The latest Gallup has Romney in a slight lead over Obama with who knows what next week will bring in this horse race. Who ever your for, I havn't seen a race like this in a few elections, and it is far from boring.
Honestly, the polls must be making gak up Romney's campaign is horrendous and his policies make little sense to me, I have nothing against conservatism and this is coming from a person who leans somewhere between liberalism and socialism, I mean a conservative party (Wintosn Churchill, Ted Roosevelt, etc) can do a good job under the right conditions but Romney is just laughably bad.
Jag_Calle wrote: It's like Alien vs. Predator. Whoever wins, you lose....
This.
News flash 3 Nov: One rich donkey cave beats other rich donkey cave to be top rich donkey cave. All signs report the middle and lower classes are still completely fethed.
dogma wrote: If Obama wins the electoral vote, and Romney wins the popular vote, it will be an election I tell my children about.
Wasn't that how Bush won, or was re-elected? I can't remember. But, either way, there was a big stink up when it was a Republican being voted in, so I imagine that if Obama wins the electoral vote, but Romney gets popular, then we'll hear the same thing, only reverse.
@Jihadin, I would think that this is choosing which bullet to shoot myself in the foot with, but ultimately, aren't a choosing between a blank, and another blank? I mean, neither one of these guys can do much without help from other branches of Gov't.
You know I'm no Romney fan..but he kind of reminded me a bit of Ronald Reagan when he spoke. They are in a dead heat now..it looks like it's going to come down to Ohio.
generalgrog wrote: You know I'm no Romney fan..but he kind of reminded me a bit of Ronald Reagan when he spoke.
Is it that they both have fake black hair? I can not for the life of me see how one could think the two are anything alike, oratorically. Reagan was an amazingly charismatic presence that could move huge crowds whereas Romney barely gets his base to shrug and say "well, he isn't Obama so I guess I should go vote".
If Obama wins the electoral and Romney wins the popular it is going to be an amazing time on the OT board, and I guess America as well.
generalgrog wrote: You know I'm no Romney fan..but he kind of reminded me a bit of Ronald Reagan when he spoke. They are in a dead heat now..it looks like it's going to come down to Ohio.
GG
The last time someone took a presidential election by catching up this close to voting time was Ronald Reagan.
generalgrog wrote: You know I'm no Romney fan..but he kind of reminded me a bit of Ronald Reagan when he spoke.
Is it that they both have fake black hair? I can not for the life of me see how one could think the two are anything alike, oratorically. Reagan was an amazingly charismatic presence that could move huge crowds whereas Romney barely gets his base to shrug and say "well, he isn't Obama so I guess I should go vote".
If Obama wins the electoral and Romney wins the popular it is going to be an amazing time on the OT board, and I guess America as well.
I still remember Reagan's speech after the Challenger disaster. It had the tone of a father comforting his child while reminding us that exploration and learning carries with it a price. It was one of the most brilliant pieces of oratory for the people's mood at the time I have ever witnessed out side of watching Kennedy and Martin Luther King speak when I was a child.
generalgrog wrote: You know I'm no Romney fan..but he kind of reminded me a bit of Ronald Reagan when he spoke.
Is it that they both have fake black hair? I can not for the life of me see how one could think the two are anything alike, oratorically. Reagan was an amazingly charismatic presence that could move huge crowds whereas Romney barely gets his base to shrug and say "well, he isn't Obama so I guess I should go vote".
If Obama wins the electoral and Romney wins the popular it is going to be an amazing time on the OT board, and I guess America as well.
Hey, us democrats have earned an undemocratic win. You republicans had one in 2000, now its our turn. Its only fair.
generalgrog wrote: You know I'm no Romney fan..but he kind of reminded me a bit of Ronald Reagan when he spoke.
Is it that they both have fake black hair? I can not for the life of me see how one could think the two are anything alike, oratorically. Reagan was an amazingly charismatic presence that could move huge crowds whereas Romney barely gets his base to shrug and say "well, he isn't Obama so I guess I should go vote".
If Obama wins the electoral and Romney wins the popular it is going to be an amazing time on the OT board, and I guess America as well.
Hey, us democrats have earned an undemocratic win. You republicans had one in 2000, now its our turn. Its only fair.
With Romney's son buying up the polling companies, this seems unlikely
generalgrog wrote: You know I'm no Romney fan..but he kind of reminded me a bit of Ronald Reagan when he spoke.
Is it that they both have fake black hair? I can not for the life of me see how one could think the two are anything alike, oratorically. Reagan was an amazingly charismatic presence that could move huge crowds whereas Romney barely gets his base to shrug and say "well, he isn't Obama so I guess I should go vote".
If Obama wins the electoral and Romney wins the popular it is going to be an amazing time on the OT board, and I guess America as well.
Hey, us democrats have earned an undemocratic win. You republicans had one in 2000, now its our turn. Its only fair.
With Romney's son buying up the polling companies, this seems unlikely
Our best hope is that Romney's son is going through a 'rebellious phase', though this is admittedly unlikely.
generalgrog wrote: You know I'm no Romney fan..but he kind of reminded me a bit of Ronald Reagan when he spoke.
Is it that they both have fake black hair? I can not for the life of me see how one could think the two are anything alike, oratorically. Reagan was an amazingly charismatic presence that could move huge crowds whereas Romney barely gets his base to shrug and say "well, he isn't Obama so I guess I should go vote".
If Obama wins the electoral and Romney wins the popular it is going to be an amazing time on the OT board, and I guess America as well.
I just meant that the mannerisms and the "grandfatherly" way they both carry/carried themselves. He seemed to scold Obama the way that Reagan scolded Carter.
GG
p.s. I'm not saying that it endeared me more to Romney...but it may endear some voters.
Kovnik Obama wrote: This kind of pessimistic outlook is usually linked with severe cases of 'libertarianism', teenage angst and other sorts of diseases.
Kovnik Obama wrote: This kind of pessimistic outlook is usually linked with severe cases of 'libertarianism', teenage angst and other sorts of diseases.
It took me a while, but I've made up my mind.
I love you.
At first I didn't like Kovnik Obama that much, because his first few posts really came off as pretentious to me but once he became more down to earth in his approach I realized this guy actually had some quality stuff to say.
Tell my kids? And what will I tell them? I voted for a black guy who can play basketball and his no-bull VP instead of Montgomery Burns and Dracula? You're right, that is a good story, if I mention those things.
Samus_aran115 wrote: Tell my kids? And what will I tell them? I voted for a black guy who can play basketball and his no-bull VP instead of Montgomery Burns and Dracula? You're right, that is a good story, if I mention those things.
So... let's just stop with the poll wars and wait till after the election. Then we can see how close Gallup/538/Those Colorado Professors are...
Except he's not a poll. He doesn't call people, he doesn't conduct surveys, he just looks at all the data already out there. It's an aggregator who is pretty open about his methodology and tells you at least once a day why his numbers are moving the way they are.
And your rebuttal was to post another aggregator site that doesn't actually do any explaining on why the numbers are the way they are.
I assume that the right wing blogs don't like the 538 numbers?
Samus_aran115 wrote: Tell my kids? And what will I tell them? I voted for a black guy who can play basketball and his no-bull VP instead of Montgomery Burns and Dracula? You're right, that is a good story, if I mention those things.
So... let's just stop with the poll wars and wait till after the election. Then we can see how close Gallup/538/Those Colorado Professors are...
Except he's not a poll. He doesn't call people, he doesn't conduct surveys, he just looks at all the data already out there. It's an aggregator who is pretty open about his methodology and tells you at least once a day why his numbers are moving the way they are.
And your rebuttal was to post another aggregator site that doesn't actually do any explaining on why the numbers are the way they are.
I assume that the right wing blogs don't like the 538 numbers?
No... 538 is okay... I'm a stats head geek and I can appreciate Nate's approach to things. (really... text book stuff to for analysis and deterministic methodology)
When I said "polling service" with respect to Nate, what I really meant is "he has his own way of interpreting the data". Which is what all the other pollsters do anyways. That's what I meant that they all have their own recipe of "the secret sauce".
So, pollsters:
1) Collect data
2) Anayize the data
Nate just takes #2 from all the other polls and apply his "538" methods to approximate the outcome.
So... if you like him... great. Doesn't bother me...
All I'm saying is I wouldn't put too much faith in just 538... nor ANY other outfit for that matter.
The reason being... is that it's too close right now. I think we're at the point where anybody can make the numbers "look good for their guy" at this point.
I actually agree with Nate that the Gallup poll does seem dodgy... but it's been holding steady at +6 for Romney over the last few days... so, what do I know?
How does it go?
A British PM said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
generalgrog wrote: You know I'm no Romney fan..but he kind of reminded me a bit of Ronald Reagan when he spoke.
Is it that they both have fake black hair? I can not for the life of me see how one could think the two are anything alike, oratorically. Reagan was an amazingly charismatic presence that could move huge crowds whereas Romney barely gets his base to shrug and say "well, he isn't Obama so I guess I should go vote".
If Obama wins the electoral and Romney wins the popular it is going to be an amazing time on the OT board, and I guess America as well.
Hey, us democrats have earned an undemocratic win. You republicans had one in 2000, now its our turn. Its only fair.
generalgrog wrote: You know I'm no Romney fan..but he kind of reminded me a bit of Ronald Reagan when he spoke.
