Politics

[autry_denson]

I see a lot of you have been suckered in by the Mainstream (liberal) Media. Two days until you are shocked into reality. Romney will carry Ohio and as such will be POTUS #45. The over sampling of democrats in these national polls has mis-led millions of Americans. CNN has shown Obama ahead in Ohio in the previous four polls by 4 points. If this were true there would be no way Romney would prevail. It is my argument that this poll is not accurate. Again, they over sample dems and use the polling model based upon the 2008 election (not going to ever happen again). The masiah has been unmasked. In early voting in Ohio while the dems lead in this category by a large margin, the diff. b/t 2008 and 2012 is an approx. 240K swing in favor of the republicans. Just like Benghazi, the lies will only be hidden by the national media only for so long. This administration left two Navy Seals, another American worker, and a US Ambassador (also raped) to be killed and then they lied for weeks. We will get to the truth of this matter.

I don't think I've ever typed the acronym "lol" before (or the more emphatic version trademarked by our own Buster Bluth, "lolololol" which I guess means "laughed out loud out loud out loud"?), but since I began laughing with the first line of this post I think it's appropriate: LOL.

Turn on a different channel every once in a while, please. Come back to reality.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I'm not sure people understand how poll sampling goes. They don't call X number of Republicans and X number of Democrats. They call X number of each demographic group. Then, when they are asking them a series of questions, one of the questions is party affiliation.

Why do they do that? Because party affiliation is very fluid. It depends greatly on the national trends at a particular time. What doesn't change as much? Whether a person is black, white, Hispanic, etc.

So, if there is a slight Democratic "over-sampling," it's because that's how people identify themselves. There's an argument to be made that many of the tea-party folks have stopped calling themselves Republicans, but are saying "Independent" instead. That means it's entirely predictable that many Independents would break for Romney in this election.

If I'm wrong about that, Romney may win. If not, and the polls are right, Obama will likely win.

 

[RDU Irish]

I still can't find a good break down of these polls and their sampling versus 2008. Any poll's accuracy will hinge on this metric and they only seem to be mentioned for extreme outliers.

Interesting side-show, Gary Johnson in Colorado. Who does he take votes away from given the Mary Jane initiative on the ballot there? This article puts him at 4% in CO, I would bet the over on that pretty aggressively if anyone want to add it to the Sportsbook. Also interesting that the article says 5% of Ohio votes Johnson, are those people just fed up with being pummelled with advertising? I have a hard time believing he does better in Ohio than CO based entirely on the MJ issue.

CNN poll has Gary Johnson at 5% in Ohio, 4% in Colorado — hurts Obama more in CO

 

[DSully1995]

I still can't find a good break down of these polls and their sampling versus 2008. Any poll's accuracy will hinge on this metric and they only seem to be mentioned for extreme outliers.

Interesting side-show, Gary Johnson in Colorado. Who does he take votes away from given the Mary Jane initiative on the ballot there? This article puts him at 4% in CO, I would bet the over on that pretty aggressively if anyone want to add it to the Sportsbook. Also interesting that the article says 5% of Ohio votes Johnson, are those people just fed up with being pummelled with advertising? I have a hard time believing he does better in Ohio than CO based entirely on the MJ issue.

CNN poll has Gary Johnson at 5% in Ohio, 4% in Colorado — hurts Obama more in CO

Do you know the polling for that initiative? How likely is it to pass?

 

[RDU Irish]

Do you know the polling for that initiative? How likely is it to pass?

Quick search found this

Colorado marijuana-legalization amendment's lead shrinks - The Denver Post

Looks tight. Interesting to see if the supporters can get motivated to get out of Mom's basement and go vote. Long lines are likely to turn away supporters who forgot to pack Twinkies.

 

[RDU Irish]

"Amendment 64 would legalize use and possession of up to an ounce of marijuana for people over 21 years old. People would also be allowed to grow up to six marijuana plants in their home.

The measure legalizes marijuana sales at specially regulated retail stores but also allows communities to ban those stores. Public consumption of marijuana would not be allowed."


Seems pretty reasonable to me, I think those reading the actual ballot initiative break FOR the issue. If this thing passes 60/40 it will be interesting to see how it plays elsewhere.

In unrelated news, Colorado and Colorado State have proposed tripling out of state tuition.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I'm praying that it passes, then I'm getting crazy!

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I'm praying that it passes, then I'm getting crazy!

Nice

 

[Rizzophil]

You listen to far too much talk radio, friend. Nobody is being suckered; there is the right-wing media and the regular media. Unfortunately for the right-wing media, reality has a liberal bias. There is certainly a biased media, but it is pretty much contained to FOXNEWS, AM radio and the right-wing blogosphere. My early condolences to you regarding the fate of your cozy delusions this Tuesday.

