Some polls now have Romney ahead.

[Thump553]

Dems-it makes far more sense to spend your energy volunteering to help get the vote out than arguing over polls-polls which will be irrelevant Wednesday morning regardless.

 

[buckshot24]

I don't think it's wishful thinking.


I think it's a head injury.

The funny thing is I'm not the one with the attitude that the other side can't be right. I've said again and again that Romney loses if the turnout is like the polls have been projecting. I've given reasons why this might not be the case and I get insulted.

One thing is for sure I'll be gone shortly after the election, just long enough to take my lumps or rub it in.

 

[Jhhnn]

The funny thing is I'm not the one with the attitude that the other side may just be right. I've said again and again that Romney loses if the turnout is like the polls have been projecting. I've given reasons why this might not be the case and I get insulted.

One thing is for sure I'll be gone shortly after the election, just long enough to take my lumps or rub it in.

You're just here to shill for Team Republican, huh?

How's it pay, anyhow?

Insulted? You've insulted everybody's intelligence since you joined, so just think of it as retribution.

I think they're taking reservations for Wahmbulances on Nov 6- you probably want one.

 

[buckshot24]

You're just here to shill for Team Republican, huh?

How's it pay, anyhow?

Insulted? You've insulted everybody's intelligence since you joined, so just think of it as retribution.

I think they're taking reservations for Wahmbulances on Nov 6- you probably want one.

See what I mean?

Some of you fuckers are pathetic.

I've lost money posting here which is pretty stupid I guess.

 

[Jhhnn]

See what I mean?

Some of you fuckers are pathetic.

I've lost money posting here which is pretty stupid I guess.

Heh. Karma- it's a bitch, huh?

One of the more amusing things about this forum is all the Righties spouting off about work ethic, lazy welfare recipients, moochers, freeloaders & cheaters are obviously posting from work...

Righties fail at introspection...

If I'm posting during business hours, it's because I have a day off...

 

[buckshot24]

Heh. Karma- it's a bitch, huh?

One of the more amusing things about this forum is all the Righties spouting off about work ethic, lazy welfare recipients, moochers, freeloaders & cheaters are obviously posting from work...

Righties fail at introspection...

If I'm posting during business hours, it's because I have a day off...

Don't get me wrong I'm sure I make more money than you even during a slow period. I'm not worried about money at all because I kick ass.

I make money directly by my efforts not by some wage a company pays me. I'm a capitalist.

 

[abaez]

 

[TraumaRN]

Who is talking about a conspiracy?

Rasmussen has a 2.6% advantage for Republicans in his poll. Even assuming that he is 5 points biased which is absurd and Democrats really have a 2.5% advantage Obama still loses because of Romney's lead among independents (which is close to 10 points if not higher).

Furthermore in 2010 he got the party affiliation pretty close to what turned out.

Regarding conspiracy. It what you are implying. You've been screaming about the polls being all biased against Romney for the past couple weeks. Ergo you think all the pollsters are out to get Romney by boosting numbers for Obama.

Regarding Rasmussen. You danced right around my point. He doesn't call cell phones. That's a HUGE issue. This is 2012. At least 25% of all Americans, myself included, have only a cell phone. Rasmussen does not call these people. That means he's not accurately sampling 1/4 of the USA. That is a huge problem for any poll. His polls are essentially bullshit to me(and many others) until he makes the effort to call cell phone voters. Period.

Look at the swing state polls over the couple days. Obama leads in the vast majority of them. Romney does not. From past election cycle we can see its more likely at this point Obama is reelected. Simple as that.

 

[Doppel]

Don't get me wrong I'm sure I make more money than you even during a slow period. I'm not worried about money at all because I kick ass.

I make money directly by my efforts not by some wage a company pays me. I'm a capitalist.

You sound alpha, like Alkemyst

 

[Rainsford]

Yeah, I read that piece. I think he is missing the point. He's arguing that since there hasn't been significant bias historically that it isn't valid to think there is one this year. I don't think anybody is claiming a historic bias is in play so him going into great detail along those lines wasn't very helpful or relevant. He's basically constructed a strawman.