Is it that they both have fake black hair? I can not for the life of me see how one could think the two are anything alike, oratorically. Reagan was an amazingly charismatic presence that could move huge crowds whereas Romney barely gets his base to shrug and say "well, he isn't Obama so I guess I should go vote".
If Obama wins the electoral and Romney wins the popular it is going to be an amazing time on the OT board, and I guess America as well.
Hey, us democrats have earned an undemocratic win. You republicans had one in 2000, now its our turn. Its only fair.
Its not a democracy its a republic.
Why are you always trying to kill people one hour at a time?
Im actually moderately afraid Azazel is going to have an anurism. More so than Sebs losing a couple hours.
You know because they ration healthcare in Canada and he might not get seen...
AustonT wrote: Im actually moderately afraid Azazel is going to have an anurism. More so than Sebs losing a couple hours.
You know because they ration healthcare in Canada and he might not get seen...
I thought he might still have a chance to get seen. Did his appeal to the death panel fall through?
generalgrog wrote: You know I'm no Romney fan..but he kind of reminded me a bit of Ronald Reagan when he spoke.
Is it that they both have fake black hair? I can not for the life of me see how one could think the two are anything alike, oratorically. Reagan was an amazingly charismatic presence that could move huge crowds whereas Romney barely gets his base to shrug and say "well, he isn't Obama so I guess I should go vote".
If Obama wins the electoral and Romney wins the popular it is going to be an amazing time on the OT board, and I guess America as well.
Hey, us democrats have earned an undemocratic win. You republicans had one in 2000, now its our turn. Its only fair.
Its not a democracy its a republic.
Bah, that's just semantics. My point is, us democrats have earned an unfair win. You republicans got one in 2000, and now its our turn.
AustonT wrote: Im actually moderately afraid Azazel is going to have an anurism. More so than Sebs losing a couple hours.
You know because they ration healthcare in Canada and he might not get seen...
I thought he might still have a chance to get seen. Did his appeal to the death panel fall through?
I'd imagine that went straight into the circular file. Recycling of course, paper is rationed too.
AustonT wrote:Im actually moderately afraid Azazel is going to have an anurism. More so than Sebs losing a couple hours.
You know because they ration healthcare in Canada and he might not get seen...
Okay... I actually started to chuckle a little, just because I did not expect to see this.
And I'm more likely to turn green and then recruit some space gladiators and wage war on Earth.
Kilkrazy wrote:The controversy over the 2000 election was the hanging chads in Florida, not the popular vote.
I think there's still something to be said for a president winning the electoral college yet losing the popular vote. I don't recall if that had happened before or not. (mind you, there have been stranger results overall)
Tell my kids about? I don't think so.
As sad as it is, the biggest change this election will make on the US is supreme count appointments that will occur as the icy hand of death makes job openings.
If Obama wins, Republicans will continue to c***-block anything that the democrats want to do.
If Romney wins, the Democrats will c***-block anything the republicans want to do.
In this dysfunctional government we need 2/3 votes to pass anything.
The only way that would chance is if enough seats were to swap in the house/senate to give one party a super-majority. Given the tightness of the race - we can't reasonably expect to see much of a swing.
The other solution would be to change the fillibuster back to its original intent, instead of a motion, so we could see people standing up and reading the phone book to block a jobs bill. That would make for great news coverage and illuminate the lunacy of it all.
Even with all this though, you should still get out and vote.
I find it ironic that in what is supposed to be the world's greatest democracy that there are only 2 political parties with any chance of election. Over here we at least have a huge selection of bullets to shoot ourselves with. You get 2.
Squigsquasher wrote: I find it ironic that in what is supposed to be the world's greatest democracy that there are only 2 political parties with any chance of election. Over here we at least have a huge selection of bullets to shoot ourselves with. You get 2.
Also, if Romney wins I will be very, very angry.
I'm curious, if an American were to say that if X party that you liked were to take control of Parliament, they would be very angry, would you care?
Squigsquasher wrote: I find it ironic that in what is supposed to be the world's greatest democracy that there are only 2 political parties with any chance of election. Over here we at least have a huge selection of bullets to shoot ourselves with. You get 2.
Also, if Romney wins I will be very, very angry.
To be fair, the most recent general election in the UK was the first one for a very long time that did not make a decisive choice between the two main parties.
That was a sign of general dissatisfaction with them, surely.
Kilkrazy wrote: The controversy over the 2000 election was the hanging chads in Florida, not the popular vote.
For some maybe. I lost a lot of faith in this country when no one even tried to reform the electoral college after that election.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Squigsquasher wrote: I find it ironic that in what is supposed to be the world's greatest democracy that there are only 2 political parties with any chance of election. Over here we at least have a huge selection of bullets to shoot ourselves with. You get 2.
Also, if Romney wins I will be very, very angry.
In most states there's anywhere from 6 to 12 parties on the ballot - Libertarian, Green, Socialist etc.
But none of them ever manage more than a percent or two.
The big two have stacked the deck with a winner-take-all system and also, frankly know their work. The last several elections have all been only a few points apart. If any 3rd party starts to rise the big two work to steal their best ideas and undercut their chance for success.
The thing about the electoral college is, as dogma has pointed out, if the candidate receiving the electoral majority were reversed we'd be having the same conversation with the sides switched.
It lessens the disenfranchised victimhood angle when you know it's totally partisan. Plus, you know what we do to victims round these parts.
And in fairness, dogma would be laughing as people on either side had conniptions.
IIRC Bush actually win both the popular and the electoral in his second campaign. He lost both in the first, IIRC, but the Supremes cancelled the normal recount procedures and gave him Florida, giving him the electoral vote.
I cant wait for continued wars of false pretense, thousands of dead Americans and many billions in added debt that Romney is chomping at the bit to get started on.
Remember this is a MASSACHUSETTS Newspaper who endorsed Obama in 2008 in "Massa D+26 chusetts" endorsing Mitt with two weeks to go before election.
In The Sentinel & Enterprise’s view, that’s where America has fallen off track these past four years. America trusted a “hope and change” candidate, it didn’t work, and we’re suffering the consequences. Now we’ve got a tested leader with a proven track record standing before us — Mitt Romney — and it’s his time to inspire Americans to greatness.
The editors of a newspaper in Western (the more rural end) Mass, a state which elected Scott Brown to take Ted Kennedy's seat in the Senate (mostly on the weight of votes from the Western end), have endorsed another Republican, who was moderate enough to get elected Governor of the same state?
Shock and awe!
Or, you know, yawns.
This is only some kind of shock or surprise to people who don't know anything about Massachusetts beyond the nickname "taxachusetts", and they only know that much from Fox News.
Mannahnin wrote: The editors of a newspaper in Western (the more rural end) Mass, a state which elected Scott Brown to take Ted Kennedy's seat in the Senate (mostly on the weight of votes from the Western end), have endorsed another Republican, who was moderate enough to get elected Governor of the same state?
Shock and awe!
Or, you know, yawns.
This is only some kind of shock or surprise to people who don't know anything about Massachusetts beyond the nickname "taxachusetts", and they only know that much from Fox News.
So... you saying it's a righty paper? o.O
And again Ragnar... I don't watch fox news. The only "FOX" I watch was the football/baseball games on local Fox channel and the FRINGE show.
I don't know the paper personally. I do know that Fitchburg isn't a suburb of Boston, that there are plenty of conservatives in MA (though they tend to be more moderate on social issues), and they managed to elect Scott Brown and Mitt Romney. Fitchburg is in Worcester County; as is the biggest rock radio station in MA, whose morning show I occasionally listen to on the way in to work, whose host is definitely on the Right end of the spectrum.
So no, there being a paper in Fitchburg that endorsed Romney is no shock to me.
Mannahnin wrote: I don't know the paper personally. I do know that Fitchburg isn't a suburb of Boston, that there are plenty of conservatives in MA (though they tend to be more moderate on social issues), and they managed to elect Scott Brown and Mitt Romney. Fitchburg is in Worcester County; as is the biggest rock radio station in MA, whose morning show I occasionally listen to on the way in to work, whose host is definitely on the Right end of the spectrum.
So no, there being a paper in Fitchburg that endorsed Romney is no shock to me.
Okay... good to know... that don't mind me.
I just saw this on the Yahoo aggregate as I was trawling for stuff today.
Remember this is a MASSACHUSETTS Newspaper who endorsed Obama in 2008 in "Massa D+26 chusetts" endorsing Mitt with two weeks to go before election.
In The Sentinel & Enterprise’s view, that’s where America has fallen off track these past four years. America trusted a “hope and change” candidate, it didn’t work, and we’re suffering the consequences. Now we’ve got a tested leader with a proven track record standing before us — Mitt Romney — and it’s his time to inspire Americans to greatness.
Dayum!
My favourite part of the editorial is when they confused "He's got a track record of buying failing companies and turning them around" with "He's got a track record of buying failing companies and selling them off for parts like a chop shop, putting hundreds of thousands of American workers out of a job whilst moving those jobs overseas to Malaysia and Vietnam."
Oh, and I'll see your economics newspaper endorsing Romney, and raise you a Merle Haggard endorsing Obama.
For feth's sake. I think the Internet is broken or something. Here's the link.
CT GAMER wrote: I cant wait for continued wars of false pretense, thousands of dead Americans and many billions in added debt that Romney is chomping at the bit to get started on.