(Go back to the last page and read the article I posted regarding the Benghazi nonsense if you want to challenge the views provided to you in your bubble.)

Chris Mathews and others continue to say that the media has a liberal bias.

America has always been a middle-right leaning country.

The American people are waking up to the fact that the main stream media is liberal too. Mainstream media ratings are way down.

 

[Corry]

I'm praying that it passes, then I'm getting crazy!

Whats the churches position on the hippie lettuce?

 

[Old North State Irish]

I don't think I've ever typed the acronym "lol" before (or the more emphatic version trademarked by our own Buster Bluth, "lolololol" which I guess means "laughed out loud out loud out loud"?), but since I began laughing with the first line of this post I think it's appropriate: LOL.

Turn on a different channel every once in a while, please. Come back to reality.

I don't want to get into back and forths, but for the record I do watch other channels. I just don't give into their bias. I will further go on the record and state this. Romney will garner in excess of 310 electoral votes (landslide).

 

[Ndaccountant]

I don't want to get into back and fifths, but for the record I do watch other channels. I just don't give into their bias. I will further go on the record and state this. Romney will garner in excess of 310 electoral votes (landslide).

All I have to say on this is that none of this would really matter that much if the general public was smart enough to sift through the bs. Sadly, it cannot and is influenced by both left and right media.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

I don't want to get into back and fifths, but for the record I do watch other channels. I just don't give into their bias. I will further go on the record and state this. Romney will garner in excess of 310 electoral votes (landslide).

That is incredibly unlikely and there is pretty much nothing to believe that Romney will get that many electoral votes.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I don't want to get into back and forths, but for the record I do watch other channels. I just don't give into their bias. I will further go on the record and state this. Romney will garner in excess of 310 electoral votes (landslide).

If that's true, I'll be the first to admit that the polls were wrong and that Nate Silver underestimated several factors. There is simply very little evidence to back your prediction. We'll see soon.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

If that's true, I'll be the first to admit that the polls were wrong and that Nate Silver underestimated several factors. There is simply very little evidence to back your prediction. We'll see soon.

Not just Nate Silver but pretty much everyone.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Not just Nate Silver but pretty much everyone.

Right...the polls and Nate Silver.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Right...the polls and Nate Silver.

Yeah Romney hasn't been tied or led a poll in Virginia since October 26th and the same is pretty much for Ohio (although I do expect something strange to happen there) and New Hampshire and Colorado are definitely leaning Obama in polls. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan are all but locks for Obama. I don't see where Romney can get 310+ electorals.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Yeah Romney hasn't been tied or led a poll in Virginia since October 26th and the same is pretty much for Ohio (although I do expect something strange to happen there) and New Hampshire and Colorado are definitely leaning Obama in polls. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan are all but locks for Obama. I don't see where Romney can get 310+ electorals.

Systematic poll inaccuracy. In that case, several states are wrong, which gives Romney his chance.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Systematic poll inaccuracy. In that case, several states are wrong, which gives Romney his chance.

I guess but Occam's Razor would suggest that everything pointing towards 300 or so electorals for Obama are what you should bet on.

 

[GoIrish41]

I don't want to get into back and fifths, but for the record I do watch other channels. I just don't give into their bias. I will further go on the record and state this. Romney will garner in excess of 310 electoral votes (landslide).

I just spent the past 30 minutes looking at the electoral maps and associated polling in each of the battleground states. I believe Obama will win Ohio, Nev., Colo., Wisc., Iowa, NH.

Even if Romney wins North Carolina (which I think he will), Florida and Virginia (where many polls now say Obama leads), he doesn't get to 270.

My view of the polls tells me that Obama will get to anywhere between 290 and 332 Electoral votes. If Obama gets to 290, Romney would win VA (13) and Florida (29) and still not cross the finish line victorious. Even if he won Ohio (18), VA and Florida, he'd only get to 266 electoral votes. What addiitonal states are you suggesting he will pick up to move past 270?

This is how I'm seeing it. it it starting to look like Obama will win Ohio (18), Wisc. (10), Nev. (6), Colo. (9), Iowa (6) and NH (4). This would give the president 290 electoral votes and a second term. If Obama takes VA, he is at 303. And, if his ground game allows him to squeak out Florida he is at 332.

Would like to hear the path you are describing that gets Romney to 310.

 

[autry_denson]

I don't want to get into back and fifths, but for the record I do watch other channels. I just don't give into their bias. I will further go on the record and state this. Romney will garner in excess of 310 electoral votes (landslide).

