Election 2012

[Joosanova]

Originally Posted by LCIII

Sure will! Thank God!

Romney will NOT WIN

[bgwah]

Originally Posted by LCIII

Read the cross-tabs. He's added Rass for good measure. Nate Silver is commonly referred to as Dem Xanax for a reason.

Oh, has he now? And what polls has he excluded?

[art5617]

Originally Posted by alexjonlin

http://www.theonion.com/articles/new...from-na,30218/

Wow. That guy is a real piece of crap. Id'e kick is ass up and down the street for that.

[Matt the Engineer]

I think we need to take polling out one more level. A website rating websites that collect poll data from other websites. Compare pre-election predictions with actual results, and assign a score to that website, trending over multiple elections.

Of course, you know someone will find a way to call those ratings biased.

[Rogue Linguist]

The last poll before the election, taken by the University of Washington and KCTS-TV, shows gay marriage and marijuana legalization are likely to pass--even accounting for social desirability (pressure to give a popular answer over the phone out of social pressure). The last polls for elections have a reputation for being the most accurate.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/conne...ss-4000795.php

[bgwah]

Originally Posted by bgwah

Oh, has he now? And what polls has he excluded?

No reply? Can't say I'm surprised.

[LCIII]

READ. THE. CROSS. TABS.

I don't know how to type it slower so you can understand.

[jessejb]

No one has mentioned- and sorry if I offend any reasonable conservatives here because I'm not talking about you guys - but if Obama wins, here's what happens: The Right will cry foul as usual, citing all kinds of crazy conspiracies as to why Obama didn't REALLY win. And whether or not that starts up, I'm worried about violence from Right wing crazies. They've been whipped-up into a frenzy to think this is some good vs. evil thing and that Obama is the Manchurian candidate hell-bent on destroying America and may or may not be the antichrist. I tremble for what the future holds. I can't beleive there aren't any articles about this on Kos or something.

[bgwah]

Originally Posted by LCIII

READ. THE. CROSS. TABS.

I don't know how to type it slower so you can understand.

That's not what I asked. I understand you believe he's picked overly Democratic polls. So my question is: What polls does he exclude to get his biased numbers?

Furthermore, have you ever actually looked at his website? Nate Silver says that the polls must be wrong and biased if Romney is to win. Aren't you basically agreeing with that? I don't understand why you're attacking him. He doesn't do the polling.

[LCIII]

And you don't think that's true on the opposite end? That's the bullshit that's ruining our system: "your side is stupid and unreasonable and there is none of that on my side. We're right and you're wrong."

The Obama campaign has dedicated more resources and time to a negative campaign that attempts to attack Romneys personal character and yet it conservatives who are brainwashed crazies. Ridiculous. Both sides have their fringe elements who are likely to not easily accept a victory for the opposition. Hell- the 99% are well within the liberal camp and they've been quite destructive all across this country. No Tea Party rally has resulted in the criminal acts that most Occupy protests have.

It's an absurd statement to say the right won't accept O winning but that the left would accept R winning and that's exactly what you're insinuating.

[LCIII]

Originally Posted by bgwah

That's not what I asked. I understand you believe he's picked overly Democratic polls. So my question is: What polls does he exclude to get his biased numbers?

Furthermore, have you ever actually looked at his website? Nate Silver says that the polls must be wrong and biased if Romney is to win. Aren't you basically agreeing with that? I don't understand why you're attacking him. He doesn't do the polling.

He doesn't do the polling but he's only too happy to include an overwhelmingly heavy D favorable sample. The narrative he's pushing on behalf of the Presidents campaign is all about a false sense of momentum. Saying that the polls would have to be wrong for Romney to win is not the same as identifying that they ARE in fact wrong. Any poll that currently overstates D participation as above that of 2008 is absolutely absurd. In what world are Ds MORE engaged in this election than they were in 08?!? And why then are we totally ignoring more recent cycles like 2010 where Ds got their asses handed to them?!? Ridiculous. Almost every single poll indicates Independents are breaking for Romney- so then why, if Gallup and Rass have voter ID tied among Ds and Rs, isn't Romney further ahead? Because pollsters are oversampling Ds anticipating a greater D turnout than their historic wave election of 2008!?!? It's nothing more or less than an attempt to create and bolster a false sense of momentum for Os campaign.

[RMacherat]

Originally Posted by jessejb

..reasonable conservatives here .. I tremble for what the future holds.

As a notably unreasonable conservative, I'm pretty sure nothing like this will happen. We'll grumble about the culluds and go back to readin our bibles and cleanin our guns.

What makes me tremble is them old ladies in that ad if Romney wins. What language, saints alive!

[bgwah]

Originally Posted by LCIII

He doesn't do the polling but he's only too happy to include an overwhelmingly heavy D favorable sample.

I'm still curious though, do you believe he is also excluding overly R polls to skew the results? Or do you just believe a large majority of polls are too D?

Originally Posted by LCIII

The narrative he's pushing on behalf of the Presidents campaign is all about a false sense of momentum. Saying that the polls would have to be wrong for Romney to win is not the same as identifying that they ARE in fact wrong.