I think I was closer to the mark than I realized when I started this thread. I wonder how much the storm is going to affect things like the publics perception of the candidates, and the response times for help.
One misstep, real or percieved, on either man's part could have huge consequenses.
When was the last time a presidential race WASN'T neck in neck?
I'm starting to think this is a fabrication of the news industry to keep viewership up.
matphat wrote: When was the last time a presidential race WASN'T neck in neck?
Reagan versus anyone. Most elections aren't blowouts, but they rarely are this close heading up to election. Usually someone who isn't an ideologue can see the writing on the wall, but this time it could really go either way at this point. I can't think of one in my lifetime that was this up in the air at this point in the election as this one is now.
"This will be an election you tell your kids about"
Yeah, I remember all those times my grandpa would gather us around the campfire and tell us about Truman defeating Dewey... We'd laugh and laugh and say "Tell it again, Grandpa. Again!" And he would.
Then he tell us about that ice storm that hit the state and he and his family were cold and had to burn a lot of wood. And we'd laugh and laugh and say "Tell it again, grandpa! Again!" And he would.
matphat wrote:When was the last time a presidential race WASN'T neck in neck?
I'm starting to think this is a fabrication of the news industry to keep viewership up.
The last one didn't even pretend to be close. Gallup had 55/44 Clinton/Dole was 52/41 Clinton/Bush was 49/37 Bush/Dukakis Was 56/41
Nixon damn near doubled McGovern. Close races are not typical. Nobody really talks about Carter/Ford or Bush/Kerry.and those were real squeakers. We talk about Bush/Gore for pretty obvious reasons. So unless the House votes in the. new POTUS I doubt we'll give two gaks in the United Saints of America.
kronk wrote: "This will be an election you tell your kids about"
Yeah, I remember all those times my grandpa would gather us around the campfire and tell us about Truman defeating Dewey... We'd laugh and laugh and say "Tell it again, Grandpa. Again!" And he would.
Then he tell us about that ice storm that hit the state and he and his family were cold and had to burn a lot of wood. And we'd laugh and laugh and say "Tell it again, grandpa! Again!" And he would.
Mannahnin wrote: And in fairness, dogma would be laughing as people on either side had conniptions.
IIRC Bush actually win both the popular and the electoral in his second campaign. He lost both in the first, IIRC, but the Supremes cancelled the normal recount procedures and gave him Florida, giving him the electoral vote.
Wrong..they only stopped a further recount. They didn't "give him the election". Even when Gores requested recounts were recounted by independent counters, Bush still won.
There is a case that could be made that the overcounts could have helped Gore..but overcounts were not part of "the normal recount procedure".
whembly wrote: All I'm saying is that he's just "another Poll".
Just like Gallup/Rassi is "another Poll" site.
So... let's just stop with the poll wars and wait till after the election. Then we can see how close Gallup/538/Those Colorado Professors are...
No. That makes zero sense. To be another polling site... you'd actually have to be a polling site. That would mean conducting polls, processing the data and releasing it. 538 doesn't do that.
It's an analyst/prediction site. Now, you can argue they're analysis isn't right, if you want, and the site itself would be the first to confirm they is plenty of subjectivity in what they do, but it's a complete nonsense to argue it is a polling site.
whembly wrote: All I'm saying is that he's just "another Poll".
Just like Gallup/Rassi is "another Poll" site.
So... let's just stop with the poll wars and wait till after the election. Then we can see how close Gallup/538/Those Colorado Professors are...
No. That makes zero sense. To be another polling site... you'd actually have to be a polling site. That would mean conducting polls, processing the data and releasing it. 538 doesn't do that.
It's an analyst/prediction site. Now, you can argue they're analysis isn't right, if you want, and the site itself would be the first to confirm they is plenty of subjectivity in what they do, but it's a complete nonsense to argue it is a polling site.
Whoa... you're late there buddy... D-usa corrected me on this.
I know 538 is a polling data aggregate and attempts to divine it's meaning.
whembly wrote: The reason being... is that it's too close right now. I think we're at the point where anybody can make the numbers "look good for their guy" at this point.
Of course they can. Which is why it's so good to find a site that isn't pimping for their guy, but is just trying to make the best they can based on the numbers. 538 does that. It doesn't make them perfect, but it means reading it will make you more informed than you would have been, because everything is open, their reasoning and assumptions are always laid out, and there is no secret agenda to bump one side more than the other.
In the present electoral environment that's not something you can dismiss.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Whoa... you're late there buddy... D-usa corrected me on this.
I know 538 is a polling data aggregate and attempts to divine it's meaning.
It's a sabermetric analysis on polling data.
Yeah, my bad. I was going to delete my post, it wasn't too late and the issue already settled. Seems you were too quick for me with your response
In other, way more important news, did you see my response to you asking for a friendly wager? I don't know if you missed my response, or if you responded and I missed that. I can't even remember what election thread that was in.
Anyhow, I took your offer of a wager on the issue, and said if Obama won you could have a Che Guevera avatar for a month, and if Romney won I'd have whatever avatar you chose to for me. What do you think?
I know you're joking but I swear to God there is blood coming from my ear.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The controversy over the 2000 election was the hanging chads in Florida, not the popular vote.
Hanging chads was a big deal, and the recount debacle.
But for at least two years afterwards there was a huge deal about Bush not winning the popular vote. It was enough of a big deal that once the 2004 election was basically done and dusted, the Bush campaign put massive effort into getting the vote out in every state to make sure he won the popular vote.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kid_Kyoto wrote: The big two have stacked the deck with a winner-take-all system and also, frankly know their work. The last several elections have all been only a few points apart. If any 3rd party starts to rise the big two work to steal their best ideas and undercut their chance for success.
Umm, 'stealing their work'? This isn't Miss Strempel's eighth grade english class.
Picking up ideas that have popular support among the population is what political parties are supposed to do.
whembly wrote: The reason being... is that it's too close right now. I think we're at the point where anybody can make the numbers "look good for their guy" at this point.
Of course they can. Which is why it's so good to find a site that isn't pimping for their guy, but is just trying to make the best they can based on the numbers. 538 does that. It doesn't make them perfect, but it means reading it will make you more informed than you would have been, because everything is open, their reasoning and assumptions are always laid out, and there is no secret agenda to bump one side more than the other.
In the present electoral environment that's not something you can dismiss.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Whoa... you're late there buddy... D-usa corrected me on this.
I know 538 is a polling data aggregate and attempts to divine it's meaning.
It's a sabermetric analysis on polling data.
Yeah, my bad. I was going to delete my post, it wasn't too late and the issue already settled. Seems you were too quick for me with your response
In other, way more important news, did you see my response to you asking for a friendly wager? I don't know if you missed my response, or if you responded and I missed that. I can't even remember what election thread that was in.
Anyhow, I took your offer of a wager on the issue, and said if Obama won you could have a Che Guevera avatar for a month, and if Romney won I'd have whatever avatar you chose to for me. What do you think?
No problemo dude...
I missed your response! Wager accepted! I'm thinking of a Paul Ryan avatar of some sort (nah... too mean... I'm sure I can think of something).
Monster Rain wrote: The thing about the electoral college is, as dogma has pointed out, if the candidate receiving the electoral majority were reversed we'd be having the same conversation with the sides switched.
Monster Rain wrote: The thing about the electoral college is, as dogma has pointed out, if the candidate receiving the electoral majority were reversed we'd be having the same conversation with the sides switched.
Hey, I've been saying that for weeks!
Wait... I missed this...
Are we saying that the Electoral College is flawed? It is... but I'd argue it's one of the better system around...
WarOne wrote: Non-Democrats have been tossing away their vote here in NY since 1988....
Democrats have been tossing their vote away as well. Just as both parties have been tossing their votes away in California, or Kansas or Alabama or any of the 40 odd states that will only ever swing from one candidate to the other in a landslide result.
That's really the big reason to change to a popular vote, to make everyone's vote count, not just Florida, Ohio, Colorado and the others.
Are we saying that the Electoral College is flawed? It is... but I'd argue it's one of the better system around...
Nah, what I was saying that there's a chance of Romney winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college vote, and that'd mean the left and right wing would take up positions of yay/boo the electoral college and protest like 2000 never happened and they weren't saying the exact opposite things back then.
As for the electoral college itself... well it's okay. I mean over here the Wesminster system sort of the same, in that the party that wins the most votes overall doesn't win, but the party winning most districts (this actually happened in our most recent federal election).
That said, we don't vote for our head of state, we actually vote just for our local representative, who in turn votes for the Prime Minister. Where there's a person directly being elected, it does make sense to have popular voting. Afterall, shouldn't it bother people that when it comes to presidential politics, the opinions of people in major states like New York and Texas don't matter one bit, because they're safe states?
I mean, that said, as far as problems go it's a pretty small one. Lots of things I'd fixed before I bothered with that one.
WarOne wrote: Non-Democrats have been tossing away their vote here in NY since 1988....
Democrats have been tossing their vote away as well. Just as both parties have been tossing their votes away in California, or Kansas or Alabama or any of the 40 odd states that will only ever swing from one candidate to the other in a landslide result.
That's really the big reason to change to a popular vote, to make everyone's vote count, not just Florida, Ohio, Colorado and the others.
I beg to differ... that's not how our system is setup.