This election is fascinating b/c both sides are convinced their guy is going to win. The analysis of polling data in 2008 was sophisticated but not many people took notice - this time around it's even more refined, there are competing analysts, and it's being followed extremely closely.

Obama supporters are banking on the fact that all of the polling data available indicate, with near certainty, that he is going to win. Romney supporters are banking on the idea that the vast majority of polls are systematically biased, or that some x factor is going to make all of the polling data irrelevant. This isn't a ridiculous argument - attempts to restrict voting hours and to fraudulently restrict the vote could play an important role in this election, and I continue to be wary of this as election day approaches. Republicans' attempts to win the election by unabashedly restricting one of the most basic rights in a democracy will probably go down as one of the uglier political efforts in our history, but that's a sidenote if they do in fact pull it off.

Anyway, if you're arguing that Romney is going to win then you're arguing against the evidence that's available. All of the evidence is out there in the public realm for you to see for yourself, it's got nothing to do with the media. Go take a look at the data - and then if you want to make a case for why that evidence is wrong, you've got to make a case for why there might be bias in the sampling procedures of the polls. You can't just make claims about how you think the election is going to turn out based on your own internal feelings - we're not 3rd graders.

And one more point: 310 is FAR from a landslide. that's a few swing states that went one way instead of the other. it's very possible that we could have a popular vote within 1 percentage point and have one of the candidates get more than 310.

 

[autry_denson]

I just spent the past 30 minutes looking at the electoral maps and associated polling in each of the battleground states. I believe Obama will win Ohio, Nev., Colo., Wisc., Iowa, NH.

Even if Romney wins North Carolina (which I think he will), Florida and Virginia (where many polls now say Obama leads), he doesn't get to 270.

My view of the polls tells me that Obama will get to anywhere between 290 and 332 Electoral votes. If Obama gets to 290, Romney would win VA (13) and Florida (29) and still not cross the finish line victorious. Even if he won Ohio (18), VA and Florida, he'd only get to 266 electoral votes. What addiitonal states are you suggesting he will pick up to move past 270?

This is how I'm seeing it. it it starting to look like Obama will win Ohio (18), Wisc. (10), Nev. (6), Colo. (9), Iowa (6) and NH (4). This would give the president 290 electoral votes and a second term. If Obama takes VA, he is at 303. And, if his ground game allows him to squeak out Florida he is at 332.

Would like to hear the path you are describing that gets Romney to 310.

My bet is Obama 303, Romney 235, with Obama getting VA.

 

[RDU Irish]

That is incredibly unlikely and there is pretty much nothing to believe that Romney will get that many electoral votes.

I agree it is unlikely, however it is possible if Dems have been over sampled by 3-4% and the actual turnout is even to slight advantage Republican versus +8-9% Democrat in 2008. I would love to see this itemized by battleground state. I think Dems end up losing 3-5% from the last election on turnout which may not be enough to turn the tide.

Stuff I have dug up the last few days gives me doubts about this though. Less optimistic on Ohio where it seems Gary Johnson votes are taking from Romney (protest vote). More optimistic on Colorado where I think Gary Johnson takes more from Obama (young hippie vote).

Definitely interesting to me how votes change when "Other" is presented (maybe 1%) versus the actual names (more like 5%) in CO and OH - at least in the two polls I saw it itemized as such.

 

[connor_in]

I haven't been posting in this thread because I got tired of all the back and forth and demonization on both sides, but I have a question for both sides.

A number of the polls show ties or statistical ties with O or R lean or an O lean in battleground states. However, almost all of those same polls say that Independents are going R anywhere from 13-23%. They also show that the economy is the biggest factor for the majority of voters and the breakdowns show people prefer R on that by wide margins. Also, many pundits from both sides seem to believe R wins in voter enthusiasm.

What do you think makes for the disconnect within these polls? Is it that the O get out the vote is thought to be that much better? Is it the D/R/I breakdown in the pools makes up for it? Do you feel they are accurate? Why?

Happy Tuesday tomorrow to one and all no matter how it turns out GO IRISH!

 

[GoIrish41]

I agree it is unlikely, however it is possible if Dems have been over sampled by 3-4% and the actual turnout is even to slight advantage Republican versus +8-9% Democrat in 2008. I would love to see this itemized by battleground state. I think Dems end up losing 3-5% from the last election on turnout which may not be enough to turn the tide.

Stuff I have dug up the last few days gives me doubts about this though. Less optimistic on Ohio where it seems Gary Johnson votes are taking from Romney (protest vote). More optimistic on Colorado where I think Gary Johnson takes more from Obama (young hippie vote).

