarguable.

Now, you can get into arguments about poll bias, about which polls are better than others, about which are obviously to be discounted, about voter turnout (a VERY good argument, btw, and one that in my mind is going to matter far more than which poll said what on which day), about this and that. And in making those arguments you can come to a radically different–and entirely reasonable–conclusion than does Silver.

But let’s not pretend that we don’t all see the very simple logic in calling Barack Obama the favorite. Go to RCP, hit no-toss-up states, and take a look.

276

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

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]

Yeah, but in 2010, the members of the OJ Simpson jury would have known the Republicans were going to clean house. It’s not like it was some big contentious upset of a call back then. Now, he is clearly at odds with Gallup and Rasmussen. There’s a bit of a difference.

And the guy is cocksure enough about his relatively untested model that a little hackle raising from the opposition is not exactly surprising. [/quote]

No, but like I said, the hysteria that meets his name is over the top, and it’s most reliable sources are the posters whose arguments are looking more and more like they were pre-prepared by Crossroads GPS as the election nears.

Though you’re right that he is cocksure and quite possibly setting himself up for an abrupt and disgraceful end to his career. And the Morning Joe bet thing was absolutely disgraceful for someone pretending to be unbiased (though, if he’d said “I bet my NUMBERS are more accurate than yours,” it would be OK in my book).

But still–he’s making a simple case, and he’s been making it for a while. Obama is the electoral college favorite based on the averages of the all the swing-state polls, and he has been for a long time. This is truly inarguable.

Now, you can get into arguments about poll bias, about which polls are better than others, about which are obviously to be discounted, about voter turnout (a VERY good argument, btw, and one that in my mind is going to matter far more than which poll said what on which day), about this and that. And in making those arguments you can come to a radically different–and entirely reasonable–conclusion than does Silver.

But let’s not pretend that we don’t all see the very simple logic in calling Barack Obama the favorite. Go to RCP, hit no-toss-up states, and take a look.[/quote]

Yeah, Obama’s the favorite no question.

Incumbency + media in hip pocket = favorite.

If someone can’t figure that one out they’re pretty freakin stupid wouldn’t you say?

277
278

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Team Obama hits Wisconsin twice over the next two days and Romney has no campaign stops planned. I think that’s odd. He’s going to PA twice and sending Ryan once and also going to Minnestota. Yet, no stops in Wisconsin. Do they think they have that won and now they’re trying to run the board? Or, do they think they cannot win it and they’re going for the hail mary in PA and Minnestota?

Thoughts?[/quote]

I think they think they have Wisconsin & Ohio locked up. Because if they don’t they aren’t winning this. Funny O is going to Iowa and Virgina though?

I’m saying, one of the two teams is getting spanked pretty hard. I don’t know which one it is, but the 30k Romney gathered in Ohio last night is a good sign.

I’m also betting the “vote for love of your country, not for revenge” ad is going to go over very very well.

“Voting is the best revenge” isn’t going to win any independents you didn’t already have. I feel like this is a big deal gaffe.

279

How soon after Tuesday will the republicans start making noise about impeaching Obama over Libya?

Wednesday?

January 21, 2013?

jnd

280

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

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]

Yeah, but in 2010, the members of the OJ Simpson jury would have known the Republicans were going to clean house. It’s not like it was some big contentious upset of a call back then. Now, he is clearly at odds with Gallup and Rasmussen. There’s a bit of a difference.

And the guy is cocksure enough about his relatively untested model that a little hackle raising from the opposition is not exactly surprising. [/quote]

No, but like I said, the hysteria that meets his name is over the top, and it’s most reliable sources are the posters whose arguments are looking more and more like they were pre-prepared by Crossroads GPS as the election nears.

Though you’re right that he is cocksure and quite possibly setting himself up for an abrupt and disgraceful end to his career. And the Morning Joe bet thing was absolutely disgraceful for someone pretending to be unbiased (though, if he’d said “I bet my NUMBERS are more accurate than yours,” it would be OK in my book).

But still–he’s making a simple case, and he’s been making it for a while. Obama is the electoral college favorite based on the averages of the all the swing-state polls, and he has been for a long time. This is truly inarguable.

Now, you can get into arguments about poll bias, about which polls are better than others, about which are obviously to be discounted, about voter turnout (a VERY good argument, btw, and one that in my mind is going to matter far more than which poll said what on which day), about this and that. And in making those arguments you can come to a radically different–and entirely reasonable–conclusion than does Silver.

But let’s not pretend that we don’t all see the very simple logic in calling Barack Obama the favorite. Go to RCP, hit no-toss-up states, and take a look.[/quote]

There are very very smart people that have been getting paid to pontificate about this stuff for longer than Silver has been alive that have ignored silver and his famous bias, oops I mean model. Dude on the radio was laughing at him.

One of the two sides are winning, and winning pretty big. It may be Obama. But silver can lick my taint, he is a partisan hack. Google poll? Are we serious? Google? They are blatantly campaigning for Obama. I’ll never respect Silver.