The founders saw this that by having the Electoral College, it avoids the "tyranny of the majority" (a popular phrase) that is inherent in pure democratic systems. Otherwise, why campaign in Delaware? Montana? There are regional differences in those voting bloc... It also enables large and small sovereign states to co-exist with each other.
And that's what a lot of people forget... we are NOT one entity... we are 50 sovereign states with their own constitution AND one federal bureaucracy.
If we truly want to go to a popular vote (and we should do this anyways), then we need to stop the 2-party monopoly.
Are we saying that the Electoral College is flawed? It is... but I'd argue it's one of the better system around...
Nah, what I was saying that there's a chance of Romney winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college vote, and that'd mean the left and right wing would take up positions of yay/boo the electoral college and protest like 2000 never happened and they weren't saying the exact opposite things back then.
As for the electoral college itself... well it's okay. I mean over here the Wesminster system sort of the same, in that the party that wins the most votes overall doesn't win, but the party winning most districts (this actually happened in our most recent federal election).
That said, we don't vote for our head of state, we actually vote just for our local representative, who in turn votes for the Prime Minister. Where there's a person directly being elected, it does make sense to have popular voting. Afterall, shouldn't it bother people that when it comes to presidential politics, the opinions of people in major states like New York and Texas don't matter one bit, because they're safe states?
I mean, that said, as far as problems go it's a pretty small one. Lots of things I'd fixed before I bothered with that one.
Huh... interesting regarding your Westminster system... so it's a "district" based Electoral Collage (as opposed to States)? **Google, here I come!**
Honestly, I don't think people were THAT bothered... the ones who were upset didn't understand how the system works... and, that's the beauty of this system... the founders/later congress even built the system to address this if there's a tie.
I'm mean, can you imagine the schadenfreude if Obama and Romney tied! Whoa-momma that'd be definately something I'd tell my kidz about!
I missed your response! Wager accepted! I'm thinking of a Paul Ryan avatar of some sort (nah... too mean... I'm sure I can think of something).
Hey, whatever you pick as long as it's dakka legal.
Right on! Maybe... Sarah Palin? (lol... no... I couldn't do that to you man... I'm actually laughing hysterically here...)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Any system where the winner of the electoral college can become president with only ~25% of the vote is pretty stupid.
eh... it got us this far...
Like I said earlier... if we go with popular vote, then we need to stop the 2 party system. Open it up... Green, Commie, GW-fanboi party... all of them.
What would the platform of the GW Fanboi party be? Gaming Night is a national institution, cheetos and mountain dew receive federal subsidies? Golden Demon winners get a cash prize and a tax break as "national treasures"?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: What would the platform of the GW Fanboi party be? Gaming Night is a national institution, cheetos and mountain dew receive federal subsidies? Golden Demon winners get a cash prize and a tax break as "national treasures"?
All those would certainly be up for vote...
We could rename our ships / tanks too!
Don't forget subsidies to help build your armies
If Boeing / General Dynamic feed on the trough for the "Military Industrial Complex"... why can GW feed on the same trough?
C'mon... need some help guys... lets build the new "GW Fanboi" party platform!
whembly wrote: I beg to differ... that's not how our system is setup.
The founders saw this that by having the Electoral College, it avoids the "tyranny of the majority" (a popular phrase) that is inherent in pure democratic systems. Otherwise, why campaign in Delaware? Montana? There are regional differences in those voting bloc... It also enables large and small sovereign states to co-exist with each other.
As opposed to the tyranny of Ohio?
I mean, right now it doesn't matter how much people in Utah, Texas or New York like Romney, if people in Ohio like him he'll almost certainly be president, if they don't he almost certainly won't. How much time have the Presidential candidates spent stumping in states other than the ten swing states in the last month?
Now, I know what you're saying about making sure every state matters, but the simple fact is that isn't the system you have. When it comes to the presidency 40 states don't matter right now.
And it isn't as though the minor states don't have protections anyway. They've still all got their two senators.
If we truly want to go to a popular vote (and we should do this anyways), then we need to stop the 2-party monopoly.
Americans are really hung up on this 2 party monopoly thing. You all seem to ignore the reason those two parties remain the only parties with a real chance is because when an issue becomes important to voters one major party or the other draws it into their platform.
Besides, when you have directly elected representatives (as opposed to proportionate election), a two option system is unavoidable. It will be to the advantage of groups of voters to coalesce into coalitions, backing a single candidate with their combined votes.
whembly wrote: Huh... interesting regarding your Westminster system... so it's a "district" based Electoral Collage (as opposed to States)? **Google, here I come!**
Yeah, basically we don't vote for our head of state. We vote for our local representative. Whichever party wins the majority of electorates (or can form a coalition representing the majority of electorates) will have its leader made Prime Minister. Then there's the Senate, which like yours has its members elected on a state by state basis.
The most interesting point of distinction from your system is that this means the head of state always from the party controlling the lower house of government. So we can't ever have a situation where the executive is at odds with the legislative.
Honestly, I don't think people were THAT bothered... the ones who were upset didn't understand how the system works... and, that's the beauty of this system... the founders/later congress even built the system to address this if there's a tie.
It's a pretty instinctive thing that the person who gets the most votes win the election.
I mean, what's funny is that sometimes you hear people here in Oz claim we should popularly elect our PM, and I will yell at them. But that's because I don't want to executive seperate from the legislative (as the former should reflect the will of the latter). But in your system, where that seperation is already in place why not go the whole hog?
I'm mean, can you imagine the schadenfreude if Obama and Romney tied! Whoa-momma that'd be definately something I'd tell my kidz about!
Did you read that other thread where we mentioned that? You'd have President Romney and Vice President Biden. It'd be hilarious.
Right on! Maybe... Sarah Palin? (lol... no... I couldn't do that to you man... I'm actually laughing hysterically here...)
whembly wrote: I beg to differ... that's not how our system is setup.
The founders saw this that by having the Electoral College, it avoids the "tyranny of the majority" (a popular phrase) that is inherent in pure democratic systems. Otherwise, why campaign in Delaware? Montana? There are regional differences in those voting bloc... It also enables large and small sovereign states to co-exist with each other.
As opposed to the tyranny of Ohio?
Er what? Ohio is on the news because "its the battleground" state based on the polls. That's the nature of the system. Like Winsconsin, Minnie and now Penn... it's always been this way.
Last two years, it was Florida that was the battleground. Now... not so much.
I mean, right now it doesn't matter how much people in Utah, Texas or New York like Romney, if people in Ohio like him he'll almost certainly be president, if they don't he almost certainly won't. How much time have the Presidential candidates spent stumping in states other than the ten swing states in the last month?
I disagree... those voters still needs to vote. Yeah, some states are foregone conclusion, but that doesn't mean it can't never change. If someone has a wild hair up their ass (and some moola), they can try and break historical voting patterns of their states by running themselves. Yeah, it may take some time... but it happens.
Now, I know what you're saying about making sure every state matters, but the simple fact is that isn't the system you have. When it comes to the presidency 40 states don't matter right now.
They still need to vote.
And it isn't as though the minor states don't have protections anyway. They've still all got their two senators.
True... and that has merits.
If we truly want to go to a popular vote (and we should do this anyways), then we need to stop the 2-party monopoly.
Americans are really hung up on this 2 party monopoly thing. You all seem to ignore the reason those two parties remain the only parties with a real chance is because when an issue becomes important to voters one major party or the other draws it into their platform.
Besides, when you have directly elected representatives (as opposed to proportionate election), a two option system is unavoidable. It will be to the advantage of groups of voters to coalesce into coalitions, backing a single candidate with their combined votes.
Jihadin wrote: YOu all sounding like ROmney won already or something
538 has posted four new polls from Ohio today. Rasmussen gives it to Romney by 2, but the other three all report for Obama by either 3 or 4 points. This has strengthened Obama's position in Obama, by 538's model, to a 78% chance of winning. Given how much this race is turning on Ohio, that number is pretty much exactly what Obama's chance of winning the election is.
Jihadin wrote: YOu all sounding like ROmney won already or something
538 has posted four new polls from Ohio today. Rasmussen gives it to Romney by 2, but the other three all report for Obama by either 3 or 4 points. This has strengthened Obama's position in Obama, by 538's model, to a 78% chance of winning. Given how much this race is turning on Ohio, that number is pretty much exactly what Obama's chance of winning the election is.
We'll just see right?
Romney can still lose Ohio and get enough electoral votes... but, I'm thinking he'll win Ohio too. For some reason, that Jeep Ad (which is widely criticized, but was accurate) and that Coal Ad is resonating with Ohio voters. They have coal mines in Ohio?? I thought those were Virginian ads... *shrugs*
man... 'tis late kids... need some shut eye time...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Just one of many good examples why our system is screwed up:
whembly wrote: Er what? Ohio is on the news because "its the battleground" state based on the polls. That's the nature of the system. Like Winsconsin, Minnie and now Penn... it's always been this way.
Last two years, it was Florida that was the battleground. Now... not so much.
Uh, Florida is another key battleground state. It was Romney moving ahead in polls there that gave him an actual chance of winning this election (though there's still more chance of Obama winning there than Romney winning Ohio, IMO).
But seriously, look at the key battleground states in this election. Not where the vote was closest, but the state that took a candidate over 269 votes and all those around that point. Then look at the key states from 2008, then 2004, then 2000. It's the same states.
