• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Gallup: Romney and Obama tied 47% each

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
When “leaners” are included, the candidates are tied at 48%.
Okay, same question: what states will he win to get to 270 EV?

Do you deny that there's any bias in the mainstream press Kozierok?
No, I don't deny it. I just don't think it's nearly as important as you're implying.

I mean, in 2010 the Republicans romped in the general election. Are you claiming the media is suddenly more biased now than it was in 2010?

Romney is a terrible candidate who is disliked by pretty much everyone. That's true now, and it was also true during the GOP primaries, when it was your fellow right-wingers who were pointing out that he's dishonest and out-of-touch. So the "vast left-wing media conspiracy" claims don't hold much water.
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
He's not.

The real question is how it is that with the economy this weak, the Republicans couldn't field a candidate able to beat Obama by 10 points.
That happens all the time if you notice. It's as if the search for mediocrity is a full time obsession.

The root problem is power, or how to gain and keep it. On the Democratic side Obama was the Chosen One on the day he was elected the first time. All he had to do is not screw up so badly that the most ardent supporters would reject him. I'm not using that capitalized term as an insult, but I find the locking out of potentially better candidates by a system of party protection to be the antithesis of democratic elections. That he is a democrat makes no difference.

So Obama is the man to beat, and the party falls in line. The Republicans on the other hand are divided into factions that will not stop at just refusing to compromise with anyone, they don't even do so within their own party. It's a multiple personality disorder applied to a large political group. The farthest right control ideology and set the tone for the Faithful to follow. The problem is that they haven't a real clue as to how things work in the real world, have had all their thinkers like Bill Buckly die off and replaced with Sarah Palins. It's tragic.

The Reps can't think and they can't speak, a distinctly unenviable position to be in. Complicating that is the disparity between far right goals in the absence of intellect conflicting with Americans as a whole. So the compromise had to be a candidate which was seen as being more acceptable which meant someone less than appealing to the party. Remember, winning isn't the important thing, it's the only thing.

That left one person, Romney. Romney at the outset was a Mass. Conservative, which means moderate to left in most of the US. He had a problem right from the start, and that was he was rich. Whether that is acknowledged or not, that created a host of opportunities for the Dems, and the Press pretty much decided that Obama was their man anyway. Yeah, I went there.

Frankly Romney's wealth is immaterial in itself. If it was honestly earned I don't begrudge him, because I am lucky to be immune to envy. I don't care. What I do care about is the inability to think on one's feet, to be so far removed from the mainstream that he doesn't get it. He's probably a nice guy and not some monster that some would have us believe, but that's how it has to be pushed. Romney for his part seems to have a gun for a tongue which which he shoots his own foot every time he opens his mouth. A little help from the press in not giving context works against him too, but strife sells just like sex.

That's why he's not going to win. The public perception is that he's inept on a good day and the Reps can hardly get excited about the Changeling running on their side.

Independents who really don't give a crap about party thralldom are disgusted since Obama and his party have proven unimaginative, the Republicans seem to think they are in an alternate reality and one wonders if there is some truth to that.

So Obama has his Faithful step up to the plate and defend his honor, and the Republicans are still suspicious of Romney on a good day and the Independents just want to curl up and die.

That's why Obama is going to win and Romney fails.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,846
3,638
126
Romney is saying he doesn't have to fix anything about his campaign because there is nothing wrong with it. He is neck and neck with Obama even despite all the trouble he claims others think he is having. This is what I would call throwing perfume on shit to make it seem that you smell sweet. But the reason this latest attempt to repair the altered reality Republicans live in because the truthiness of conservative thinking is based on ego. Conservatives are not only delusionally certain they are right but are also egotistically satisfied that they are. But when they start to lose this faith is shaken. We have witnessed this panicked madness leaking out lately in the form of heightened Republican desperation from numerous Republican sources. The ego of Republicans turns from smug self satisfaction to meanness, counter-attacks and vicious lies. They feel they are being made to feel the real worthlessness they do actually feel but hide behind their delusional ego pride. And they all instinctively know exactly what will happen if that terror-panic breaks out in full bloom. They will panic and run for the hills rather than identify with a party that is loosing, a party by, of, and for losers. Denial goes into overdrive. The alternate reality makers redouble their efforts at denial. We aren't losing, we are tied. Please oh please don't lose faith. We aren't losers, don't abandon the party, we are tied.

