Some polls now have Romney ahead.

[First]

Ok what would you prefer? I said stale and you can call them 'not fresh' if you like. Bottom line is that many of the electoral map state polls are from september where Obama was doing much better.

You don't understand what you're arguing; stale or "not fresh" is irrelevant, I'm telling you there's no such thing in polling. There is no rational way of leaving out September polls for any reason whatsoever, as the aggregate polling is what is vital in statistical analyses of elections. All the polls are relevant, and they're all weighted different. There's nothing illegitimate, "stale", "not fresh", or whatever diminishing term you want to use about pre-debate polls.

Yet Romney is doing much better after the debate in just about every poll out there. Maybe it wasn't the debate?

Read the polls carefully; http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Gallup, for example, already has Obama up over Romney based just on polls they've taken since the debate.

Ok great. Most people will vote next month.

Early voting is likely to account for 25% of all votes this year, weakening your argument by roughly that amount.

We never had a black president before either. But what polls are you talking about?

Nothing this unique applies to Romney. Unless you think Mormonism is going to make the difference, lol.

I'll be enjoying myself immensely as all you liberal drones call for voter fraud and the like. I can't wait.

lol. Bet on it?

You're whole point boils to the fact that you're assuming that I am predicting a Romney victory because of these new post debate polls. I'm not.

The polls I posted were in response to people acting like the electoral college map was already locked up when in fact Ohio and Florida are basically tied based upon the latest polls. Plus many of the battleground states have well over 10 day old polls, aka stale.

You're not very intelligent. FYI.

 

[buckshot24]

We definitely will see, I suppose. I just find polls (and analysis of the polls) interesting from a more technical point of view. The idea that we can, through careful examination of the data, predict the results of an election well before it happens is pretty cool to me. Must be the geek in me.

There is another model that predicts a Romney victory without the use of polls.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releas...ting-model-still-points-romney-win-university

There's another one that predicts an Obama victory using 13 keys.

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/e...keys-forecasting-model-predicts-obama-victory

 

[buckshot24]

You don't understand what you're arguing; stale or "not fresh" is irrelevant, I'm telling you there's no such thing in polling. There is no rational way of leaving out September polls for any reason whatsoever, as the aggregate polling is what is vital in statistical analyses of elections. All the polls are relevant, and they're all weighted different. There's nothing illegitimate, "stale", "not fresh", or whatever diminishing term you want to use about pre-debate polls.

I'm not saying you should leave out anything genius. You are way overstating my case. The data on the map site has data for some of the key states being like 2 weeks old right when Obama seemed to be doing the best.
Read the polls carefully;

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Gallup, for example, already has Obama up over Romney based just on polls they've taken since the debate.

Look at the graph. The margin is in flux and many of the battleground state polls included in that electoral college map were last updated when Obama's lead was the largest. That's all I'm saying! All I am talking about is that fucking map. I'm not making predictions based off of any poll pre/post debate.

Early voting is likely to account for 25% of all votes this year, weakening your argument by roughly that amount.

What argument might that be?! My ENTIRE argument is that relying on that electoral map site when a lot of the data hasn't been updated in two weeks doesn't prove a damn thing. That is my fucking argument.

Nothing this unique applies to Romney. Unless you think Mormonism is going to make the difference, lol.

Stick it up your ass.

lol. Bet on it?

I bet that you will still be an asshole when the election is over.

You're not very intelligent. FYI.

And you are a moron.

 

[ivwshane]

What argument might that be?! My ENTIRE argument is that relying on that electoral map site when a lot of the data hasn't been updated in two weeks doesn't prove a damn thing. That is my fucking argument.

Stick it up your ass.

I bet that you will still be an asshole when the election is over.

And you are a moron.

Oops! It looks like your moral high ground is crumbling! I'd probably be pissed too if everyone on a message board thought I was an idiot.

 

[shortylickens]

My mom wants Romney to win simply cuz she hates Obama. I keep telling her its that kind of thinking which got Obama elected in the first place.

Mitt is exactly the same only a little dumber. All he did was hire better writers immediately before the debate.

 

[Skitzer]

I've heard that quoted over and over, but never seen anyone support the idea that Rasmussen was more accurate than other polls leading up to the 2008 election. Given that the guy behind fivethirtyeight has repeatedly said they are among the less accurate polls (but consistently so), I'd be curious to see numbers either way.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/pew-rasmussen-most-accurate/2012/09/11/id/451377

http://www.fordham.edu/images/acade...ccuracy in the 2008 presidential election.pdf

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/analysis-most-accurate-polls-2008-presidential-election

It's all over the web. Rasmussen is consistently more accurate than just about any other pollsters.

