I hope you both are right and it doesn’t happen. Because I see the landscape much more interesting when the Clinton’s ditch obama after the election.
The only reason Bill is there is to remind people of himself, keep Hil’s donors reminded the people love their brand, and he is the last president people like. He is the Luke Skywalker of the party.
(And I’d take him back over obama any day.)
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Kinda funny that Obama is supposed to be winning the female vote, then throws Hillary under the bus for Libya.[/quote]
This might be the biggest homerun obama has had this entire run…
I think it works, but I can see how it wouldn’t.[/quote]
Dangerous play my friend, Romney could easily turn this around by asking why he threw Hillary under the bus to begin with.
I can’t see him winning many people over by dusting Hillary off, after he threw her on top of such a grenade. [/quote]
All Romney has to say is that “in my administration the buck will stop at the office of the President and no where else.”
A few other implications like that and Obama will end up losing more female voters. The poor fool had no choice but to use Hillary as the scapegoat. He messed up and he can’t go into a debate saying that he messed up, or tried to cover it up. Therefore, Hillary is the go to gal. But he still looks weak in doing it and Romney can take advantage of that if done properly.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Kinda funny that Obama is supposed to be winning the female vote, then throws Hillary under the bus for Libya.[/quote]
This might be the biggest homerun obama has had this entire run…
I think it works, but I can see how it wouldn’t.[/quote]
Dangerous play my friend, Romney could easily turn this around by asking why he threw Hillary under the bus to begin with.
I can’t see him winning many people over by dusting Hillary off, after he threw her on top of such a grenade. [/quote]
All Romney has to say is that “in my administration the buck will stop at the office of the President and no where else.”
A few other implications like that and Obama will end up losing more female voters. The poor fool had no choice but to use Hillary as the scapegoat. He messed up and he can’t go into a debate saying that he messed up, or tried to cover it up. Therefore, Hillary is the go to gal. But he still looks weak in doing it and Romney can take advantage of that if done properly.[/quote]
That’s my point, nothing more chivalrous than throwing a woman into the lion’s den to avoid getting eaten yourself.
Romney 50%, Obama 46% Among Likely Voters
[quote]ZEB wrote:
All Romney has to say is that “in my administration the buck will stop at the office of the President and no where else.”
A few other implications like that and Obama will end up losing more female voters. The poor fool had no choice but to use Hillary as the scapegoat. He messed up and he can’t go into a debate saying that he messed up, or tried to cover it up. Therefore, Hillary is the go to gal. But he still looks weak in doing it and Romney can take advantage of that if done properly.[/quote]
Agreed. Romney needs to be careful not to be too snarky in the delivery, but I could see him saying something like “well, I’m glad someone finally took responsibility for it in your administration” and then pull the “buck stops here” line or theme.
There’s nothing wrong with Clinton saying she takes responsibility - she should, based on her position; after all, she heads State. The obvious problem is that Obama shouldn’t let her, and hiding behind Clinton makes him look weak, small and unpresidential.
He IS weak, small, and unpresidential.
If the shoe fits…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Romney 50%, Obama 46% Among Likely Voters[/quote]
And this is what I like to read:
30-49 year olds vote roughly at the rate of twice that of 20 year olds. Also, those with college degrees and post graduate degrees vote at a higher rate. And seeing him slip among women and catholics is just a wonderful thing.
And this is not at all surprising:
The 18-29 year old crowd votes first and thinks later. Not all of them but certainly those closer to the 18-23 age group. So no shock there they are liberals and still think Obama is cool. Obama and company have scared seniors into thinking republicans are going to take away their social security checks. They do this every four years it’s a real vote getter to scare the old people. African Americans would vote for Obama if he grew a Hitler mustache and walked out on stage in his underwear so no surprise there either.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Kinda funny that Obama is supposed to be winning the female vote, then throws Hillary under the bus for Libya.[/quote]
This might be the biggest homerun obama has had this entire run…
I think it works, but I can see how it wouldn’t.[/quote]
This dirty motherfucker from breitbart was right.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
or a forecast model like fivethirtyeight. [/quote]
Dude, I’m sorry but Silver is fast becoming a douche. Not only is the times an extension of the Obama campaign but he is just like Krugman…
Silver and Krugman could both have great careers NOT being souless shills for one party over the other (with the emergence of the tea party, ron paul bots, and even occupy to a degree, people like Krugman are scared, as his economic theories are proving to be causing massive problems in developed countries, and people are noticing.)