Narrative? I won't pretend I know what Silver's motives are.

In fact wrong? Feel free to say you think they're probably wrong, but I think it would be best to wait until the actual election before you say it's a fact that they're wrong. Just my opinion.

Originally Posted by LCIII

Any poll that currently overstates D participation as above that of 2008 is absolutely absurd. In what world are Ds MORE engaged in this election than they were in 08?!? And why then are we totally ignoring more recent cycles like 2010 where Ds got their asses handed to them?!? Ridiculous. Almost every single poll indicates Independents are breaking for Romney- so then why, if Gallup and Rass have voter ID tied among Ds and Rs, isn't Romney further ahead? Because pollsters are oversampling Ds anticipating a greater D turnout than their historic wave election of 2008!?!? It's nothing more or less than an attempt to create and bolster a false sense of momentum for Os campaign.

So is it only polls that show results you like that acceptable and accurate?

Out of curiosity, I decided to look up Rasmussen's latest poll in Ohio, the pivotal swing state. He says it's a tie, with this interesting bit of information:

"Both candidates earn better than 90% support from voters in their respective parties. The president is ahead 50% to 41% among voters not affiliated with either major political party." link

Hmm.

[jessejb]

Originally Posted by LCIII

And you don't think that's true on the opposite end? That's the bullshit that's ruining our system: "your side is stupid and unreasonable and there is none of that on my side. We're right and you're wrong."

The Obama campaign has dedicated more resources and time to a negative campaign that attempts to attack Romneys personal character and yet it conservatives who are brainwashed crazies. Ridiculous. Both sides have their fringe elements who are likely to not easily accept a victory for the opposition. Hell- the 99% are well within the liberal camp and they've been quite destructive all across this country. No Tea Party rally has resulted in the criminal acts that most Occupy protests have.

It's an absurd statement to say the right won't accept O winning but that the left would accept R winning and that's exactly what you're insinuating.

Sorry broham:

FBI Sept 2012: "Yet we are currently seeing an upsurge in domestic non-Islamic extremist activity, specifically from violent right-wing extremists. While violent left-wing attacks were more prevalent in the 1970s, today the bulk of violent domestic activity emanates from the right wing.... Since the 2008 presidential election, domestic non-Islamic extremists have shot 27 law enforcement officers, killing 16 of them. "

[LCIII]

Originally Posted by bgwah

I'm still curious though, do you believe he is also excluding overly R polls to skew the results? Or do you just believe a large majority of polls are too D?



Narrative? I won't pretend I know what Silver's motives are.

In fact wrong? Feel free to say you think they're probably wrong, but I think it would be best to wait until the actual election before you say it's a fact that they're wrong. Just my opinion.



So is it only polls that show results you like that acceptable and accurate?

Out of curiosity, I decided to look up Rasmussen's latest poll in Ohio, the pivotal swing state. He says it's a tie, with this interesting bit of information:

"Both candidates earn better than 90% support from voters in their respective parties. The president is ahead 50% to 41% among voters not affiliated with either major political party." link

Hmm.

Absolutely not. I respect polls that take the time to accurately match an intelligent likely voter sample.

And I said MOST not every last single poll in existence.

[LCIII]

Originally Posted by jessejb

Sorry broham:

FBI Sept 2012: "Yet we are currently seeing an upsurge in domestic non-Islamic extremist activity, specifically from violent right-wing extremists. While violent left-wing attacks were more prevalent in the 1970s, today the bulk of violent domestic activity emanates from the right wing.... Since the 2008 presidential election, domestic non-Islamic extremists have shot 27 law enforcement officers, killing 16 of them. "

And that has what to do with a Tea Party rally? Do I really need to start linking to stories of violent and destructive Occupy actions in every major city in America?

[bgwah]

Originally Posted by LCIII

Absolutely not. I respect polls that take the time to accurately match an intelligent likely voter sample.

And I said MOST not every last single poll in existence.

And those polls just happen to show results you like. Got it.

And I certainly never claimed you said "every last single poll in existence." Not quite sure what the point of that last sentence was.

Out of curiosity, I decided to look up 538's 2010 predictions, since you keep mentioning that year. He said Republicans would get +55 in the House -- the actual result was +63, so they were a little too Dem there. On the other hand, he predicted a 52-48 Dem Senate, when the Dems held it 53-47, so a little too Republican there. link

[cameronrex]

Why do I even open this thread? It has nothing to do with the reasons I come to this site and just makes me upset. (This is a rhetorical question...I hate that it jumps to the top of threads with every comment. I can't discuss politics with my patents. Why would I expect reasoned discussion on a bulletin board.)

No matter who wins on Tuesday expect this to be a less 'united' country on Wednesday.

[LCIII]

CNN national poll tied at 49%. Romney up 22 with independents. Sample is D+11 (was D+7 in 08, even in 2004/2010). Taken 11/2-4.

[velciane]

Originally Posted by cameronrex

No matter who wins on Tuesday expect this to be a less 'united' country on Wednesday.

No matter who wins - this has got to be fixed. It makes me sad to think that an election makes us weaker.