 

[xBiffx]

Poor xBiffx.

Poor Doppel. Thinking he's won an argument by posting a link over and over. As if what happens on Nov 4 doesn't matter.

I will laugh hard when the five thirty eight estimates are blown to bits come election day. Heck, they already changed some since yesterday, yet somehow its all over today.

Anyone who doesn't think that site's predictions are up for debate needs a reality check. Part of why they are called predictions. But to you, its truth so w/e.

 

[buckshot24]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Clearly the Rasmussen poll is wrong. lol

 

[PokerGuy]

I'd probably be pissed too if everyone on a message board thought I was an idiot.

So... you're pissed off then?

 

[ivwshane]

So... you're pissed off then?

Nope, I don't see anyone calling me or the facts I post stupid.

 

[xBiffx]

Nope, I don't see anyone calling me or the facts I post stupid.

You're stupid.

You didn't see that, btw.

:whiste:

 

[Doppel]

Poor Doppel. Thinking he's won an argument by posting a link over and over. As if what happens on Nov 4 doesn't matter.

I will laugh hard when the five thirty eight estimates are blown to bits come election day. Heck, they already changed some since yesterday, yet somehow its all over today.

Anyone who doesn't think that site's predictions are up for debate needs a reality check. Part of why they are called predictions. But to you, its truth so w/e.

Doppel: Posts link
xBiffx, who doesn't understand electoral college: "Get a clue already, no one gives a shit."
A bunch of people: discussing why, in fact, it matters

You condemn polls and yet have no problem posting polls that support your [demonstrably incorrect] view that the election is close, because you go by popular.

What a poor self-esteem you must have to not be able to admit you were just owned, and then doubling-down on it with this post of yours. I can't say I am surprised. And I bet you keep going because it's just in your nature. It tugs at you and you're unable to control it.

 

[buckshot24]

The points that Shane posts are stupid, he is stupid his logic is stupid and his dog is stupid. His dog is so stupid that when he pees he puts his front leg up.

He believes that supply and demand only work to suit his argument. He doesn't understand simple human motivation where when it costs more to do a thing less people will do this thing. He is a liberal idiot parrot who is amazed that he pulls of another breath.

He thinks that raising taxes cannot hurt economic growth, it doesn't even have the potential to slow growth. He believes that investors won't invest less if it is harder for those investments to make money. Raising taxes make investments harder to make money on but shane doesn't think so.

If he was a Best Buy manager he would RAISE prices on Black Friday because prices are irrelevant. In school he donated plasma but spent more money in transportation getting to the center than he got paid and couldn't figure out why he had less money and his dog was dumb then too.

 

[ivwshane]

You're stupid.

You didn't see that, btw.

:whiste:

Are you disputing some fact I posted? No? So you are just name calling with nothing to back up your statements, compare that to the name calling I and others have done after posting facts.

Your insult holds about as much weight as your head, which equals nothing but hot air.

 

[ivwshane]

The points that Shane posts are stupid, he is stupid his logic is stupid and his dog is stupid. His dog is so stupid that when he pees he puts his front leg up.

He believes that supply and demand only work to suit his argument. He doesn't understand simple human motivation where when it costs more to do a thing less people will do this thing. He is a liberal idiot parrot who is amazed that he pulls of another breath.

He thinks that raising taxes cannot hurt economic growth, it doesn't even have the potential to slow growth. He believes that investors won't invest less if it is harder for those investments to make money. Raising taxes make investments harder to make money on but shane doesn't think so.

If he was a Best Buy manager he would RAISE prices on Black Friday because prices are irrelevant. In school he donated plasma but spent more money in transportation getting to the center than he got paid and couldn't figure out why he had less money and his dog was dumb then too.

That's great but you have yet to dispute a single damn point I've made with facts or without straw man arguments.

So continue making my case for me that you are ignorant, you are doing a great job!


Oh and I thought you were ignoring me. I guess you are controlled by your emotions after all.

 

[buckshot24]

You condemn polls and yet have no problem posting polls that support your [demonstrably incorrect] view that the election is close, because you go by popular.

You're right it isn't close. Obama is going to lose.