My advise to conservatives is to get out while you can. Abandon the party to loser fools like cybrsage who has proven he's capable of believing anything and denying even the most obvious of truths. Jump ship before it goes down and the whirlpool the sinking creates pulls you down if you wait that long to jump ship. Get out now, because the fate of those who stay is a state called shrunken balls depression, a sad state of forlorn caused by low testosterone, a known effect that follows team defeat. Become a Democrat and feel morally superior again, this time with no need for the delusions. Reclaim the rationality that is the birthright of every free human being. Cast off your loser chains. Get out before the rot that is at the head of your party contaminates the whole fish.
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,846
3,638
126
Because no matter how rich the campaign you can't counter the willing help of the mainstream media.
Do you deny that there's any bias in the mainstream press Kozierok?
Of course there is. The mainstream media is owned by conservative business and never informs the American people that conservative thinking today has gone insane and become dangerous the the American people. Open your eyes, there is no progressive media. You live is a conservative bubble and almost never hear anything real.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
.................No, I don't deny it. I just don't think it's nearly as important as you're implying.

I mean, in 2010 the Republicans romped in the general election. Are you claiming the media is suddenly more biased now than it was in 2010?

Romney is a terrible candidate who is disliked by pretty much everyone. That's true now, and it was also true during the GOP primaries, when it was your fellow right-wingers who were pointing out that he's dishonest and out-of-touch. So the "vast left-wing media conspiracy" claims don't hold much water.
So you don't deny there's media bias in the mainstream media, but then place a quoted, loaded term like "vast left-wing media conspiracy" (where did you get that quote?) in an attempt to dismiss valid concerns about media bias. You'll notice that Rainsford also used the conspiracy word in a smear attempt.
You are correct that I have no particular liking for Romney, but I don't have to love or even like a candidate to justify my voting for them, I just have to like or agree what their political position is.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
So you don't deny there's media bias in the mainstream media, but then place a quoted, loaded term like "vast left-wing media conspiracy" (where did you get that quote?) in an attempt to dismiss valid concerns about media bias.
Yes, because as I believe I made clear, I don't consider it a valid concern. I consider it an excuse. If the Republicans were able to field a good candidate, they'd be winning. They weren't, so they're not.

You are correct that I have no particular liking for Romney, but I don't have to love or even like a candidate to justify my voting for them, I just have to like or agree what their political position is.
That's true of some voters, but not true of many more. Studies consistently show that people are reluctant to vote for people they don't like -- that's why metrics such as "more likely to want to have a beer with" are measured.

Romney is the only major party presidential candidate in the last 30 odd years to have a net unfavorable rating just a few weeks before the election. This is not because of "media bias" -- it's because he's a detestable person. His favorable ratings were just as bad during the GOP primaries when it wasn't left-wingers pointing out how awful he is.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
Yes, because as I believe I made clear, I don't consider it a valid concern. I consider it an excuse. If the Republicans were able to field a good candidate, they'd be winning. They weren't, so they're not.



That's true of some voters, but not true of many more. Studies consistently show that people are reluctant to vote for people they don't like -- that's why metrics such as "more likely to want to have a beer with" are measured.

Romney is the only major party presidential candidate in the last 30 odd years to have a net unfavorable rating just a few weeks before the election. This is not because of "media bias" -- it's because he's a detestable person. His favorable ratings were just as bad during the GOP primaries when it wasn't left-wingers pointing out how awful he is.
Hence the "creepy cult of Obama"
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/09/20/the-creepy-obama-cult/

Just in case you didn't know it, the actual quote is "vast right-wing conspiracy" and it was uttered by Hillary Clinton in 1998.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vast_right-wing_conspiracy
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
Of course there is. The mainstream media is owned by conservative business and never informs the American people that conservative thinking today has gone insane and become dangerous the the American people. Open your eyes, there is no progressive media. You live is a conservative bubble and almost never hear anything real.
Thanks Moonie. Are you ready for MoP?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,752
13,872
136
So you don't deny there's media bias in the mainstream media, but then place a quoted, loaded term like "vast left-wing media conspiracy" (where did you get that quote?) in an attempt to dismiss valid concerns about media bias. You'll notice that Rainsford also used the conspiracy word in a smear attempt.
You are correct that I have no particular liking for Romney, but I don't have to love or even like a candidate to justify my voting for them, I just have to like or agree what their political position is.
The Media is biased only in the sense that they have to address facts, on occasion, and we all know that facts have a Liberal Bias.

