Some polls now have Romney ahead.

[ivwshane]

Goddamn it.

I'd gladly watch this country go down the shitter just to put Fox News and the conservatards here in the position where they have to apologize for President Romney for the next 4 years. 4 more years of their hate-filled mindless complaining is going to be too much to bear.

Why? You know they will just deny it or blame democrats. The right has a superior dodge and burn game.

 

[shira]

If Silver is vindicated, journalists should face hard questions as to their coverage. As the race stands Obama is clearly the favorite by any measurable metric but only a few pundits have been willing to say it. The media has felt obligated to call it a toss-up because of the usual 'he said she said' approach where they think presenting both sides evenly means they are doing they're job.

The media needs to serve to public again rather than just being the filter through which both sides spew their rhetoric, if only in equal amounts.

The problem is that most Americans just don't understand statistics. They cannot fathom how a set of seemingly divergent polling results (reflective of house effects) from different polling firms can be interpreted as meaning that there's a large statistical advantage for one of the candidates.

And even with Silver's current 6-to-1 advantage to Obama, Silver would be the first to tell you that long-shots sometimes win. If statistical analysis replaced the talking-heads approach and Romney happened to win, the general public would be outraged by what they would believe was a huge bias in the media. Can media organizations really afford to take that chance?

The problem is that it really isn't possible for the mainstream media to simplify statistical complexity in a way that the average American can understand. The information is out there for those who have the interest and the intellect, but I don't expect the mainstream media to change their ways any time soon.

 

[rockyct]

According to Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium, whose models are based on current state by state polling after running 2.3 quadrillion possible outcomes, Obama's chances of reelection are now 97%

Well, even I would consider that to be too generous towards Obama.

 

[shira]

I do feel bad for journalists in general. They know pretty much what Silver knows but aren't really allowed to say it. There is definitely a false equivalency bias but I don't blame them too much for having that when talking about who's going to win an election.

All the right-wing fanatics who continually complain about "liberal bias" in the news media should keep that in mind. In fact, journalists are bending over backwards to NOT tell the American public that the REAL message of the polls is that Obama is a big favorite to win. That's a huge CONSERVATIVE bias, but somehow right-wingers just can't see it.

 

[Farang]

The problem is that most Americans just don't understand statistics. They cannot fathom how a set of seemingly divergent polling results (reflective of house effects) from different polling firms can be interpreted as meaning that there's a large statistical advantage for one of the candidates.

And even with Silver's current 6-to-1 advantage to Obama, Silver would be the first to tell you that long-shots sometimes win. If statistical analysis replaced the talking-heads approach and Romney happened to win, the general public would be outraged by what they would believe was a huge bias in the media. Can media organizations really afford to take that chance?

The problem is that it really isn't possible for the mainstream media to simplify statistical complexity in a way that the average American can understand. The information is out there for those who have the interest and the intellect, but I don't expect the mainstream media to change their ways any time soon.

I see what you're saying but I don't think the media has a lot to risk. The objective assessment of the race is--Obama is going to win, unless there is a major error across all polling firms. I.e. unless this is some big blunder in polling history, Obama will win. They should clearly state this, because the storyline if Romney wins will be exactly that--how did polls get it wrong?

 

[xBiffx]

Another incredible poll that shows them tied. Oh wait, Romney is +22 with Ind? No worries, its still tied.

And that's not even the best part.

Among those likely voters, 41% described themselves as Democrats, 29% described themselves as Independents, and 30% described themselves as Republicans.

But again, its still a tie.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/11/04/top16.pdf

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It's not tied. Obama is significantly ahead in the EC. The only way he doesn't win is if the polls are systematically biased (deliberately or unintentionally) in some way.

 

[buckshot24]

It's not tied. Obama is significantly ahead in the EC. The only way he doesn't win is if the polls are systematically biased (deliberately or unintentionally) in some way.

The only way he wins is if he gets more votes in enough states to get 270 EC votes. Polls don't matter anymore.

 

[buckshot24]

Another incredible poll that shows them tied. Oh wait, Romney is +22 with Ind? No worries, its still tied.

And that's not even the best part.



But again, its still a tie.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/11/04/top16.pdf

If Romney gets 22% of the indies, it's over, absolutely a blow out. McCain would have won with that kind of margin.

 

[xBiffx]

If Romney gets 22% of the indies, it's over, absolutely a blow out.