All I’m saying is Silver has gone out of his way to discount polls he doesn’t like, and he is in love with anything that says Obama +286,754. Although I haven’t gone back after he was the only source saying the debate didn’t change the race significantly, so he might have come back to earth since. [/quote]
First off, no argument on Krugman. He is a partisan hack.
Re; Silver, it’s interesting you feel that way, because I see him as one of the most objective guys in the field. I do assume that he’s liberal because he works at the NYT in politics and his last name isn’t Douthat. But every time I read his blog posts I’m pretty impressed at his generally dispassionate interpretations of the numbers. I can’t find the thing about Romney’s debate performance not changing the debate significantly. In fact, all I can find are headlines like “Romney maintains momentum” and etc. He IS cautious and it can at times seem like he’s discounting something, but in my view either side could see him as ignoring their best evidence.
But, that is more an argument about Silver and less an argument about his forecast model. When I say fivethirtyeight, I mean the model and not the blog. I’m not a mathematician and my understanding of these kinds of things is adequate but not by any means comprehensive, but I’ve been told by several people whose careers are built around this kind of thing that Silver’s forecast model is one of the most sophisticated out there. It does little things–downgrades Obama’s standing based upon economic data, compensates for post-convention bounces by watering down strong polls in their immediate aftermaths, evaluates national tracking polls against state-by-states–that many people believe make it preferable to a simple aggregator like realclear.
But, in the end, you can get lost in this stuff. It’s good to keep in mind that we may not be able to predict the actions of millions of separate individuals on a given day in November when we can’t even figure out whether or not it’s going to rain tomorrow.
[/quote]
Fair enough. I was hoping for a level headed responce.
I will give him a shot again, and see if I can find the peice I am reffering to.
In othr news PPP has Romney hitting 50% with the following tweet: “Impt to note on our national poll- 75% of interviews conducted within 48 hrs of debate. Would encourage Dems to wait a week before PANIC”
haha[/quote]
If you’re going to give Silver another shot, last night’s post is the place to do it. He makes some extremely good points:
smh23,
Thanks for the heads up. I read this post and he is right on the money regarding the MoE of big N polls versus little N polls.
I expect the numbers to turn back to favoring Obama before the end of the weekend. I wonder if the polling after the first debate was less about loving Romney’s performance and more about hating Obama’s performance?
Either way, if the past few months of polling are worth anything, Obama’s numbers will hop up back to his 49 and Romney will land between 46 and 47.
jnd
jnd–Agreed re: 49-47. I think that the President’s comfortable lead going into the first debate was artificially inflated by a series of unfavorable but not structurally destructive Romney news cycles. The post-debate polling numbers represented a combination of a reversion to normalcy AND a gut bad-taste reaction to the President’s unbelievably lackluster performance which can reasonably be expected to fade in the haze of the rearview mirror. In the wake of last night’s debate I expect a return to a 2-point Obama lead in poll averages which will be relatively inelastic barring a momentous hinge moment in the third debate.
As has been argued on these boards, though, a narrow Obama lead could become a loss of the popular vote on election day if ant-Obama turnout is as strong as many people believe it will be.
“…As has been argued on these boards, though, a narrow Obama lead could become a loss of the popular vote on election day if anti-Obama turnout is as strong as many people believe it will be…”
And as you know, smh, this is where I firmly stand…
And with 3 weeks to go…I just don’t see the President winning with such Anti-Obama sentiment out there (coupled with the erosion of the base of supporters that voted for him in 2008).