So, uhh, you're saying that Romney has some sort of political position beyond pampering the Rich? Really? Like what?

Like dumping on Red State Welfare Queens who comprise a huge part of his base? (he'll get away with that, because they don't even know that they're the moocher states, the 47% he was talking about)

Like alienating seniors?

Like kowtowing to Rushbo's characterizations about women & contraception?

Like his clueless forays into diplomacy?

Like his flip-flops on abortion & gun control?

Like his pie in the sky proposals wrt taxes that defy arithmetic?

Like his new orange-man look in Florida?

Or is it just because he represents some idealization of what you want to believe because there's an (R) next to his name?
 

dali71

Golden Member
Oct 1, 2003
1,116
21
81
That's the thing. Nationwide polling is of dubious importance anyway, and I'm skeptical of Gallup and Rasmussen's methodology because their results are much different from the other reputable pollsters this season.
Rasmussen was ranked as the most accurate pollster for the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections, and was tied with Pew for most accurate in the 2008 election. That doesn't mean that they're correct this time around, but based on their track record I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,869
0
71
"The real question is how it is that with the economy this weak, the Republicans couldn't field a candidate able to beat Obama by 10 points."

Problem is, the domestic economy is actually not that weak for a large segment of the population (e. g. college grads with skill sets (i. e. math and science based) that employers are currently desperately seeking out, and where the unemployment rate is actually around 4%, and for engineers in particular might even be as low as 2% (see Fox Business clip on Durr Auto Systems in my sig where their HR rep makes that exact claim), but absolutely horrid for others (Great Depression all over again e. g. old school factory workers who have not been retrained for manufacturing jobs of today, such as working with automation / robotics in factories). Unskilled tasks are probably going to robots (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ukNkCnNJuR8.htm) or being outsourced to Mexico (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/next-global-manufacturing-superpower-165726563.html) or China or Vietnam or whereever else later becomes newest cheapest pool of unskilled commodity type labor.

Nate Silver has also pointed out there are only 16 sets of economic data / presidential cycles since I think World War 2, so drawing inferences from so little data is tenuous at best. He also asserts that it the recent trend, rather than absolute level that matters. The dubious Colorado professors projection (http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/08/22/analysis-election-factors-points-romney-win-university-colorado-study-says) was based upon data from around May or June of this year (when soft patch of economic data, such as retail sales report consistent with recession (http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000103056) (now proven to be a statistical fluke (http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=566547 and that they seemed to have data-mined to fit data to their conclusion (their model was not in effect before previous elections, so it predicted nothing. Seems like they just cherry-picked data that superficially says they predicted many previous races and their model now says romney with 320 electoral votes).

If you look at what should have been important swing states such as Michigan, Ohio, maybe Nevada, (Pennsylvania being out of play, given very slight change in unemployment rate is surprising, so something else must be at work there; IIRC, Nate Silver also previously said that because of the demographic make-up of Pennsylvania, if ever there was a state that would buy the we gave the nice black man a chance and he didn't deliver argument, it would be Pennsylvania. James Carville in previous cycles has also described Pennsylvania as Pittsburgh in the west, Philadelphia in the east, and Alabama everywhere else) change in unemployment rate has been significant:



Ohio is supposed to be leaning slightly more Democratic than in previous cycles (no doubt helped by GM auto bailout and the Bain attacks (attack ad of workers building stage that Romney then got on and fired everyone and worker closing ad by saying we were building our own coffin), and Virginia slightly more Republican (though third party candidate Virgil Goode might confound that slight home field advantage for Romney now).

Unemployment rate is particularly high for blacks and Latinos, who I am guessing would probably just end up staying home if they became disillusioned with Obama. I remember one politician on tv commenting on how it is a structural unemployment problem here and that government jobs was typically a place where minorities could at least start on a more even playing field.

And then adding voucherize Medicare Paul Ryan (http://election.princeton.edu/2012/08/15/ryan-is-a-game-changer-but-not-for-romney/) to ticket, along with the 47% statement (http://election.princeton.edu/2012/09/21/monkeying-around-with-fundamentals-based-models/) insulted quite a few who were leaning to vote for Romney (2/3 of all entitlements, in the form of Medicare and Social Security, go to seniors), and the race seems to have broken towards Obama much quicker than it should have.