Exactly. Only in a liberal echo chamber does Romney get a 22% advantage from independents and still ends up in a tie or losing to Obama.

 

[PJABBER]

All of the polls make assumptions about who will actually turn out to vote.

Most of the polls are assuming that the 2008 turnout is going to be representative of the turnout in 2012. They are ignoring the 2010 election.

At this point, if we split the difference, Romney will win.

In any case, it seems like a great many, and very likely the majority of adults, do not want four more years of Obama. If they turn out with the enthusiasm that have brought 30+K of them out at so many of the Romney rallies, we will be looking back at another four more wasted years of Democrat "governance" without the dread of having to go through four more of the same.

 

[jackstar7]

Based on the convincing arguments I have to believe Romney is going to crush it. Again, I'll be voting Obama just to try and prevent a landslide. I think that would be bad for what would follow. If Romney is going to win, I'd like it to be close, to hopefully keep his moderate side dominant, rather than the extremely conservative side. Balance is what the country needs, not extremism.

So, please, since we know Romney's going to just dominate the EC, please vote Obama and make sure it's close.

 

[Todd33]

If Romney gets 22% of the indies, it's over, absolutely a blow out. McCain would have won with that kind of margin.

If Romney gets 22% of Independents then yes it is over, Obama wins.

 

[buckshot24]

If Romney gets 22% of Independents then yes it is over, Obama wins.

Amazing.

Tomorrow night we'll know.

 

[TraumaRN]

I'm going out on a limb here but I'm going to bet North Carolina is going to be way closer than anyone is thinking. There was an apparent surge in Dem early voting there. I still think its romneys state to lose but I'm guessing the margin will be quite close.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I heard this morning that the D/R early voting gap in NC was down significantly from 2008.

But early voting is overrated as an indicator of anything.

 

[Todd33]

Amazing.

Tomorrow night we'll know.

What is amazing? If Obama gets 78% of Independents slam dunk! You fail at math!

 

[buckshot24]

What is amazing? If Obama gets 78% of Independents slam dunk! You fail at math!

haha, ok. Yeah you're right. But you knew what I meant.

 

[jackstar7]

Thinking Independents are going to break ~60 for Romney and ~40 for Obama is an interesting starting point for sure. But people comparing to 2010 when Obama wasn't running isn't being too realistic either. His approval rating remains many many times Congress's. And turnout is generally ~60-70% in a non-presidential year of what it is in a presidential year.

That's not even factoring in the insane amount of money spent in this cycle vs the absurd amount of 2010.

Again, I'm with Buck, Pjab, Biff, etc. in thinking this is going to be all Romney when the EC gets tallied up, but that's why I'll be voting Obama.

Best to keep it close people.

Vote Obama! Because Romney has it locked up!

 

[buckshot24]

That CNN poll has a 22 point advantage for Romney, thats where we are getting that number.

 

[jackstar7]

That CNN poll has a 22 point advantage for Romney, thats where we are getting that number.

And I'm saying it is very interesting. I'm sure that poll is nothing of an anomaly.

Prevent the landslide, folks! Vote Obama for a moderate Romney!

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The CNN poll is off, but Obama does seem to be making inroads with independents, perhaps because of Sandy, and perhaps because some conservatives are now identifying as R instead of I.

Once again, national polls are a distraction. Romney is badly behind at the state level, and only wins if there's something pretty majorly wrong with all of them.

 

[buckshot24]

The CNN poll is off, but Obama does seem to be making inroads with independents, perhaps because of Sandy, and perhaps because some conservatives are now identifying as R instead of I.

Once again, national polls are a distraction. Romney is badly behind at the state level, and only wins if there's something pretty majorly wrong with all of them.

Polls aren't important at this stage Charles. People are going to be voting and we are going to be counting them tomorrow. All polls are a distraction at this stage of the game.

What about that CNN poll is off? You don't like the result?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

1. The independent numbers don't make any sense, especially given that they have self-declared "moderates" the exact opposite.

2. They screened out a LOT of registered voters. Far more than in their previous poll. (In fairness, screening more makes more sense closer to the election, but it was still a large number compared to other polls, AFAIK.)

3. I find it hard to believe that Obama and Romney are tied in the same poll that Obama has a +6 approval rating. In their previous poll, Obama lead by 3 and his net approval was only +1.

 

[Todd33]

haha, ok. Yeah you're right. But you knew what I meant.