I disagree... those voters still needs to vote. Yeah, some states are foregone conclusion, but that doesn't mean it can't never change. If someone has a wild hair up their ass (and some moola), they can try and break historical voting patterns of their states by running themselves. Yeah, it may take some time... but it happens.
Well, sure, people have been waiting for the blue drift in Texas to turn that state into a battleground again. And it was a blue state in living memory.
But that's not what I'm saying. I am saying that in a given election, candidates look at the states they can't win, and can't lose, and put little effort into them. You said people wouldn't bother with Delaware or other small states... except you're missing the fact that candidates wouldn't bother with state based systems at all anymore. They'd campaign person by person, demographic by demographic, across the whole country. Because winning a vote, whether it's in Delaware or California would matter.
Right now, winning a vote in Delaware is meaningless, because Obama leads there by 20.
They still need to vote.
If you live in Delaware and you don't vote, it changes nothing. If you convince everyone you know not to bother voting, it changes nothing. Because Obama will win Delaware, and it doesn't matter if it ends up being by 20 points or 5, those votes are going to Obama.
Not hoping for a draw, just hoping that we would wake up someday and get rid of pretending that we are a system that actually cares about representative democracy and just admit that we are a "vote by party" population and should just switch to a system of dividing the lower house by percentage of votes per party in each state.
d-usa wrote: Just one of many good examples why our system is screwed up:
I stopped about a minute in when the narrator described the exact intent of the electoral college as a problem; then went on to piss and moan about the states that already have too much power in the electoral college not having enough electoral votes.
No offense to you Dusa, but whoever made that video is a fethtard.
d-usa wrote: Just one of many good examples why our system is screwed up:
I stopped about a minute in when the narrator described the exact intent of the electoral college as a problem; then went on to piss and moan about the states that already have too much power in the electoral college not having enough electoral votes.
No offense to you Dusa, but whoever made that video is a fethtard.
Your loss, he actually makes a good argument.
AustonT wrote: I doubt the producer/narrator got less stupid in the other four minutes.
You can't exactly form an opinion about the video without watching it. That's stupid, if anything.
I want 269 tie. It'll top off the everyone bucketlist because it be so unexpected. I doubt an alien invasion from Venus will capture the same headlines that day its announce 269 apiece.
The Romeny camp has been working hard to plant the meme that he can win after his first debate performance. Honestly, it is the first intereting or decent thing I have seen his campaign do to try and mobilize his base.
Republicans have a long tradition. If you don't like the current reality, just make up a new one.
Romney is actually losing ground pretty fast, and an Obama win seems even more likely than ever. The popular vote maybe close, but popular votes are meaningless in Presidential Politics. Just ask Al Gore.
It is clear, that the Electoral College will likely get Obama over 270. However, it's not completely over yet, and Romeny still has a 1 in 4 chance of winning.
It is clear, that the Electoral College will likely get Obama over 270. However, it's not completely over yet, and Romeny still has a 1 in 4 chance of winning.
Agreed. It is all or nothing for Romney in Ohio. If Obama wins it, it likely means his victory is assured.
Like I said in the prediction thread, I think Romney has clearly gained some momentum in the past month, and I think that'll continue into Nov. 6. But I also don't see Romney winning Ohio, and when you add those EVs to the 21 other states that Obama seems to have more or less locked down, you end up with 271 EVs and re-election.
I predict that the GOP will be very unhappy with the Romney campaign for losing against a very vulnerable incumbent. But I think certain elements of the GOP will overlook the fact that Romney gained his momentum once he started talking like moderate Mitt again.
gorgon wrote: I think certain elements of the GOP will overlook the fact that Romney gained his momentum once he started talking like moderate Mitt again.
Totally agree here.
I can almost here the cries now:
"Romney lost because he wasn't Conservative enough! He failed to articulate true conservative principles! If the American people only had a cnadidate that strongly espoused and support Conservative principles strongly, they would flock to vote for him. This candidate could not lose. Romney failed to do that."
You have to remember, Conservative Principles never fail, they can only BE failed.
gorgon wrote: "Romney lost because he wasn't Conservative enough! He failed to articulate true conservative principles! If the American people only had a cnadidate that strongly espoused and support Conservative principles strongly, they would flock to vote for him. This candidate could not lose. Romney failed to do that."
You have to remember, Conservative Principles never fail, they can only BE failed.
I don't think the GOP's general zeitgeist actually believes this... their troubles lay with their own primaries, and the fact that the Liars For Jesus camp need to be pandered to because they all vote in droves during the primaries, and as a result no moderate Republican can ever secure the nomination without appealing to the hardcore fundamentalists, and thereby sacrificing their moderate position on the national stage.
gorgon wrote: "Romney lost because he wasn't Conservative enough! He failed to articulate true conservative principles! If the American people only had a cnadidate that strongly espoused and support Conservative principles strongly, they would flock to vote for him. This candidate could not lose. Romney failed to do that."
You have to remember, Conservative Principles never fail, they can only BE failed.
I don't think the GOP's general zeitgeist actually believes this... their troubles lay with their own primaries, and the fact that the Liars For Jesus camp need to be pandered to because they all vote in droves during the primaries, and as a result no moderate Republican can ever secure the nomination without appealing to the hardcore fundamentalists, and thereby sacrificing their moderate position on the national stage.
I generally agree. Look at the candidates they've rolled out in the last two elections...both relative moderates that the party leadership deemed to be electable. Even Bush was thought to be a "GOP Clinton" early on.
Obviously the GOP is fractured these days, given how McCain and Romney had to spend the primaries and even general elections ruining their long-established moderate brands for which they were chosen.
Why do people keep saying it's a tight race. NO ITS NOT! Obama is going to win a huge landslide if you ask me.
Who in the right mind would vote for some sexist, warmongering biggot. To say that it is close is laughable at best.
We all know Obama has pretty much won. In a weeks time they'll just be one pissed of Republican party and I'm going to turn on Fox News for the first time in ten years just to see their reaction and silly childish comments and attacks on the democrats.
Poppabear wrote: Why do people keep saying it's a tight race. NO ITS NOT! Obama is going to win a huge landslide if you ask me.
Who in the right mind would vote for some sexist, warmongering biggot. To say that it is close is laughable at best.
We all know Obama has pretty much won. In a weeks time they'll just be one pissed of Republican party and I'm going to turn on Fox News for the first time in ten years just to see their reaction and silly childish comments and attacks on the democrats.
You spelled bigot wrong.
Don't quit your day job. You might be surprised foreign devil, er I mean compatriot from across the sea.
Poppabear wrote:Who in the right mind would vote for some sexist, warmongering biggot.
Other sexist, warmongering bigots.
Also, people who believe that Romney will be better for the economy. And people who believe Romney will be better with international affairs. And people who adamantly are pro-life. And people who vote strictly along party lines. And people who believe Obama will take their guns away. And hypocrites who are afraid of socialism but want their social securty cheques. And people who earn more than $250k each year. And single-issue voters that are attracted to one aspect of Romney such that for them, that one thing is important enough to swallow all the rest that doesn't appeal.
Don't get me wrong, I think every reason to vote for Romney is shortsighted, uninformed, selfish and naive. But I can understand his appeal to lots of voters.
LOL I'm one of the few on Dakka that shot back in anger in little guys running around in manrobe or man jamas. So I guess I'm a warmonger since I picked my career for 23 yrs
matphat wrote: When was the last time a presidential race WASN'T neck in neck?
I'm starting to think this is a fabrication of the news industry to keep viewership up.
Your closer to the truth than you think.
I was watching Nate Silver, a statistician, the other day, and he gave Obama a 77.4% to get re-elected. This guy seems to be pretty hard nerd core and is an much of an expert as I think we can expect.
It makes for crap news, however, to say that Obama has a 77.4% chance to get re-elected. That's why news companies are going to spin it as a 'neck in neck' race to get more viewers. More viewers = more money.
Poppabear wrote:Who in the right mind would vote for some sexist, warmongering biggot.
Other sexist, warmongering bigots.
Also, people who believe that Romney will be better for the economy. And people who believe Romney will be better with international affairs. And people who adamantly are pro-life. And people who vote strictly along party lines. And people who believe Obama will take their guns away. And hypocrites who are afraid of socialism but want their social securty cheques. And people who earn more than $250k each year. And single-issue voters that are attracted to one aspect of Romney such that for them, that one thing is important enough to swallow all the rest that doesn't appeal.
Don't get me wrong, I think every reason to vote for Romney is shortsighted, uninformed, selfish and naive. But I can understand his appeal to lots of voters.
Don't forget people who don't believe a former moderate Massachusetts governor is in fact a sexist warmonger.
Poppabear wrote:Who in the right mind would vote for some sexist, warmongering biggot.
Other sexist, warmongering bigots.
Also, people who believe that Romney will be better for the economy. And people who believe Romney will be better with international affairs. And people who adamantly are pro-life. And people who vote strictly along party lines. And people who believe Obama will take their guns away. And hypocrites who are afraid of socialism but want their social securty cheques. And people who earn more than $250k each year. And single-issue voters that are attracted to one aspect of Romney such that for them, that one thing is important enough to swallow all the rest that doesn't appeal.
Don't get me wrong, I think every reason to vote for Romney is shortsighted, uninformed, selfish and naive. But I can understand his appeal to lots of voters.
Don't forget people who don't believe a former moderate Massachusetts governor is in fact a sexist warmonger.
How dare you sir!
Don't you know Mittens Eats Kittens!?!
Poppabear wrote: Why do people keep saying it's a tight race. NO ITS NOT! Obama is going to win a huge landslide if you ask me.
Who in the right mind would vote for some sexist, warmongering biggot. To say that it is close is laughable at best.
We all know Obama has pretty much won. In a weeks time they'll just be one pissed of Republican party and I'm going to turn on Fox News for the first time in ten years just to see their reaction and silly childish comments and attacks on the democrats.
"I like this candidate lots more therefore they are certain to win in a landslide" is not how electoral analysis works.
matphat wrote: When was the last time a presidential race WASN'T neck in neck?
I'm starting to think this is a fabrication of the news industry to keep viewership up.
Your closer to the truth than you think.
I was watching Nate Silver, a statistician, the other day, and he gave Obama a 77.4% to get re-elected. This guy seems to be pretty hard nerd core and is an much of an expert as I think we can expect.
It makes for crap news, however, to say that Obama has a 77.4% chance to get re-elected. That's why news companies are going to spin it as a 'neck in neck' race to get more viewers. More viewers = more money.
Well, it isn't just that the media likes to show a closer race (though that is certainly a thing), but national level polls are showing a neck and neck race right now. It's just that moving down to state level analysis shows a much stronger picture for Obama. The media reports almost entirely on day by day national polls, while 538 is at it's core a state by state electoral college predictor.
Which wouldn't normally mean much, but as 538 wrote today, but at some fundamental level there is a disconnect between state and national polls in this election cycle. As in, it isn't just an electoral advantage for Obama, but if you weight all the state polls by their voting turnouts and gross them up, the picture quite different to what the national polls are showing. The article he posted today on the issue is really interesting. It's a pretty odd statistical quirk.
I think the one thing the Romeny Campaign has done really well sinc ethe first debate, is spin the campaign like Romney is a winner. of course, the this plays really well to the Media's need for some sort of narrative as well, so they gladly eat it up.
If you create the "perception" that Romney can win, then it increases the chances that fence sitters will vote for him. After all, America wants to be on the sid eof winners and not losers.
I'm a bit surprised that the Obama team is letting them get away with it, unless they think that the Romney narrative will help them mobilize thier own base on election day? Which is possible. If Obama seems sur eto win, why bother voting? If it is in doubt, than your vote really matters.
Poppabear wrote:Who in the right mind would vote for some sexist, warmongering biggot.
Other sexist, warmongering bigots.
Also, people who believe that Romney will be better for the economy. And people who believe Romney will be better with international affairs. And people who adamantly are pro-life. And people who vote strictly along party lines. And people who believe Obama will take their guns away. And hypocrites who are afraid of socialism but want their social securty cheques. And people who earn more than $250k each year. And single-issue voters that are attracted to one aspect of Romney such that for them, that one thing is important enough to swallow all the rest that doesn't appeal.
Don't get me wrong, I think every reason to vote for Romney is shortsighted, uninformed, selfish and naive. But I can understand his appeal to lots of voters.
I love Canadians.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: LOL I'm one of the few on Dakka that shot back in anger in little guys running around in manrobe or man jamas. So I guess I'm a warmonger since I picked my career for 23 yrs
No you're a warmonger for having Winnie the Pooh provide covering fire, when we all know his talents lie more in the sniper realm.
matphat wrote: When was the last time a presidential race WASN'T neck in neck?
I'm starting to think this is a fabrication of the news industry to keep viewership up.
Your closer to the truth than you think.
I was watching Nate Silver, a statistician, the other day, and he gave Obama a 77.4% to get re-elected. This guy seems to be pretty hard nerd core and is an much of an expert as I think we can expect.
It makes for crap news, however, to say that Obama has a 77.4% chance to get re-elected. That's why news companies are going to spin it as a 'neck in neck' race to get more viewers. More viewers = more money.
There's kind of an insidious side to this. While the campaigns obviously pay far more attention to polls and whatever "hard" data they can dig up, constant media crowing about tight races, etc. can become a self-fulfilling prophecy by motivating voters on either side. And a tightening race can drive more ad buys by campaigns in those same media outlets.
Note that I'm not suggesting that the media determines outcomes. But it's fairly obvious to me that the media figured out a long time ago that a tight race benefits them financially in multiple ways, therefore giving them a vested interest in selling the narrative about a historically close race.
FWIW, I think the final result will be close, but that Obama almost certainly has the 270 EVs that he needs. Those of you predicting Obama landslides are thinking with your hearts instead of your heads. Obama lost his chance to put Romney away for good in that first debate. Romney does have some momentum, and he'll probably get some "what the heck" votes in booths from a dissatisfied electorate. Still, it appears Romney would have to score a fairly monumental upset somewhere to keep Obama from 270.
matphat wrote: When was the last time a presidential race WASN'T neck in neck?
I'm starting to think this is a fabrication of the news industry to keep viewership up.
Your closer to the truth than you think.
I was watching Nate Silver, a statistician, the other day, and he gave Obama a 77.4% to get re-elected. This guy seems to be pretty hard nerd core and is an much of an expert as I think we can expect.
It makes for crap news, however, to say that Obama has a 77.4% chance to get re-elected. That's why news companies are going to spin it as a 'neck in neck' race to get more viewers. More viewers = more money.
Well, it isn't just that the media likes to show a closer race (though that is certainly a thing), but national level polls are showing a neck and neck race right now. It's just that moving down to state level analysis shows a much stronger picture for Obama. The media reports almost entirely on day by day national polls, while 538 is at it's core a state by state electoral college predictor.
Which wouldn't normally mean much, but as 538 wrote today, but at some fundamental level there is a disconnect between state and national polls in this election cycle. As in, it isn't just an electoral advantage for Obama, but if you weight all the state polls by their voting turnouts and gross them up, the picture quite different to what the national polls are showing. The article he posted today on the issue is really interesting. It's a pretty odd statistical quirk.
eh... Nate Silver said in 2009 that any candidate losing the independents "must necessarily" lost the race.
Romney is leading the Independents by 8 (48 - 40)... but, Nate just increased Obama's lead by 1.21 gigawatts... what ever that means...
whembly wrote: eh... Nate Silver said in 2009 that any candidate losing the independents "must necessarily" lost the race.
Romney is leading the Independents by 8 (48 - 40)... but, Nate just increased Obama's lead by 1.21 gigawatts... what ever that means...
I just spent the time to try and explain myself fully and completely, and you respond with some cut and paste bs from a half brained conservative blog called Ace of Spades. That's just lazy, man.
Meanwhile, if there's any point arguing with a copy and paste from some blog, the problem with "Romney is leading the independants" is that if you look at those polls giving Romney a huge lead among independants, you see a really big lead in party identification favouring the Democrats. As in, where there's an 8 or 10 point advantage to Romney among independants, you a party identification lead to Democrats of about the same. In surveys where the the split among independants is small, the party identification drops away to just a couple of points (which is about the traditional difference between the two parties).
When you see that trend followed closely over a dozen or more polls, it becomes clear that "Romney is winning independants" thing is actually misleading. What we're actually seeing is "conservative people who prefer Romney don't want to call themselves Republicans".
At which point, the 'ha ha we trapped you Nate Silver" thing spreading out across the blogosphere is actually shown as the obnoxious prattle it is. Meanwhile, Silver just keeps tracking the state polls, plugging those numbers into his model and coming to the common sense conclusion that only one out of about 20 state polls has given Romney a lead in Ohio, the Obama has to be the favourite.
whembly wrote: eh... Nate Silver said in 2009 that any candidate losing the independents "must necessarily" lost the race.
Romney is leading the Independents by 8 (48 - 40)... but, Nate just increased Obama's lead by 1.21 gigawatts... what ever that means...
I just spent the time to try and explain myself fully and completely, and you respond with some cut and paste bs from a half brained conservative blog called Ace of Spades. That's just lazy, man.
Meanwhile, if there's any point arguing with a copy and paste from some blog, the problem with "Romney is leading the independants" is that if you look at those polls giving Romney a huge lead among independants, you see a really big lead in party identification favouring the Democrats. As in, where there's an 8 or 10 point advantage to Romney among independants, you a party identification lead to Democrats of about the same. In surveys where the the split among independants is small, the party identification drops away to just a couple of points (which is about the traditional difference between the two parties).
When you see that trend followed closely over a dozen or more polls, it becomes clear that "Romney is winning independants" thing is actually misleading. What we're actually seeing is "conservative people who prefer Romney don't want to call themselves Republicans".
At which point, the 'ha ha we trapped you Nate Silver" thing spreading out across the blogosphere is actually shown as the obnoxious prattle it is. Meanwhile, Silver just keeps tracking the state polls, plugging those numbers into his model and coming to the common sense conclusion that only one out of about 20 state polls has given Romney a lead in Ohio, the Obama has to be the favourite.
Yeah, I was lazy... (warning... sorta halfway drunk now... if I'm incoherent, much apologies)
Okay... let's engage shall we?
Polling is crapshoot... well, that's too harsh, but polling data is being emphasized waaaay too much. I'm mean, there's a scientific methodology used on polling, but at the end of the day, it doesn't capture the most important thing... and that is, which lever they pull on the election day.
A lot of these polls anticipate the same turnout in 2008, for the 2012 elections. It simply won't happen that way. The 2008 model is an exteme end, as well as the midterm 2010. It'll probably be between the '08 model and '10 model this year.
