AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 22, 2012 21:11:20 GMT -5
Romney is still down 3% in Ohio. what is interesting is that Obama has never lead by more than 6% or less than 2.5%. this is the best position Romney has been in all year long, and it is NOT good enough to win. there are a lot of really good demographic reasons why this is the case. it is really foolish to ignore them. It's foolish to dismiss 490,000 fewer registered democrats and assume 407,000 white middle class voters aren't going to show up and vote. That's how one outfit came up with this tie.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 22, 2012 21:16:42 GMT -5
If I recall...*ahem*
The result was that the voters in Wisconsin got a chance to change their minds, and after having a hissy fit, peeing on themselves in the state capitol building, indoctrinating children to sing songs of the glorious revolution, and dumping tons of money into the state-- the Democratic Party and their union allies were handed a bigger defeat than they got initially.
The lesson isn't don't do it because liberals will have a tantrum and pee on themselves. The lesson is DO IT, let 'em have their fit (and spend themselves into oblivion doing it) and strip them of the tax money they used to fill their coffers.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,476
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 22, 2012 21:18:12 GMT -5
what is interesting is that Obama has never lead by more than 6% or less than 2.5%. this is the best position Romney has been in all year long, and it is NOT good enough to win. there are a lot of really good demographic reasons why this is the case. it is really foolish to ignore them. It's foolish to dismiss 490,000 fewer registered democrats and assume 407,000 white middle class voters aren't going to show up and vote. That's how one outfit came up with this tie. there is no dismissing, Paul. your posts are showing profound ignorance. you keep repeating this same indictment, but there is literally zero evidence of it. zero.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 22, 2012 21:18:31 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 22, 2012 21:38:55 GMT -5
It's foolish to dismiss 490,000 fewer registered democrats and assume 407,000 white middle class voters aren't going to show up and vote. That's how one outfit came up with this tie. there is no dismissing, Paul. your posts are showing profound ignorance. you keep repeating this same indictment, but there is literally zero evidence of it. zero. Evidence- specific evidence has already been posted. I will save you the trouble of going back and reading the previous posts: 1. www.nationalreview.com/corner/331118/mittmentum-new-ohio-polls-better-they-appear-josh-jordanGravis Marketing did, in fact, weight their poll not on party ID, but on race- oversampling non-whites, and assuming 407,000 white voters basically aren't going to show up: battlegroundwatch.com/2012/10/20/ohio-tied-if-350000-white-voters-dont-show-up-gravis-marketing/Party ID The party ID in this poll is D +9 (Dem 41, Rep 32, Ind 27). This exceeds what we have been using for the 2008 party ID of D +8 (Dem 39, Rep 31, Ind 27). But as @numbersmuncher proved out, the real 2008 disparity was D +5 (Dem 37.5, Rep 32.5, Ind 30) while in 2004 it was R +5 (Dem 35, Rep 40, Ind 25). Far too many Democrats, but in this instance we see it is too many non-Whites and too few Whites. OK, got that? Now, next point- 2. www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/27/drop-in-ohio-voter-registration-especially-in-dem-strongholds-mirrors/#ixzz2A5NFAaJfOK, dj? Got it? Because if you come back again and state that I haven't backed these claims up, I'm just going to throw you back on ignore. I'm fine having the most rigorous debate you want to have, but unless you've got actual facts that refute what I've posted (and btw, your posts are light on links), save it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,476
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 22, 2012 21:45:38 GMT -5
Gravis Marketing did, in fact, weight their poll not on party ID, but on race- oversampling non-whites, and assuming 407,000 white voters basically aren't going to show up: you got the what perfectly. but you are not getting the why. for you the why is "because Gravis is a Democratic operative". but that is not it at all. the REAL why is because Gravis' model shows that this is how Ohio will vote. if they are wrong, they will be punished by poll watchers, who will disregard their polling in the way that i am disregarding Rasmussen's now.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,476
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 22, 2012 21:51:48 GMT -5
OK, dj? Got it? Because if you come back again and state that I haven't backed these claims up, I'm just going to throw you back on ignore. I'm fine having the most rigorous debate you want to have, but unless you've got actual facts that refute what I've posted (and btw, your posts are light on links), save it. yes, Paul. i got that you think that Gravis is on the DNC payroll, and if i had any laugh in me, i would laugh about it. but unfortunately, this notion kinda reminds me of a conspiracy theory, and i can't help but wonder if it is worth arguing with you, at this point. the problem with people who believe in conspiracy theories, is that they will suggest that any evidence that is brought against the theory is part of the conspiracy. this drives them even further into these theories rather than away from them. but if you really are a reasonable person, you will review this: fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/poll-averages-have-no-history-of-consistent-partisan-bias/if not, i really have lost patience for this argument. have a good evening.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 22, 2012 22:33:54 GMT -5