However…where it get’s sticky…is separating the POPULAR vote from the ELECTORAL COLLEGE numbers. The difference between the two could lead to much different outcomes than what I predict.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…As has been argued on these boards, though, a narrow Obama lead could become a loss of the popular vote on election day if anti-Obama turnout is as strong as many people believe it will be…”
And as you know, smh, this is where I firmly stand…
And with 3 weeks to go…I just don’t see the President winning with such Anti-Obama sentiment out there (coupled with the erosion of the base of supporters that voted for him in 2008).
However…where it get’s sticky…is separating the POPULAR vote from the ELECTORAL COLLEGE numbers. The difference between the two could lead to much different outcomes than what I predict.
Mufasa[/quote]
I think you’re an astute analyst Mufasa and I do believe your appraisal of the anti-Obama vote’s strength is spot on.
The problem, as you’ve alluded to, is that election day is more complex than we tend to acknowledge in predictions. How far do you think the anti-Obama enthusiasm factor–which as a tangible force translates into turnout–will reach? A point seems well within its grasp, but what about three full percentage points? And if the national race seems to be close enough for turnout to tip the scale toward Romney in early November, what if Ohio is at that point, as now, more solidly leaning toward President Obama? To this last question I would add that the President’s “ground game” in Ohio is reported to be formidable and that, as a corollary, any national turnout advantage for Mitt Romney can be expected to be blunted in that crucial swing state.
Great questions, smh.
Most likely I am making a very bogus comparison…but I clearly recall the “CNN” people during the Mid-Terms barely being able to keep up with the changes occurring on their “Minority Report” screens…as State after State…and contest after contest…went “Red”…
You just got the feeling that they had no idea about the sentiment of the country at that point…as (it appeared) prediction after prediction went out the window.
I’m just “feeling” the same thing with this election.
Mufasa
[quote]jnd wrote:
I expect the numbers to turn back to favoring Obama before the end of the weekend. I wonder if the polling after the first debate was less about loving Romney’s performance and more about hating Obama’s performance?
Either way, if the past few months of polling are worth anything, Obama’s numbers will hop up back to his 49 and Romney will land between 46 and 47.
jnd[/quote]
Couldn’t agree more with your numbers prediction, I’m sure last night blunts Romney’s roll for sure, and lifts POTUS back up.
It is all abotu Ohio right now. Reports Obama pulling out of FL and NC (can’t vouch for how true that is) and is losing CO & VA.
But, in the end, Ohio will likely decide Mitt’s future.
Romney up 6 now according to Gallup. Obviously this is a rolling average, and isn’t taking into account last night. If it just slows Romney’s momentum it won’t be good enough. Obama needs a quick reversal as time is rapidly ticking off the clock. So, do I think last night gives Obama such a reversal? I really don’t think so. If we submit post-debate snap polls, it was pretty darn close. This wasn’t remotely like the first-debate shellacking.
And on the issues, Obama wasn’t so hot when you look at the cross tabs. Especially look at the CNN poll. Even on the CNN ‘leader’ question, Obama lost. I really think Obama gets the nod on the debate simply because he didn’t have have a big gaffe, unlike Romney. But the rest of the debate, on the issues that are really important this time around, and on leadership, Romney got exactly what he needed out of it.
I think with this election it is tough to get a feel on how either candidate is doing. I was reading that even sometimes polls are released and printed that are known to be flawed, giving a distorted reading on the Presidential race. My guess is the Presidential race is fluid, and could go either way come election time.
“Skewed Presidential Polls Should Be Trashed, Not Published”
snippet from Jonathan Tobin’s article:
"…Thus, Republicans take polls that show their side winning as truthful while scoffing at those that show Democrats ahead; Democrats play the same game. We?ve seen a lot of this during this election cycle. But as much as we should guard against the partisan knee-jerk when reacting to certain polls, that doesn?t mean that they must all be taken at face value. Case in point is the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll of the presidential race published today. It gives President Obama some much-needed good news by showing that he leads Mitt Romney 49-46 percent. That three-point margin is an improvement by one point over the last Post poll taken two weeks ago.