Although as I pointed out earlier the electoral college map hasn't been updated to show where this race is. All polls since the debate have Romney doing much better. Cling to old polls all you want. People have seen the dictator undressed and the alternative isn't as bad as Obama has been saying.

What a poor self-esteem you must have to not be able to admit you were just owned, and then doubling-down on it with this post of yours. I can't say I am surprised. And I bet you keep going because it's just in your nature. It tugs at you and you're unable to control it.

I can't wait for the dear leader to be removed from office next month.

 

[buckshot24]

That's great but you have yet to dispute a single damn point I've made with facts or without straw man arguments.

So continue making my case for me that you are ignorant, you are doing a great job!


Oh and I thought you were ignoring me. I guess you are controlled by your emotions after all.

Somebody quoted you and I saw what you wrote. Since I was pretty harsh to you in my last post I thought it was only fair to unblock you temporarily.

Your points are rebutted by simple logic. I've done so continually but you want a link. You either see it or you don't. I can post links too but I find it boring to go back and forth disputing links.

If you cannot see how making something more expensive will cause less transactions of it I don't know what else to say.

 

[Doppel]

You're right it isn't close. Obama is going to lose.

Although as I pointed out earlier the electoral college map hasn't been updated to show where this race is. All polls since the debate have Romney doing much better. Cling to old polls all you want. People have seen the dictator undressed and the alternative isn't as bad as Obama has been saying.

I can't wait for the dear leader to be removed from office next month.

I am clinging to nothing but the best information that is available right now and address the topic as honestly as possible.

A week back Obama had an 87% chance of winning on 538. That is now down to 71%, a precipitous drop that he must be worried about. If it drops further I bet the next debate is more interesting

The best information now still indicates Obama has a clear chance of winning, though it's much less than it was a week back.

 

[buckshot24]

Even that 71% is based off of old information. All I am saying is you can't point to the map as anything other than what it is. Any poll taken in September and has not been updated yet should be served with a grain of salt.

 

[umbrella39]

Recently active sock is full of lint!

 

[Fern]

My mom wants Romney to win simply cuz she hates Obama. I keep telling her its that kind of thinking which got Obama elected in the first place.

Mitt is exactly the same only a little dumber. All he did was hire better writers immediately before the debate.

"Hire better writers" for the debate?

You might want to rethink that.

Reminds me of those dumbazz college kids that thought it was unfair that Obama couldn't use a teleprompter at the debate. How the h3ll could a teleprompter help? It's a debate, other than opening remarks you cannot have prepared remarks if you're responding to questions and your opponent's remarks.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

Somebody quoted you and I saw what you wrote. Since I was pretty harsh to you in my last post I thought it was only fair to unblock you temporarily.

Your points are rebutted by simple logic. I've done so continually but you want a link. You either see it or you don't. I can post links too but I find it boring to go back and forth disputing links.

If you cannot see how making something more expensive will cause less transactions of it I don't know what else to say.

Here is fact for you that goes against your so called logic. Cellular carriers have raised their prices and yet they continue to add new subs. Here is another: the average subsidy (ie the amount the carrier loses) for phones has also increased.

Can your pea sized brain handle the fact that price is not the only factor that determines whether or not someone buys or invests in something? Can your small minded world view handle the fact that changes in tax rates have shown to have little if any correlation in job growth or GDP?

I don't think it can.

By the way logic and facts are not the same thing. Just because something seems logical to you doesn't make it a fact.

 

[jpeyton]

I apologize if this has already been posted.

2008

2012

In September, McCain actually tied and even led in the electoral college maps for a short period of time. Romney hasn't done that once.

Presidential debates have never affected the outcome of any modern election. Romney has no ad dollar advantage either. So at this point, Romney needs a huge October surprise to win it.

Another interesting thing: Obama's electoral college maps have, despite the ups and downs, remain unchanged since January. You can draw a line straight across from his mark in January to October and it lines up, more or less. A "close race" makes a great narrative in our political system, and makes for great ratings for Fox, CNN and NBC, but it's definitely not close.

 

[ivwshane]

You just destroyed her world!

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Presidential debates have never affected the outcome of any modern election.

I disagree.

A "close race" makes a great narrative in our political system, and makes for great ratings for Fox, CNN and NBC, but it's definitely not close.

I think people are sometimes using different definitions of "close".

Is it the popular vote or the EC vote? Seems to me you are referring to the EC vote, and at times I think others are referring to the popular vote.

Fern