Gravis Marketing did, in fact, weight their poll not on party ID, but on race- oversampling non-whites, and assuming 407,000 white voters basically aren't going to show up: you got the what perfectly. but you are not getting the why. for you the why is "because Gravis is a Democratic operative". but that is not it at all. the REAL why is because Gravis' model shows that this is how Ohio will vote. if they are wrong, they will be punished by poll watchers, who will disregard their polling in the way that i am disregarding Rasmussen's now. Well then I just misunderstood what you were taking issue with. I don't care why. I do think most pollsters- because most are simply arms of, or contracted by mainstream media outlets- lean left. I have also acknowledged that they all ultimately care about being right- it's their bread and butter. As a result, if you're following my theory- this race isn't tightening in my opinion. We're just seeing a picture of the race as it has been for six months. Tied. And late deciders will break for the challenger as they always do. Moderates and independents are showing signs of breaking for Romney and that's when a tight race becomes a landslid for Romney.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,476
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 22, 2012 22:36:00 GMT -5
you got the what perfectly. but you are not getting the why. for you the why is "because Gravis is a Democratic operative". but that is not it at all. the REAL why is because Gravis' model shows that this is how Ohio will vote. if they are wrong, they will be punished by poll watchers, who will disregard their polling in the way that i am disregarding Rasmussen's now. Well then I just misunderstood what you were taking issue with. I don't care why. I do think most pollsters- because most are simply arms of, or contracted by mainstream media outlets- lean left. i take it you didn't read the article? good night, Paul.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 22, 2012 22:40:27 GMT -5
OK, dj? Got it? Because if you come back again and state that I haven't backed these claims up, I'm just going to throw you back on ignore. I'm fine having the most rigorous debate you want to have, but unless you've got actual facts that refute what I've posted (and btw, your posts are light on links), save it. yes, Paul. i got that you think that Gravis is on the DNC payroll, and if i had any laugh in me, i would laugh about it. but unfortunately, this notion kinda reminds me of a conspiracy theory, and i can't help but wonder if it is worth arguing with you, at this point. the problem with people who believe in conspiracy theories, is that they will suggest that any evidence that is brought against the theory is part of the conspiracy. this drives them even further into these theories rather than away from them. but if you really are a reasonable person, you will review this: fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/poll-averages-have-no-history-of-consistent-partisan-bias/if not, i really have lost patience for this argument. have a good evening. I read the article. It its entirety. The fact of the matter is that it is consistent with my theory- that left leaning pollsters start the election cycle trying to drive opinion. As the elections get closer, they start to care about accuracy and their own credibility.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,476
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 22, 2012 22:47:27 GMT -5
yes, Paul. i got that you think that Gravis is on the DNC payroll, and if i had any laugh in me, i would laugh about it. but unfortunately, this notion kinda reminds me of a conspiracy theory, and i can't help but wonder if it is worth arguing with you, at this point. the problem with people who believe in conspiracy theories, is that they will suggest that any evidence that is brought against the theory is part of the conspiracy. this drives them even further into these theories rather than away from them. but if you really are a reasonable person, you will review this: fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/poll-averages-have-no-history-of-consistent-partisan-bias/if not, i really have lost patience for this argument. have a good evening. I read the article. It its entirety. The fact of the matter is that it is consistent with my theory- that left leaning pollsters start the election cycle trying to drive opinion. As the elections get closer, they start to care about accuracy and their own credibility. that article addresses the "oversampling" point head-on. it is summed up as "wishful thinking". this question of whether pollsters adjust during the course of the election is addressed in another article. that contention is also bogus. i will see if i can find it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,476
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 22, 2012 22:59:59 GMT -5
i can't find the article, Paul (i can't remember the title)- but the basic gist of it is that polling agencies don't TYPICALLY adjust their methodologies as they go. there are exceptions to this. Gallup is one, just this year. but they are rare.
most often pollsters adjust their methodologies BASED ON election results, not prior to.
