Obama Might Lose This

[babe]

I'm calling it for Romney with Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin in his bag, plus Colorado and Nevada.

Like Joseph Stalin, the bigs don't care who votes, or even how many times voters vote. . . . as long as they have the counting under control. The bigs. . . . bankers, pharmaceuticals, military. . . . are all falling in line with giving the nod to Romney. Even without 2016 horror pics, Obama just scares them pissless. Besides, it's time for a war, a really big war. . . . and Obama just can't get serious about it.

 

[t.work]

post edited by moderator

 

[Stoked]

Thriller seems to have a misconception of what RCP is.

All it is is a place that congregates the newest political polls and articles everyday. So instead of hitting 15-20 websites you can hit one.

The have daily pieces from Time, Huffington post, Washington Post, Newsmax, Chicago Tribune, New York Times, Cnn, Fox, MSNBC, papers in FL, TX, CA...

It is very non partisan and just organizes all the new material each day into one place.
It also Has a Worl, Science, Sports, Religion, Markets...sections where it does the same thing.

And your statement that since you have not heard of it makes them unreputable is idiotic at best.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Thriller seems to have a misconception of what RCP is.

All it is is a place that congregates the newest political polls and articles everyday. So instead of hitting 15-20 websites you can hit one.

The have daily pieces from Time, Huffington post, Washington Post, Newsmax, Chicago Tribune, New York Times, Cnn, Fox, MSNBC, papers in FL, TX, CA...

It is very non partisan and just organizes all the new material each day into one place.
It also Has a Worl, Science, Sports, Religion, Markets...sections where it does the same thing.

And your statement that since you have not heard of it makes them unreputable is idiotic at best.

That's funny, because I wasn't talking about RCP. I was talking about Rasmussen.

Perhaps they are very "non-partisan" but I think the way kicky has described how they avg their poll results is more than enough to discredit them. The mere fact that you folks are relying on them says a lot about how well this election is going for Romney.

 

[Stoked]

False.

I actually had never heard of RCP previous to your posting of their website.... If that's not a red flag I don't know what is. I think kicky has pretty much dismantled any reason why you or I should trust in RCP and their pathetic records.



You're right, it hasn't been a good polling organization. And it hasn't been for a while now (not just because of Romney). On Nov 1, 2008, they had McCain ahead of Obama in the polls.... How'd that work out for ya?

So why are you trusting in them this time around? What's changed?

That's funny, because I wasn't talking about RCP. I was talking about Rasmussen.

Perhaps they are very "non-partisan" but I think the way kicky has described how they avg their poll results is more than enough to discredit them. The mere fact that you folks are relying on them says a lot about how well this election is going for Romney.

Any other lies you would like to tell this morning?

 

[Deleted member 365]

Any other lies you would like to tell this morning?

Yep. And I thought I had explained that. I briefly mentioned RCP:

Perhaps they are very "non-partisan" but I think the way kicky has described how they avg their poll results is more than enough to discredit them. The mere fact that you folks are relying on them says a lot about how well this election is going for Romney.

Post 249, you know, one of the largest on page 17, was alllllllllllll about the Rasmussen.

You're once again, grasping at straws. And... having a conversation with me despite having me on your ignore list. LOL.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Not particularly. Like I said, I suspect the real number will be slightly lower but my point was merely that 300 ECVs for Obama is more likely than 260+ for Romney. Because of issues relating to swing states rising and falling together my point is merely that while I might assign the risk that Romney gets more than 260 at something like 35% I would put the risk that Obama gets to 300 at more like 40%.

How do you figure?

6 polls were beyond the 3% range. 5 of those polls were beyond 4 percent (some even higher, like 5-6 percent). Of all the polls I've seen on Rass regarding the Presidential election consist of between 500-1000 people being polled. If we were to look at the low end, (500-750) that would land the margin of error to be around +/- 4.5-4 percent while the higher end would be around +/- 4-3 percent.

In Nevada, for example, they had Obama +4. It ended up Obama, +12.5 percent. That's an error of 8.5. In order for that result to be within the margin of error then that poll would have consisted of less than 200 people surveyed. I haven't seen anything less than 500 on Rasmussen's entire coverage of the Presidential Election.

They're just wrong. Inaccuracy is inaccuracy.

 

[franklin]

Empirical results are part of the reason I trust the quants.

Then you had better wait until they make their predictions.

Silver was 49 for 50 in presidential state predictions in 2008 and 35 for 35 for the Senate elections.

You keep saying 49 out of 50 & this cheapens what Nate Silver has been doing. Probably 40 or more states were easily predictable and only a portion of the rest were really worth speculating on. Saying he predicted 5 of 6 key states accurately is nothing more than a one off event. That's not where the beauty of his 2008 predictions lied anyway.

 

[Stoked]

New polls show Romney up in CO by 1, FL by 1 and OH by 2.

That is the first time I have seen Romney up in OH.

Whoever wins I think it will be close. I can see CO, NC, NV, FL, VA, OH, NH, IA and maybe MI or WI all being decided by within 5%. Very close election.

 

[sirkickyass]

Then you had better wait until they make their predictions.

While no one, including traditional pollsters, has released a final prediction the quants are certainly making forecasts for a near-future event presently.

You keep saying 49 out of 50 & this cheapens what Nate Silver has been doing. Probably 40 or more states were easily predictable and only a portion of the rest were really worth speculating on. Saying he predicted 5 of 6 key states accurately is nothing more than a one off event. That's not where the beauty of his 2008 predictions lied anyway.

You do realize that with the majority of this board I'm fighting a battle of why a simple average isn't an awesome metric right?

Do you really think the nuances of 2008's forecast timing, 2010's early accuracy, or talking about margins is really where this battle lies?

 

[Revolution 9]

New polls show Romney up in CO by 1, FL by 1 and OH by 2.

That is the first time I have seen Romney up in OH.

Whoever wins I think it will be close. I can see CO, NC, NV, FL, VA, OH, NH, IA and maybe MI or WI all being decided by within 5%. Very close election.

Which polls are those? I thought Ohio has consistently been Obama this whole time?

 

[Stoked]

Which polls are those? I thought Ohio has consistently been Obama this whole time?

The CO is ARG, the FL is CNN and the OH is Ras.

Yes OH has been consistently about 2% for Obama. This is the first OH poll in Romneys favor. Just something new which is why I posted it.