On top of that, my issue with Nate Silver's methodology is the SAME issue I have with those who attempt to predict who will win the World Series in spring training. Yes, I'm talking about sabermetric... (trust me, the debate on this can get epic) it's inherently flawed because it can't ever predict the nuances on the way the game is actually played.
He's often accused of “weighting” some state polls to give an edge to Obama, and the distribution of that weighting is highly subjective and there's merits to these accusations. He may be right... we'll see in a few days eh?
EDIT 1;
Here's some EV ruminations... Romney leads in all the states McCain carried in 2008 for 179 electoral votes.
He's also convincingly ahead in Indiana , N. Carolina, Florida, Colorado [whoa, what happened here?], and Virginia... if my fuzzy math is right, then he's at 255 of the needed 270 EV.
There's serious optimism that Romney would win Ohio, NH and IA...
Penn is in play... WTH! Romney is outspending Obama 6 to 1 in this state... that'd be the true shocker if he gets this...
Obama is playing catchup in WI and MN! You'd think these blue states are his safe states, but he's spending some Advertising money there... that's less money for Ohio / Penn...
Plus... this Bengahzi thing is picking up steam... Obama is looking bad from this.
d-usa wrote: Just incredibly hard for any third party to become registered in this state and place a candidate on the ballot.
Here is a map of all the states where you can vote for Gary Johnson, notice how many states have zero options for voting for the Libertarian Party:
Now repeat that map for every other third party. We have not had a third party or indepentend candidate for President on our ballot since 2000.
Yeah... that's sucks.
Both the Dems and Reps want to keep the ballot monoply...
I'd be in favor for opening up all parties... like "The GW-fanboi" party... cuz, we need a national tournament and subsidized cheetos/moutain dews for everyone.
Automatically Appended Next Post: heck hem... Seb... here's something interesting.
According to their updated analysis, Romney is projected to receive 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes. President Barack Obama is expected to receive 208 votes -- down five votes from their initial prediction
whembly wrote: Yeah, I was lazy... (warning... sorta halfway drunk now... if I'm incoherent, much apologies)
Nah, your post was pretty clear. But that website you quoted from will do way worse things for your brain than any amount of alcohol
Polling is crapshoot... well, that's too harsh, but polling data is being emphasized waaaay too much. I'm mean, there's a scientific methodology used on polling, but at the end of the day, it doesn't capture the most important thing... and that is, which lever they pull on the election day.
A lot of these polls anticipate the same turnout in 2008, for the 2012 elections. It simply won't happen that way. The 2008 model is an exteme end, as well as the midterm 2010. It'll probably be between the '08 model and '10 model this year.
And you'll find most every polling group uses a likely voter methodology that factors in a range of elements... and ends up with turnout somewhere between 2008 and 2010.
On top of that, my issue with Nate Silver's methodology is the SAME issue I have with those who attempt to predict who will win the World Series in spring training. Yes, I'm talking about sabermetric... (trust me, the debate on this can get epic) it's inherently flawed because it can't ever predict the nuances on the way the game is actually played.
Yeah, I know the epic mess that is the sabremetrics debate. Like a lot of the folk in that debate, your argument reminds me of a lot of the people in that debate. Too often folk would argue for their own little stat observation, and when it is pointed out them why that observation doesn't really work, they quickly retreat into 'stats are bad'. Here you argued that Romney is polling well among independants, and when I pointed out that stat didn't really work, you retreated quickly to saying stats don't really work.
And yeah, analysis of polling data has inherent limits. It doesn't dictate the future, merely predict it, and within that there's only so much of the situation that can be read into the data, and only so much that can be predicted from it. That doesn't make such analysis useless, and Silver will be the first one to point out where his analysis begins and ends in terms of usefulness.
He's often accused of “weighting” some state polls to give an edge to Obama, and the distribution of that weighting is highly subjective and there's merits to these accusations. He may be right... we'll see in a few days eh?
He's accused of all sorts of things. That's the state of the modern blogosphere, whenever anyone says something you don't want to hear you reflexively claim bias and pretend it never happened. It makes some kind of sense when people do it on issues because that allows people to continue believing whatever they want to believe, but it makes no sense when it comes to something apolitical like 'by studying state polls who is most likely to win the election'.
There its just bloggers doing what they've always done, maintaining their fine tradition of preaching bs to the converted.
According to their updated analysis, Romney is projected to receive 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes. President Barack Obama is expected to receive 208 votes -- down five votes from their initial prediction
You want to talk about problems with predicting elections based on polling data, but then talk about purely economic models? Those things are woeful.
Not that economic issues don't matter, but looking at them exclusively, and then building a model just on that is so limited it can't ever be more than a general guide. Political campaigns matter, politicians matter. There is, ultimately, a reason that parties don't run a campaign of 'the economy is poor so we're know we're going to win and here's our candidate a 36 year old head of lettuce'.
According to their updated analysis, Romney is projected to receive 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes. President Barack Obama is expected to receive 208 votes -- down five votes from their initial prediction
That's apparently from a month ago, and I really don't see it happening. Even the best polls for Romney would only see him squeak by a win.
While I'm not silly enough to say that it's all wrapped up, especially as the effects of Hurricane Sandy are hard to gauge (but seem to be favouring Obama, especially after Chris Christie praised his leadership over it), but Obama has a significant advantage in the election at the moment. Don't believe individual poll, they can vary widely and house effects caused by different methodology can lead to misleading numbers, rather look at polls of polls, especially amalgamations of state polls which are more accurate. At the moment:
FiveThirtyEight's nate Silver has the following predictions up: 80% chance of Obama winning reelection, and he's on the upswing.
Princeton Electoral Consortium, which only looks at state polls: So they're giving over a 90% chance of victory for Obama.
Real Clear Politics, a right leaning poll accumulator:
The AP's map even rates Ohio as "leans Obama", and puts 270 Electoral votes as Strong or Leans Obama, so he won't even need any of the states they classify as Tossups. Meanwhlie, Romney has to win pretty much all the Tossups and Ohio to win, a very difficult proposition.:
Even the far right/Christian site Election-Projection is projecting an Obama win - and he HATES obama.
Finally, Huffington Post's Pollster has an interesting interactive chart which anyone interested in such things should check out. While their National Polls show Romney just in front (0.2%), taking away a single outlier pollster (Gallup, which shows Romeny as +5, which is pretty out there) out of the 60+ pollsters they track brings Obama in front by a similar margin, so we'll have to see if their methodology for picking likely voters is somewhat off, or if everyone else has it wrong.
However, Ohio is lining up to be the most important swing state, and it's currently going to Obama pretty solidly:
So yeah, odds are well on Obama, especially as he has stronger early voting and a stronger ground game/GOTV effort (double or triple the number of GOTV offices in major swing states).
Betting odds as well, most betting markets are putting Obama as about a 70-75% favorite. Certainly not a forgone conclusion, as I said, but he's odds on favorite.
Seaward wrote: I continue to believe that the D/R/I splits are optimistic in favor of Democrats this cycle, but we'll see in four days.
Statements like that just seem to imply that the polling firms are deciding what the D/R/I splits are going to be and calling people to get that ration...
whembly wrote: Here's some EV ruminations... Romney leads in all the states McCain carried in 2008 for 179 electoral votes.
McCain ended with 173 votes, and I think it's safe to say Romney will collect all of those. Meaning he's got to pick up 97 votes from elsewhere.
He's also convincingly ahead in Indiana , N. Carolina, Florida, Colorado [whoa, what happened here?], and Virginia... if my fuzzy math is right, then he's at 255 of the needed 270 EV.
Sure, add in Indiana, N. Carolina as certain Romney pickups, and you go to 199 votes. Florida and Colorado are actually split even right now (state polls on both are falling for each candidate about evenly, and always with a small margin) but for argument's sake we'll give them both Romney. That puts him on 235 votes.
There's serious optimism that Romney would win Ohio, NH and IA...
I could be seriously optimistic that I could take a running leap and launch myself over the Pacific... but physics says I'll end up wet and really disappointed.
Right now the only poll calling Iowa for Romney is Rasmussen. That's not a good sign.
Right now Rasumussen and the ocassaional other poll is calling Ohio for Romney. Also not a good sign.
No-one is calling New Hampshire for Romney.
Now, the margin in each of those states is tight, and any of them could fall for Romney, but Romney's problem is that he needs not just one but all of them to drop his way, to just squeak his way to 271 votes.
Well, actually, you add in Virginia as well, and Romney could stretch out to 284 votes.
But what that means is that, with Indiana and North Carolina as sure pick ups, he absolutely needs Florida and Ohio, neither of which are sure things, and then needs to collect all but one or two of Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire and Virgnia.
That isn't impossible, it isn't even improbable, but it is certainly the kind of thing the underdog is left staring at.
Penn is in play... WTH! Romney is outspending Obama 6 to 1 in this state... that'd be the true shocker if he gets this...
It would be. Obama is leading there in polls by like 6 points. If Penn goes then it'll be part of a bizarre mega-landslide that no-one on Earth saw happening.
According to their updated analysis, Romney is projected to receive 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes. President Barack Obama is expected to receive 208 votes -- down five votes from their initial prediction
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Romney with 330 to 208? Are you kidding me? What, did those Colorado guys make their fortunes off of Buster Douglas or something?