i have to pack for Australia now. have a fun election. we'll talk again after Thanksgiving.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 23, 2012 7:55:29 GMT -5
i can't find the article, Paul (i can't remember the title)- but the basic gist of it is that polling agencies don't TYPICALLY adjust their methodologies as they go. there are exceptions to this. Gallup is one, just this year. but they are rare. most often pollsters adjust their methodologies BASED ON election results, not prior to. i have to pack for Australia now. have a fun election. we'll talk again after Thanksgiving. Do you know WHY Gallup tweaked their methodology?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 23, 2012 9:39:15 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,476
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 23, 2012 12:50:43 GMT -5
i can't find the article, Paul (i can't remember the title)- but the basic gist of it is that polling agencies don't TYPICALLY adjust their methodologies as they go. there are exceptions to this. Gallup is one, just this year. but they are rare. most often pollsters adjust their methodologies BASED ON election results, not prior to. i have to pack for Australia now. have a fun election. we'll talk again after Thanksgiving. Do you know WHY Gallup tweaked their methodology? of course, Paul. you made a huge issue over it. but the fact is that they are frequently an outlier, especially on the tracking poll.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 23, 2012 13:04:05 GMT -5
Do you know WHY Gallup tweaked their methodology? of course, Paul. you made a huge issue over it. but the fact is that they are frequently an outlier, especially on the tracking poll. Maybe. I don't know. Rasmussen is spot on- and they just moved it to a 4 point race. It's over. BTW- didn't know you were off to Aussieland. Bonzer, mate! Throw a shrimp on the barbie for me. Have fun down under.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 23, 2012 13:06:22 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 23, 2012 13:10:03 GMT -5
The Romney surge is starting to congeal. The numbers will cement by this weekend, and Obama is going to lose big. I predict by the middle of next week, you may have a mainstream news source willing to at least discuss the possibility that Obama is losing.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 23, 2012 13:19:55 GMT -5
The Obama support has cracked, and it's now starting to collapse. Those that helped craft the Obama myth, are now asking who is he? Um, some of us knew- some of us in fact know. We've been telling anyone and everyone who would listen. You failed to vet the man as a candidate, chose not to challenge him as President, and now four years later, two weeks out-- you admit you haven't done your job? Is it any wonder the mainstream media is held in such low regard by so many? www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_21829528?source=commented-news
|
|
mwcpa
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 7, 2011 6:35:43 GMT -5
Posts: 2,425
|
Post by mwcpa on Oct 23, 2012 13:23:32 GMT -5
there are about 150 predictions that are going to be happening shortly... sitting on pins and needles....
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 23, 2012 13:32:08 GMT -5
I found it interesting today that the IBD/TIPP poll cited with glee here yesterday now shows Obama has plummeted 4 points to a +2 lead. The Rasmussen lead is up from Romney +2 to Romney +4. Gallup is down a hair for Romney to Romney +5. Intrade, though was very interesting. Obama has dropped down -3.2 points Romney is up 2.2 points. The markets are catching up with reality, and when people have to make the bet, we'll see that change quite a bit.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,476
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 23, 2012 13:35:51 GMT -5
of course, Paul. you made a huge issue over it. but the fact is that they are frequently an outlier, especially on the tracking poll. Maybe. I don't know. Rasmussen is spot on- and they just moved it to a 4 point race. It's over. given their bias, i think it is safe to say that the race is tied.BTW- didn't know you were off to Aussieland. Bonzer, mate! Throw a shrimp on the barbie for me. Have fun down under. will indeed.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,476
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 23, 2012 13:37:40 GMT -5
I found it interesting today that the IBD/TIPP poll cited with glee here yesterday i didn't cite it with glee. i cited it as an outlier. another ridiculously bad rolling poll, along with Gallup.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 20:22:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2012 13:39:57 GMT -5
WH reporter was talking on OPB today about how the polls are different when you look at likely voters rather than registered voters. Apparently Romney looks like he has a better chance with likely voters.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,476
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 23, 2012 13:42:37 GMT -5
WH reporter was talking on OPB today about how the polls are different when you look at likely voters rather than registered voters. Apparently Romney looks like he has a better chance with likely voters. of course. that is because Republicans have better turnout. however, all of the polling that we have posted here for the last two months is based on likely voters. so, if this goes according to likely voters, it is pretty much a tie, right now. if it goes by registered voters, Obama will kick Romney's arse.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,476
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 23, 2012 13:43:33 GMT -5
The Romney surge is starting to congeal. this sounds vaguely perverse. you should really find something other to do with your time for a while until this wears off.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,476
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 23, 2012 13:44:43 GMT -5
The Obama support has cracked, and it's now starting to collapse. Those that helped craft the Obama myth, are now asking who is he? Um, some of us knew- some of us in fact know. a gifted orator who worked hard and became president. we should all be proud to live in a country where that can happen.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Oct 23, 2012 13:53:06 GMT -5
The Obama support has cracked, and it's now starting to collapse. Those that helped craft the Obama myth, are now asking who is he? Um, some of us knew- some of us in fact know. a gifted orator who worked hard and became president. we should all be proud to live in a country where that can happen. ;D
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Oct 23, 2012 14:16:37 GMT -5
The Romney surge is starting to congeal. this sounds vaguely perverse. you should really find something other to do with your time for a while until this wears off. Probably better than a Santorum surge.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 20:22:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2012 14:37:17 GMT -5
The election will be won or lost according to the votes cast on election day. As for the pre-election polling data... it's mostly propaganda white noise. Weapons of mass distraction for the pseudo-pundits to toy with, and fodder for fanatics to gnaw upon.
|
|