But the problem with the Post poll is revealed in the paper?s story about its findings:
Partisan identification fluctuates from poll to poll as basic orientations shift and with the sampling variability that accompanies each randomly selected sample of voters. In the current poll, Democrats outnumber Republicans by nine percentage points among likely voters; the previous three Post-ABC polls had three-, six- and five-percentage-point edges for Democrats. The presidential contest would now be neck and neck nationally with any of these margins.
In other words, the pollsters know this is a bad poll but went ahead and published it anyway.
It?s true that partisan identification isn?t set in stone. But do the pollsters or the editors at the Post who were presented with this survey for publication really believe the electorate is that heavily skewed in favor of the Democrats?.."
[quote]Menthol wrote:
I think with this election it is tough to get a feel on how either candidate is doing. I was reading that even sometimes polls are released and printed that are known to be flawed, giving a distorted reading on the Presidential race. My guess is the Presidential race is fluid, and could go either way come election time.
“Skewed Presidential Polls Should Be Trashed, Not Published”
snippet from Jonathan Tobin’s article:
"…Thus, Republicans take polls that show their side winning as truthful while scoffing at those that show Democrats ahead; Democrats play the same game. We?ve seen a lot of this during this election cycle. But as much as we should guard against the partisan knee-jerk when reacting to certain polls, that doesn?t mean that they must all be taken at face value. Case in point is the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll of the presidential race published today. It gives President Obama some much-needed good news by showing that he leads Mitt Romney 49-46 percent. That three-point margin is an improvement by one point over the last Post poll taken two weeks ago.
But the problem with the Post poll is revealed in the paper?s story about its findings:
Partisan identification fluctuates from poll to poll as basic orientations shift and with the sampling variability that accompanies each randomly selected sample of voters. In the current poll, Democrats outnumber Republicans by nine percentage points among likely voters; the previous three Post-ABC polls had three-, six- and five-percentage-point edges for Democrats. The presidential contest would now be neck and neck nationally with any of these margins.
In other words, the pollsters know this is a bad poll but went ahead and published it anyway.
It?s true that partisan identification isn?t set in stone. But do the pollsters or the editors at the Post who were presented with this survey for publication really believe the electorate is that heavily skewed in favor of the Democrats?.."[/quote]
This is why they poll multiple times. There is no such thing as a perfect poll- they simply do not exist. You have to read each poll in the context of the other polls. Sampling variation in any one poll is normal.
I gather from this discussion that the sample from the poll has to match the demographics of the populations (so, for example, if there are 50% democrats and 50% republicans in the population, then the only sample that will be accurate is 50/50) for the poll to be accurate. This is not true at all. As long as there are multiple samples, the individual samples need not match the population in order to reflect (quite accurately, I might add) the population.
It is the big picture that matters not an individual poll.
jnd
Romney 53% to 47%. Romney takes at least 320 electoral votes. Its going to be a blow out
Undecided are breaking almost 100% to Romney. Not once have I ever heard of anyone saying they did NOT vote for Obama in 2008 and are going to vote Obama in 2012. Its always moving from voted Obama to will vote Romney.
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
Romney 53% to 47%. Romney takes at least 320 electoral votes. Its going to be a blow out
Undecided are breaking almost 100% to Romney. Not once have I ever heard of anyone saying they did NOT vote for Obama in 2008 and are going to vote Obama in 2012. Its always moving from voted Obama to will vote Romney.[/quote]
You are going to have to change your avatar for anyone to read what you are writing. Goddam, I would not mind being reincarnated as that bicycle seat.
While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I think you are seriously over optimistic. Obama will stop or slow Romney’s momentum, probably add some points, but the 3rd and final debate will probably decide it.
People have short memories, these undecided voters will remember the last gaff, screw-up, or home-run speech given by either candidate. Why we even have undecided voters at this point is stupid, we know enough about both guys to know who fits with our own belief systems.