I'm not just pulling this turnout argument out of my ass.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158399/2012-electorate-looks-like-2008.aspx
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub.../partisan_trends/summary_of_party_affiliation

These two polls have to be incorrect for the underlying data that Silver relies on to be accurate. They have been pretty spot on in the last few elections.

Now before anybody pulls a Charles and thinks I'm saying these two polls are right and everything else is wrong and therefore Romney will be elected. Don't. Not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is evidence to support my assertions it isn't merely wishful thinking.

538 accounts for all of what you're saying, which is why Romney has a non-zero chance of winning (one reason I like 538 over other poll aggregation sites). Silver's argument is that the reason Romney's chance isn't higher is that the probability is pretty low for the data being far enough off from the electoral result to result in a Romney win. His argument isn't a strawman at all, he's supporting the idea that the data bias necessary for a Romney victory isn't very likely...but it could still happen.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Who was it that used to make such fantastical predictions... Oh yeah, ProJo. Wonder what ever happened to that guy...

Don't worry, still spouting the same BS at the place that shall not be named

 

[Engineer]

You sound alpha, like Alkemyst

Based on the profane language in the posts (I can only see them via somebody quoting it ), sounds more like spidey has another accoun......er.....spidey has a twin out there.

 

[Bowfinger]

Don't get me wrong I'm sure I make more money than you even during a slow period. I'm not worried about money at all because I kick ass.

I make money directly by my efforts not by some wage a company pays me. I'm a capitalist.

Lulz. Your credibility just keeps dropping.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Aggregate polling sites like 538/RCP tend to have pretty good track records. I think both are showing the pulse of this election quite well and all signs point towards a moderate victory for Obama.

Could Romney win? Sure. But I wouldn't want to take that bet.

 

[buckshot24]

Regarding conspiracy. It what you are implying. You've been screaming about the polls being all biased against Romney for the past couple weeks. Ergo you think all the pollsters are out to get Romney by boosting numbers for Obama.

Polling could be biased and not a conspiracy. I have never mentioned anything of the sort. You're working on assumption and you're fucking up.

Regarding Rasmussen. You danced right around my point. He doesn't call cell phones. That's a HUGE issue. This is 2012. At least 25% of all Americans, myself included, have only a cell phone. Rasmussen does not call these people. That means he's not accurately sampling 1/4 of the USA. That is a huge problem for any poll. His polls are essentially bullshit to me(and many others) until he makes the effort to call cell phone voters. Period.

How did I dance around the issue? I granted you 5 points and you're boy would still be fucked. Are you saying he's biased by more than 5 points? Where is your evidence?

Look at the swing state polls over the couple days. Obama leads in the vast majority of them. Romney does not. From past election cycle we can see its more likely at this point Obama is reelected. Simple as that.

Yes, if turnout is as those polls are showing in their samples. Who's arguing against that? If turnout is accurately portrayed in the polls then Romney loses.

 

[Moonbeam]

As an observer to this thread who knows nothing perhaps I'm too easily impressed, but in my opinion buckshot did what few conservatives do, argue his points with logical reasoning. He didn't seem to me to insist that he was right but only under certain conditions he could be. I didn't see an absolutist who knows he knows the truth because he feels it in his gut, but a person expressing his opinion. I see he took a lot of insults and returned them too, as I think politics and ego get attached, but his basic arguments, as far as I could understand them didn't upset me. That may be in part because I don't pay too much attention to polls since the one truth that will matter will be known on election day.

 

[buckshot24]

538 accounts for all of what you're saying, which is why Romney has a non-zero chance of winning (one reason I like 538 over other poll aggregation sites). Silver's argument is that the reason Romney's chance isn't higher is that the probability is pretty low for the data being far enough off from the electoral result to result in a Romney win. His argument isn't a strawman at all, he's supporting the idea that the data bias necessary for a Romney victory isn't very likely...but it could still happen.

His representation of the argument isn't accurate. Nobody (as far as I can tell) is saying that historically the polls favor the Democrats. He's debunking a claim that nobody is making. It's a perfect example of a strawman.