He's often accused of “weighting” some state polls to give an edge to Obama, and the distribution of that weighting is highly subjective and there's merits to these accusations. He may be right... we'll see in a few days eh?
Whats funny is Nate Silver said the Republican blog-o-sphere loved him in 2009 when he predicted the republican sweep of the house. Now that he's not telling them what they want to hear, hes the enemy.
whembly wrote: Plus... this Bengahzi thing is picking up steam... Obama is looking bad from this.
Of course, there are things like Chris Christie praising Obama on Fox news.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: [I'd be in favor for opening up all parties... like "The GW-fanboi"
I agree. The problem is the american people are given the choice between vanilla and strawberry. What if we want "Chocolate chip cookie dough"
Just got done with casting my ballot with only the two state approved candidates on it. Hurray, goat herders in third world countries have more options than I do...
d-usa wrote: Just got done with casting my ballot with only the two state approved candidates on it. Hurray, goat herders in third world countries have more options than I do...
d-usa wrote: Just got done with casting my ballot with only the two state approved candidates on it. Hurray, goat herders in third world countries have more options than I do...
When I early voted last week, my ballot had:
Democrat: Obama
Republican: Romney
Libertarian: Gary Johnson
Green: Jill Stein
Honestly, thinking back on it, I don't recall seeing that option.
Since I didn't want to, I didn't look for it. I just don't recall seeing that option. My electronic voting booth did not have a keyboard, but it did have one of those wheels that you could...turn. Perhaps you "write in" your candidate's name like you used to enter your name when you get the high score on an arcade machine...
According to their updated analysis, Romney is projected to receive 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes. President Barack Obama is expected to receive 208 votes -- down five votes from their initial prediction
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Romney with 330 to 208? Are you kidding me? What, did those Colorado guys make their fortunes off of Buster Douglas or something?
Well... everyone is harping on Nate Silver's model 'cuz it kicked so much ass in the '08 and '10 election... I wanted to show a different methodology using economic data since 1980 that predicted the election accurately...
What did we learn from statistics? "There are Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics".
Which mean, you can take an aggregate of data collection, and make it work for your perspective.
He's often accused of “weighting” some state polls to give an edge to Obama, and the distribution of that weighting is highly subjective and there's merits to these accusations. He may be right... we'll see in a few days eh?
Whats funny is Nate Silver said the Republican blog-o-sphere loved him in 2009 when he predicted the republican sweep of the house. Now that he's not telling them what they want to hear, hes the enemy.
I beg to differ... most Republican blog-o-sphere has always treated Nate carefully... it's the other side of the fence who's continually pushing that HE'S. THE. MAN! (from a statistical modeling perspective... his methodology is interesting).
whembly wrote: Plus... this Bengahzi thing is picking up steam... Obama is looking bad from this.
Of course, there are things like Chris Christie praising Obama on Fox news.
Erm... what else is Chris Christie is going to say? He's not compaigning... he's the GOV. of NJ is fulfilling that role admirably.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: [I'd be in favor for opening up all parties... like "The GW-fanboi"
I agree. The problem is the american people are given the choice between vanilla and strawberry. What if we want "Chocolate chip cookie dough"
What flavor would GW inspired ice cream would be? Quick... someone call Ben&Jerry!
SickSix wrote: Wow, a lot of cool aide has been consumed by some in this thread.
Anyone who believes the current President and administration is good for this country is delusional.
It's spelled Kool-aid. By using a paraphrase of Drinking the Kool-aid, I think you're referring to the Jones-town incident, where a bunch of followers took poison.
It is believed that they used Flavor Aid, not Kool-aid.
Honestly, thinking back on it, I don't recall seeing that option.
Since I didn't want to, I didn't look for it. I just don't recall seeing that option. My electronic voting booth did not have a keyboard, but it did have one of those wheels that you could...turn. Perhaps you "write in" your candidate's name like you used to enter your name when you get the high score on an arcade machine...
Why do you guys use electronic machines anyway? Seems like its more things that can go wrong, higher chance of votes being lost due to malfunctions, more opportunities for election fraud, no paper trail or ability for a recount.... Just seems silly. Apparently they're rushing out an experimental patch to a bunch of Ohio electronic machines this week too - sounds like just what everyone wants, rushed software on a system with no backups or paper trail in the state most likely to decide the election.
/Plus, I find it stranger still that they are apparently privately owned, but I suppose that's just a management arrangement of sorts.
Maddermax wrote: Why do you guys use electronic machines anyway? Seems like its more things that can go wrong, higher chance of votes being lost due to malfunctions, more opportunities for election fraud, no paper trail or ability for a recount.... Just seems silly.
Honestly, that is one of the funniest things I've seen lately. I can't decide if my favourite part is the "you're an donkey-cave" look on Gretchen Carlson's face after Christie praised Obama, or it's when Doocy tried to crank the Romney propaganda up to 11 to save the clip and only to have even that backfire so vehemently.
They are SO MAD! (and the conservative forums are totally calling Christie a traitor, etc, etc, for this)
SickSix wrote: Wow, a lot of cool aide has been consumed by some in this thread.
Anyone who believes the current President and administration is good for this country is delusional.
Honestly, that is one of the funniest things I've seen lately. I can't decide if my favourite part is the "you're an donkey-cave" look on Gretchen Carlson's face after Christie praised Obama, or it's when Doocy tried to crank the Romney propaganda up to 11 to save the clip and only to have even that backfire so vehemently.
Honestly, that is one of the funniest things I've seen lately. I can't decide if my favourite part is the "you're an donkey-cave" look on Gretchen Carlson's face after Christie praised Obama, or it's when Doocy tried to crank the Romney propaganda up to 11 to save the clip and only to have even that backfire so vehemently.
"I have no idea, nor am I the least bit concerned or interested."
Chris Christie, like a pimp. He's a straight-talker when the chips are down.
Maddermax wrote: Why do you guys use electronic machines anyway? Seems like its more things that can go wrong, higher chance of votes being lost due to malfunctions, more opportunities for election fraud, no paper trail or ability for a recount.... Just seems silly. Apparently they're rushing out an experimental patch to a bunch of Ohio electronic machines this week too - sounds like just what everyone wants, rushed software on a system with no backups or paper trail in the state most likely to decide the election.
/Plus, I find it stranger still that they are apparently privately owned, but I suppose that's just a management arrangement of sorts.
There are a bunch of different kinds of machines around the country. Up here in NH we use a felt pen to black in ovals on a (heavy, cardstock) paper ballot which are then fed into an optical scanning machine.
I listened to an NPR story last night in the car debunking the Tagg Romney conspiracy theory. Other people have pointed out the tenuous chain of connection which makes it a pretty wild theory, but the comments they got from the Board of Elections official were new, AFAIK:
NPR wrote:CORNISH: All right. So what are holes here? What's wrong with the story?
KEITH: Well, let's start with the voting machines. In Ohio, there are only two counties that use machines from Hart. I called Hamilton County - it's the most populous county. And aside from one election machine in each polling place for disabled voters - and those are electronic - the county uses what's called the Hart eScan machine.
So voters actually vote on paper ballots, and then those ballots are fed into a scanner that tabulates the votes. But there is always a paper backup so that if there is a recount, there is something to count. The county bought these machines back in 2005, so way before H.I.G. ever invested in Hart InterCivic. I spoke with Sally Krisel at the Board of Elections. She says Hart isn't involved in the election in any way.
SALLY KRISEL: We do all of our own pretesting on it, maintenance, diagnostics on it. And we do all of our vote tabulation, ballot preparation. All of that is done by bipartisan teams of people here in Hamilton County.
KEITH: She told me that they opted for this paper-based system so that they could be confident in their results.
KRISEL: We feel really comfortable with this system, and that kind of makes the most recent press really disheartening because we feel good about the system that we chose and the system that we operate.
We just got new machines in Oklahoma, but we still use paper ballots that get scanned into the machine and then stored in the ballot box. Electronic counting for instant transmission of results, physical backup of the actual paper ballots.
Funny....I'm a paratrooper...and I'm smart enough not to jump with firecrackers anywhere on my body. More weight I have to deal with just to stumble and fall out the door of an aircraft.
"What's very unique about the way the Americans do it, it's not the process, it's the confidence that's placed in the process," she said. "This is what lacks in other countries. They say if this would happen in Arab countries it would not work the way it does in the United States."
whembly wrote: But, that's probably because most of Europe don't know the challenger (Mitt).
We were unfortunately exposed to him on his tour of Europe where he then proceeded to insult pretty much everyone living here
Plus, being outside the US system of politics we can see just how insane he actually is without automatically being part of "the other colour party" and therefore automatically being the enemy
whembly wrote: But, that's probably because most of Europe don't know the challenger (Mitt).
We were unfortunately exposed to him on his tour of Europe where he then proceeded to insult pretty much everyone living here
Hmmm... maybe I'm weird, but I wouldn't consider that an insult. If you wanted an insult, we can be more... vulgar.
Plus, being outside the US system of politics we can see just how insane he actually is without automatically being part of "the other colour party" and therefore automatically being the enemy
A guy at work that moved here from Italy is getting excited to go vote in his first presidential election. Since there are so many people in my area that moved in from other countries and became citizens, I get to see our system with fresh eyes every election.
It's kind of cool, really, and reminds me that we really do have it good here.