Definitely interesting to me how votes change when "Other" is presented (maybe 1%) versus the actual names (more like 5%) in CO and OH - at least in the two polls I saw it itemized as such.

When Ross Perot made his first run at the presidency, there were many, many voters who bought into the notion that a vote for Perot was a wasted vote. That message was pervasive, particularly from the GOP side because it was widely believed that that is where most of the Perot votes would peel off from. But even when the spin machine was running at full blast (and very effectively I might add) Perot got nearly 20 percent of the popular vote. Obviously Gary Johnson isn't going to win, and it is far more obvious than when Perot was a candidate. There are several periods during the election cycle that Perot was ahead of the Democrats and Republicans. I'm not hearing as much spin this time around that a third-party vote is a wasted vote (even though it kinda is) because I think that both candidates believe that the votes will peel away from the other side. You are right. This is very interesting.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I haven't been posting in this thread because I got tired of all the back and forth and demonization on both sides, but I have a question for both sides.

A number of the polls show ties or statistical ties with O or R lean or an O lean in battleground states. However, almost all of those same polls say that Independents are going R anywhere from 13-23%. They also show that the economy is the biggest factor for the majority of voters and the breakdowns show people prefer R on that by wide margins. Also, many pundits from both sides seem to believe R wins in voter enthusiasm.

What do you think makes for the disconnect within these polls? Is it that the O get out the vote is thought to be that much better? Is it the D/R/I breakdown in the pools makes up for it? Do you feel they are accurate? Why?

Happy Tuesday tomorrow to one and all no matter how it turns out GO IRISH!

To things...

1. As I said a few posts ago, many tea party Repubs have shed the label. They now simply identify themselves as Independent. They'll all break for Romney...actually, they've all pretty much broken for Romney.

2. Obama has had a lead in Registered Voters for quite a while. The enthusiasm gap has closed some (Romney still leads) and Obama's "ground game" has been outstanding.

The pollsters take that information into account...especially guys like Silver, Sabato, and even Intrade. That's my take. Doesn't mean that Obama wins, but the odds are good.

 

[BobD]

In America churches are shrinking (except Muslims) and the conservative right wing is shrinking. The more they shrink, the more wealthy, paranoid, shriveled old hold outs try to cling on to their power by fianancing stooges to spread fear and block progress.

I continue to believe that Romney never had a chance.

No matter the outcome, you are all group of great of people and I've enjoyed reading this thread over the last few months. Thanks for all the mostly friendly discussions.

I'm not smart, but I know someone who is.

Bob

 

[GoIrish41]

I haven't been posting in this thread because I got tired of all the back and forth and demonization on both sides, but I have a question for both sides.

A number of the polls show ties or statistical ties with O or R lean or an O lean in battleground states. However, almost all of those same polls say that Independents are going R anywhere from 13-23%. They also show that the economy is the biggest factor for the majority of voters and the breakdowns show people prefer R on that by wide margins. Also, many pundits from both sides seem to believe R wins in voter enthusiasm.

What do you think makes for the disconnect within these polls? Is it that the O get out the vote is thought to be that much better? Is it the D/R/I breakdown in the pools makes up for it? Do you feel they are accurate? Why?

Happy Tuesday tomorrow to one and all no matter how it turns out GO IRISH!

I think at this point in the race it is all about ground game and by most accounts, Obama has a superior ground game in most of the battleground states. That's what I think anyway.

 

[BobD]

Cris Christie will either move the the Republican party more to the left to revive it or defect to the Democrats.

 

[RDU Irish]

Obama's early-voting lead smaller than in 2008

Colorado - 2.4% differential over 2008 = not enough to overcome 8.6% Obama win in 2008 - Independents are 25% today but does not say how many were in 2008.


Ohio commentary is hard to decipher but seem to support Rove's numbers showing the difference in early voting swings about 250,000 votes to the Republican favor based on where they are coming from. I would love to see better info on this.

Florida - 3.6% early advantage in 2012 for Obama versus 9% in 2012. Obama narrowly won 2008, should be an early call for Romney this year.

Nevada - 7% Obama edge in 2012 versus 20% Obama edge in 2008 - Obama won by 13% in 2008, exactly the early vote differential this year.


I have a hard time seeing Colorado go for Romney if there still a 5% differential over the 2008 turnout. I can envision 1% or 2% of democrat ballots voting more for Romney than McCain this time around.

Nevada looks more attainable than CO but then again they brought Reid back for another term so don't underestimate the Nevada Democratic machine.

Remember, it is not just the scope but the scale of early voting changes.