 

[TraumaRN]

Polling could be biased and not a conspiracy. I have never mentioned anything of the sort. You're working on assumption and you're fucking up.

How did I dance around the issue? I granted you 5 points and you're boy would still be fucked. Are you saying he's biased by more than 5 points? Where is your evidence?

Yes, if turnout is as those polls are showing in their samples. Who's arguing against that? If turnout is accurately portrayed in the polls then Romney loses.

Enough with the personal attacks and nasty attitude. If you wonder why people treat you poorly around here that might be why. We are all adults here. Act like it.

Regarding granting me 5 point and him still losing. I doubt that. And I never said he's more biased. I said its a poll that has poor credibility because they don't call 1/4 of the country Rasmussen has it tied nationally at 48-48 today. If you grant Obama plus 2.5% it becomes 50.5-48. Nearly the exact margin Nate Silver is calling for nationally.

And thank you for admitting that as of right now based on polling Romney loses.

 

[Jhhnn]

Rasmussen?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...ver-Nugget-Rasmussen-was-the-worst-of-the-lot

 

[buckshot24]

Enough with the personal attacks and nasty attitude. If you wonder why people treat you poorly around here that might be why. We are all adults here. Act like it.

I haven't personally attacked you as far as I know. If I have, I'm sorry.

But you're making assumptions and as the saying goes that assumption is the mother of all fuckups.

Regarding granting me 5 point and him still losing. I doubt that. And I never said he's more biased. I said its a poll that has poor credibility because they don't call 1/4 of the country Rasmussen has it tied nationally at 48-48 today. If you grant Obama plus 2.5% it becomes 50.5-48. Nearly the exact margin Nate Silver is calling for nationally.

Sigh, I'm not talking about his national tracking poll. I'm talking about his party identification poll. The latest has a spread of 2.6% in favor Republicans. Assuming the worst about that poll and it's really a 2.5% in favor of Democrats on election day Obama would still lose because of the Independent advantage Romney has.

The question is, who is going to show up to vote next tuesday (or have already voted)?

 

[buckshot24]

Rasmussen?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...ver-Nugget-Rasmussen-was-the-worst-of-the-lot

Try to keep up. We've covered this already.

Rasmussen tracking poll started in 2003 I believe.

 

[First]

Don't worry, still spouting the same BS at the place that shall not be named

Oh oh, I want to know, I've always wondered what happened to that sad soul.

 

[First]

Btw, statistically there's no such thing as normal if the electorate is constantly changing, morphing. Which is why you poll as widely as you can to determine who's coming to the polls in a particular year; i.e. use standard CV methods to get both land lines and cell phones, party identification, etc. as accurately as possible with no human error being introduced. In the USA's case, it's constantly morphing into a more ethnically diverse voting population, which favors one party far more than the other.

Those poor souls extrapolating House races will be shown on Tuesday why they were wrong to do so, as there is far less diverse and focused polling in those races with well over 1000 different candidates as compared to a Presidential election, with only two candidates of course. You couldn't honestly make a worse comparison and it's why no pollster, even ones as biased as, say, Rasmussen, would seriously compare these two disparate types of elections. Of course, you actually need to understand statistics in the first place, so that's likely where the confusion comes into play.

 

[buckshot24]

The only reason the midterms are even mentioned is to show the party turnout.

Over the years in midterms or presidential the turnout among Democrats and Republicans have been pretty "static" as in there hasn't been huge advantages for one or the other in most years. 2008 is more of an "outlier" than it is the norm.

There is no extrapolating 2010 going on in any case. I'm talking about polls taken this year about party affiliation.

I also feel that some of these likely voter screens may be an issue. Some polls have 98% of registered voters being counted as likely voters which is just absurd.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Scott Rasmussen is my shepherd; I shall not want.

He maketh fine polls that showeth my man winning; he leadeth me past polls I dislike.

He restoreth my political hope; he leadeth me in the paths of right-leaningness for his name's sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of math I will fear no evil: for his bias is with me; his distorted sampling doth comfort me.

He preparest a table before me in the presence of Fox and Friends; he anointest my head with propaganda; my cup runneth over.

Surely Republican victory shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of Ailes for ever.