I think Silver was thinking something like Obama 51% / Romney 49% if this were tight race it should have been (few of this series of self-inflicted wounds by Romney and his campaign apparatus). Seems like that type of race should have correlated with baseline of 303 electoral votes for Obama, but reasonable chance he could also lose Virginia, pulling him down to 290 I think. Now seems like we're at 332 baseline, with reasonable chance that, if some sort of Democratic wave were to occur, Obama takes North Carolina, Senate stays with Democrats, and control of the House is really, really in question...
 
Last edited:

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
Americans Are Sick of Media's Pro-Obama Bias

This just in from the Gallup organization: Americans' distrust of the media has just hit a new record, with six in 10 Americans saying they have "little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly." Forty percent say they have a "great deal" or a "fair amount" of trust, and I assume this is the same crowd who approve of the job Congress is doing. Where do they find these people?

Gallup says the 20-point difference between positive and negative views of the media is "by far" the highest Gallup has seen since it began asking the question in the 1990s. Among those who trust the media, 58 percent identify themselves as Democrats; 26 percent as Republicans; and most interestingly, 31 percent as independents. That means 69 percent of independents don't trust the media. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the implications of that:

" This year's decline in media trust is driven by independents and Republicans. Independents are sharply more negative compared with 2008, suggesting the group that is most closely divided between President Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney is quite dissatisfied with its ability to get fair and accurate news coverage of this election."

On the NBC News homepage for politics, there is a chart looking the number of mentions of each candidate on social media: As of yesterday, 30 percent who state an intention to vote for a candidate on social media sites intend to vote for Obama; 38 percent intend to vote for Romney. There have been nearly 33,000 opinions expressed about Obama: Of those, 40 percent are positive, 60 percent negative. Regarding Romney, 21,500 opinions have been posted: 51 percent positive, 49 percent negative. If these numbers are accurate, it tells me this: People aren't agreeing with what they're seeing and hearing from the mainstream media. And they feel strongly enough to post something online about it.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/mary-kate-cary/2012/09/21/americans-are-sick-of-medias-pro-obama-bias
 
Last edited:

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
78,647
11,558
126
Polls, even exit polls are worth about as much as a screen door on a submarine.
Umm, no actually most of the time they are fairly close. Exit polls especially give a good indication of who's gonna win. In fact almost every time the loser usually concedes based on them, and not inappropriately either.


The only time they arent worth much is when people feel genuinely embarrassed, like with the first black candidate for mayor of LA. Based on the numbers, not only did almost all the whites lie about voting for him, but so did many blacks.
 

Ryan

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
27,518
1
81
Now it's Obama 48%, Romney 46%.

Obama's Approval rating jumps back up to 51%, disapproval at 43%.
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,869
0
71

"As a general rule, InTrade prices express underconfidence relative to true probabilities as dictated by polling medians. This is true even on Election Eve. As I have previously written, they get the direction of the probable outcome correct, but the exact price is not a quantitative measure of probability."
"And now I give some current probabilities. Do whatever you see fit, whether it be to go to Crossroads GPS for Republicans or ActBlue for Democrats. As for other possibilities…we all know that gambling is wrong.

President Obama re-elect probability: 89%. InTrade probability: 70%.

Senate to remain Democratic-controlled: 88%. InTrade: 58%.

House to remain Republican-controlled: 26%. InTrade: 80%."



http://election.princeton.edu/2012/09/23/using-predictions-for-ideals-and-profit/#more-6104

Ouch!
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,940
5
81
Regardless of national polling, any presidential electoral cycle that has North Carolina in play is not promising for the Republican nominee.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,706
49
91
Now it's Obama 48%, Romney 46%.

Obama's Approval rating jumps back up to 51%, disapproval at 43%.

still doesn't explain why the massive willing accomplices and collusion campaigning hasn't resulted in something in the 20+ point lead.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,846
3,638
126
still doesn't explain why the massive willing accomplices and collusion campaigning hasn't resulted in something in the 20+ point lead.
Conservative faith in Republicans is a religion not a rational decision. Religions are the masters of locking folk in to their delusions. To be a rational thinker for a conservative equates to damnation and going to hell. The terror of sin isn't going to be uprooted by reason.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY