Some polls now have Romney ahead.

[OneOfTheseDays]

This is not a close race nor has it ever been at any point this year. The media wants you to believe it is, but the underlying factors in this race have been rock solid steady and pointing towards an easy Obama victory all year long.

Romney's path to 270 is incredibly HARD. Without Ohio he cannot realistically hope to win the presidency. His stance on the auto bailout and 47% comments hurt him badly in this state. I'm not sure a few debates is going to really change much here, he needs some major economic calamities at this point.

Debates do not decide elections in today's 24hr non-stop news cycle. People are getting to know the candidates far earlier in the process than ever before due to the abundance of information and the relative ease at which it can now be obtained (e.g. Internet).

 

[shortylickens]

"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

Do you really believe Obama comes up with all that shit himself? Heck no! His speeches are all written by someone else. His debate arguments are made by someone else. If he hasnt been properly briefed is screwed. Hilary is much better at thinking quickly on her feet. I almost wish she would run instead.

 

[buckshot24]

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.

Well looky here, you've tried to make an actual logical argument while totally failing to understand basic principles.

What you ignore is the "everything else being equal" portion of the supply and demand curve. If cell phone plans were cheaper more people would have them. If Cell phone coverage was $20 vs $100 a month would there be more subscriptions at the $20 rate or the $100 rate?

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 never made this claim pencil dick. Of course there are other factors! If everything is held constant while changing the price, more people will buy it when it is cheaper.

Read up on some very very basic economics and maybe you'll be better prepared to not embarrass yourself next time.

http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.asp#axzz28qmLMj9d

 

[jpeyton]

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.

The national popular vote is a pointless metric; the EC vote is the only thing that matters in a presidential election.

 

[buckshot24]

The national popular vote is a pointless metric; the EC vote is the only thing that matters in a presidential election.

There just happens to be more national polling data which may or may not be more accurate than polling data in individual states. It's very very rare when the national vote winner doesn't win the electoral college vote. It would be highly unlikely in this election for Obama to win the electoral college and not the popular vote.

 

[jpeyton]

There just happens to be more national polling data which may or may not be more accurate than polling data in individual states.

Individual state polls are going to be more accurate in an EC vote map. Every single national poll right now except one (Pew) is within its margin-of-error.

There are already a large number of states out of play for both candidates. It will come down to about 8 battleground states, and Obama only needs to win 1 or 2 of them to clinch it. Romney needs to win 7 or 8 to win it, the probability of which is very low (currently around 25%).

 

[Doppel]

There just happens to be more national polling data which may or may not be more accurate than polling data in individual states. It's very very rare when the national vote winner doesn't win the electoral college vote. It would be highly unlikely in this election for Obama to win the electoral college and not the popular vote.

If this is the case, why should the EC follow the popular and not the other way around?

 

[First]

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;

Please explain in detail why you used the term stale, then. And why are you mentioning 2 week old polls now as if they're not legitimate? Either take a position or don't, this isn't hard.

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.

Ah, so the issue is that you basically can't read a chart. Here's the reality; in the vast majority of polls since Romney was nominated as the Republican candidates early in the year, Obama has consistently led in every swing state polls except North Carolina and Indiana, which is no longer a "swing" state by statistical standards. I'm not sure what's confusing about this to you.

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.

It proves that statistically Obama is extraordinarily likely to win, it doesn't matter if the data is 2 weeks old. This key reality alludes you because you're poorly informed about the reality of statistics and probability. You still cannot fathom why people laugh at your posts despite every betting site, every major index that predicts these future events, has Obama as the odds-on favorite. InTrade. Vegas. All of them. Get over it.

Stick it up your ass.

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

And you are a moron.

Sadly, these are your best contributions to the site.

 

[First]

There just happens to be more national polling data which may or may not be more accurate than polling data in individual states. It's very very rare when the national vote winner doesn't win the electoral college vote. It would be highly unlikely in this election for Obama to win the electoral college and not the popular vote.

No one is going to weight a few days of polling more seriously than 7 months of prior polling. There would have to be a game-changing event for that to significantly change, and if you think the debate was that event that's fine, people will rightfully poke fun at you when that's proven demonstrably false in the coming days/weeks. Debates just don't have that impact, never have and not likely ever will in the near future. Too much media saturation out there, too many news cycles for debates to matter in the minds of the sometimes short-term thinking public's worlds. They're not going to remember the first debate, especially if the other two are a wash or (worse for Romney) if Obama actually returns the favor in the 2nd/3rd debate.

Basically, that debate isn't likely to change people's vote. The recently improved Romney polls are from voter enthusiasm in the likely voter models of these polling firms, showing higher Republican turnout in their models as a result of people more often identifying as Republicans, NOT a shift in people actually changing their votes.

I'd explain it further to you, but I've reached my quota of reading stupid for the day.

 

[buckshot24]

Please explain in detail why you used the term stale, then. And why are you mentioning 2 week old polls now as if they're not legitimate? Either take a position or don't, this isn't hard.

I'm saying that they are two weeks old not illegitimate. Every poll since last week have Romney doing better and he's leading in the real clear politics average now because of it. The only poll Obama is leading (outside of the margin of error) in the RCP average are from two weeks ago. All the polls taken this/last week show Romney is ahead or 1 point behind. If that isn't reason enough to question whether two+ week old data from some states are still valid then I don't know what is.

 

[buckshot24]

First seems to think I'm making my prediction of a Romney win from the polling data, itself. That isn't the case.

Come November November 6 you'll be crying fraud or some other BS when Obama loses.

 

[ivwshane]

Well looky here, you've tried to make an actual logical argument while totally failing to understand basic principles.

What you ignore is the "everything else being equal" portion of the supply and demand curve. If cell phone plans were cheaper more people would have them. If Cell phone coverage was $20 vs $100 a month would there be more subscriptions at the $20 rate or the $100 rate?

I never made this claim pencil dick. Of course there are other factors! If everything is held constant while changing the price, more people will buy it when it is cheaper.

Read up on some very very basic economics and maybe you'll be better prepared to not embarrass yourself next time.

http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.asp#axzz28qmLMj9d

So you argument is that my point is invalid because I'm factoring in different factors while you factor in none. Guess which model economist use, one set of variables or multiple set of variables. I'm sorry your explanation of things don't fit with reality but that's your problem not mine.



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_single_cause

 

[Doppel]

First seems to think I'm making my prediction of a Romney win from the polling data, itself. That isn't the case.

Come November November 6 you'll be crying fraud or some other BS when Obama loses.

Quoted for posterity. The smart money is still on Obama winning at this point.

 

[First]

I'm saying that they are two weeks old not illegitimate. Every poll since last week have Romney doing better and he's leading in the real clear politics average now because of it. The only poll Obama is leading (outside of the margin of error) in the RCP average are from two weeks ago. All the polls taken this/last week show Romney is ahead or 1 point behind. If that isn't reason enough to question whether two+ week old data from some states are still valid then I don't know what is.

Yeah, again, you're not well informed about the field of statistics, statistical noise, probability or, really, anything particularly relevant to this thread, which is about polls. The nexus of your lack of any understanding whatsoever of these realities likely dates back to your poor education as a kid. Try reading here and here

First seems to think I'm making my prediction of a Romney win from the polling data, itself. That isn't the case.

Come November November 6 you'll be crying fraud or some other BS when Obama loses.

Haha, so wtf are you basing your prediction on, hopes and dreams? And why the f are you posting in a thread about polls then?

lol, you're a stupid kind of funny.

 

[Rainsford]

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

Hmm, those are pretty interesting. I like the idea of forecasting based on various conditions people base their voting patterns on WITHOUT asking people directly, since in theory those forecasts could be more accurate. Economic conditions can be relatively accurately measured, after all.

The challenge there would seem to be accurately picking the conditions people base their voting on and the degree with which they do so, which sounds potentially even more challenging than just polling people directly.

 

[buckshot24]

So you argument is that my point is invalid because I'm factoring in different factors while you factor in none. Guess which model economist use, one set of variables or multiple set of variables. I'm sorry your explanation of things don't fit with reality but that's your problem not mine.



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_single_cause

Amazing! You deny fundamental basic economics!

Lets try this another way.

Let's set up two lemonade stands in a busy park. We make the stands look exactly the same, we have clones of the workers so each stand has the exact same level of salesmanship and we supply both stands with the same exact same lemonade. Each customer will see each stand equally there will be no advantages for either stand except for one thing, price.

We charge 50 cents for a cup at stand A while charging 1 dollar at stand B. Which stand is going to make more sales?

So, my point has been and remains that when you raise taxes on certain transactions you will get less of those transactions than you would otherwise. The question then becomes do you get enough in raised taxes to account for the loss in number of transactions and do the loss of transactions help or hurt our economy?

I have never said that one thing creates or discourages transactions on its own. Given that everything else is equal when something is more expensive to do less people will do them than they otherwise would.

 

[buckshot24]

Yeah, again, you're not well informed about the field of statistics, statistical noise, probability or, really, anything particularly relevant to this thread, which is about polls. The nexus of your lack of any understanding whatsoever of these realities likely dates back to your poor education as a kid. Try reading here and here

I'm not making any comments about probabilities or stats so I'm not sure what you're on about.

Haha, so wtf are you basing your prediction on, hopes and dreams? And why the f are you posting in a thread about polls then?

We'll see you on November 6th partner.

lol, you're a stupid kind of funny.

and you have a small penis

 

[ivwshane]

I have never said that one thing creates or discourages transactions on its own. Given that everything else is equal when something is more expensive to do less people will do them than they otherwise would.

Well in your alternate reality where everything is equal, you are right.

Unfortunately for you I live in the real world where everything isn't equal, infact things are rarely equal which is why you cannot make the claim you are trying to make the facts don't back up your claim.

So yes if you set unrealistic restrictions to further your argument your argument is probably invalid

 

[First]

I'm not making any comments about probabilities or stats so I'm not sure what you're on about.

lol. You're talking about polls; pretending probabilities and statistics don't play a role shows zero understanding about the topic of a polls thread.

We'll see you on November 6th partner.

No, we won't. You'll bitch out.

I have a small penis

Yes, I know.

 

[buckshot24]

Well in your alternate reality where everything is equal, you are right.

Unfortunately for you I live in the real world where everything isn't equal, infact things are rarely equal which is why you cannot make the claim you are trying to make the facts don't back up your claim.

So yes if you set unrealistic restrictions to further your argument your argument is probably invalid

Did you take any science in school? In scientific testing you have to "make everything else equal" (or as close as possible) to determine what happens when one variable changes.

It's called science.

I'm not saying my example is realistic I am saying it establishes the relationship between price and activity.

 

[buckshot24]

lol. You're talking about polls; pretending probabilities and statistics don't play a role shows zero understanding about the topic of a polls thread.

I didn't fucking say that moron.

No, we won't. You'll bitch out.

Why would I bitch out when Obama gets the boot?

Yes, I know.

OMG you got me.

 

[umbrella39]

Thread bookmarked for epic November lulz.... The over and under says you have changed socks by then though...

 

[First]

I didn't fucking say that moron.

Polls are about statistics and probabilities. The fact that you clearly don't have the first clue about this reality is irrelevant; what matters is your shit posts claiming poll data that's "2 weeks old" or "stale polls" aren't as important in any context in your fantasy world. Sorry kid, you're wrong and it's not debatable.

Why would I bitch out when Obama gets the boot?

I'll tell you when you don't show up when Romney loses big.

 

[jpeyton]

buckshot has nothing to gain or lose by making a bad prediction about the election.

He's got 300 something posts and I don't recall reading a single one until today when I decided to post in this thread. Actually, based on the last few pages, I wouldn't be surprised if most of those 300 were in this thread alone.

When people actually have something to gain/lose, they tend to make better predictions: http://www.intrade.com/v4/misc/scoreboard/

I recall some people here made some money back in 2008 taking advantage of those poor souls who ignored EC maps and went with McCain.

 

[randomrogue]

It's funny but I can tell that Buckshot24 is not old enough to have watched the 2000 election unfold. Anyone that watched that one remembers Tim Russert and his whiteboard explaining how the election actually works.

You have to win 270 EC. Really simple. You can take the given states for Romney and get a number that is less than 270. At that point you can figure out which and how many states he needs to win in order to surpass the 270 EC votes needed.

Right now he's not close. Still a month left but right now he has zero chance of winning.