Exactly. That type of candidate would win nearly every election. Too bad there aren't too many in power that are like that. I always liked Huntsman.
Went with Romney but I think Obama wins.
Sometimes I wonder, if someone started a centrist party, would they win, or would the other two parties stifle it to preserve the status quo?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenedictGomez
True. But the other difference is that Republicans were meh on McCain to begin with, and everyone knew he'd lose (suppresses turnout).
And anecdotally, McCain wasnt drawing 25,000+ to cornfields in rural PA. I think the R to D gap is being greatly exaggerated in these polls. And frankly, the Early Voter data where Obama is underperforming supports that hypothesis.
Romney isn't exactly a candidate that inspires great hope of a sweeping movement that redefines the electoral paradigm. He's no Reagan, is what I'm saying.
Where are you getting these early voting numbers from? The first exit polls aren't being released until 5 pm today.
Obama is underperforming in some areas, doing better in others. Supposedly the early turnout in the cities of Ohio has been rather good, and that's where he needs to get the votes.
I think the youth vote was HUGE in 2008 for Obama, and I'm of the opinion that our American youth is probably at it's most educated and disenfranchised levels ever.
That's a dangerous combination for the political machine. Harder to predict.
There's an awful lot of little Alex P. Keaton's running around out there in the real world.
__________________
"Why I'll be a Devil forever [...] two words. Trust and respect." - Mr. Pat Burns
"I learned not to question Cowbell's willingness to ban." - Brian Boyle
Only people on the extremes of either aisle think Romney is a weak candidate. Extreme liberals buy the Obama-perpetrated BS about Romney's so-called anti-women stances, while many hard line republicans don't like him because he's a flip flopper who doesn't embody the radicalism they desire.
Romney has an extremely impressive background and is an extremely smart guy.
Absolutely. But he's still a bad candidate. He might lose an election that should have been won easily.
My buddy swears Obama is going down in a landslide. My uncle does too. My uncle, and I bet a rack of ribs over it next time we see each other. If Obama wins I buy the ribs. If Obama loses he buys them.
If the Gallup poll or the Rasmussem poll is correct, Romney will win over 300 Electoral College votes.
The difference? Gallup and Rasmussen are not assuming a turnout like 2008. Again, turnout really does decide this election.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saugus
If you think there is a systematic bias against the Republicans across several polling firms, why do you think that? What methods are they using that do not simulate reality? What methods should they be using, and which pollsters are doing that? How could they all be biased against one party, is what I'm asking?
This really requires an extremely long answer more like a 4 page report, so please excuse the extremely short answer.
1) Polls are always unintentionally biased against R, usually by 0.5% to 1%. Both the RNC and DNC take this into account.
2) Some pollsters have loose RV screens (some like PPP a total joke) which gives Dems a substantial boost
3) Some pollsters WAY overdo Early Vote, which gives Dems a boost
4) Some pollsters pass every EV through to their LV screens, which gives Dems a BIG boost (Marist and Quinny do this for example)
Some and/or all of the above is how you oversample Dems so much, then all these polls get included into the RCP average that says who's winning. For the above reasons, personally, I dont take any poll by NBC/Marist very seriously. You'll often see "Obama up 2%" with a D+6% sample etc....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saugus
As far as I know he's not throwing out polls just because they come from Fox News or something like that.
Actually, Fox News polls have provided some of the better results for Obama. Not the best (i.e. outlier), but better than most.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saugus
As for the weighting, I think it's clear that older polls get less weight, and that polls with larger sample sizes get more weight.
He definitely seems to overweight pollsters favorable to Obama, like Marist. Whether coincidence or not I dont know, but I dont trust him.
I'll give you one thing, he's not as bad as HuffingtonPost Pollster, which is instantly recognized as pure propaganda by anyone with 1/2 a brain. Includes numerous polls paid for by the DNC, doesnt include the few polls paid for by R constituents =lulz.
if the winner is decided based on how many people DON’T come to the polls, isnt that a huge red flag that something is seriously wrong? can nobody see the big picture here?
There's nothing in Romney's character profile that says he's a wacked out righty. He's a technocratic numbers guy who, from 1994 to 2005-06, was very moderate on social issues. He did what he had to do to appease the draconian members of his party, and is now shifting back towards his more long standing positions.
He isn't that moderate on social issues. If he chooses the next Supreme Court Justices, Roe v Wade is going to fall, bet on it. He has no interest in legalising marijuana (even though the prospect of saving money in the War on Drugs should appeal to his fiscal conservatism), and his immigration policies are definitely going to cause trouble.
His foreign policy stance worries me even more. For all his talk about showing strong leadership to the world, anybody who travels abroad can tell you that the US is much more liked and respected since Obama has been in office, as opposed to Bush. The sanctions against Iran are working, their currency is ****ed and Ahmadinejad is being questioned by their Parliament about it. Romney's idea of arming Syrian rebels is frightening too, that's exactly what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan and look what it got us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeliDevil
And I don't get why everyone says he's such a weak candidate, he's actually a pretty strong one considering he won the MA Governor race in a blue state. That is pretty damn impressive. McCain was a much weaker candidate and campaigner imo.
It's not all that impressive. He was following a popular Republican governor, and the Democrats ****ed themselves over in a bruising primary. He also looked good coming off the Salt Lake City Olympics. He did show a good ability to twist his positions to look more liberal in Massachusetts though.
More telling is the fact that he did not seek re-election. He knew he'd lose if he did. At the end of his term he was not very popular in Massachusetts.
He isn't that moderate on social issues. If he chooses the next Supreme Court Justices, Roe v Wade is going to fall, bet on it. He has no interest in legalising marijuana (even though the prospect of saving money in the War on Drugs should appeal to his fiscal conservatism), and his immigration policies are definitely going to cause trouble.
His foreign policy stance worries me even more. For all his talk about showing strong leadership to the world, anybody who travels abroad can tell you that the US is much more liked and respected since Obama has been in office, as opposed to Bush. The sanctions against Iran are working, their currency is ****ed and Ahmadinejad is being questioned by their Parliament about it. Romney's idea of arming Syrian rebels is frightening too, that's exactly what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan and look what it got us.
It's not all that impressive. He was following a popular Republican governor, and the Democrats ****ed themselves over in a bruising primary. He also looked good coming off the Salt Lake City Olympics. He did show a good ability to twist his positions to look more liberal in Massachusetts though.
More telling is the fact that he did not seek re-election. He knew he'd lose if he did. At the end of his term he was not very popular in Massachusetts.
I'm not going to bet on Roe v. Wade falling, because I have twelve years of Romney saying that he is pro choice. Legalizing marijuana is still a politically untenable issue, so I don't really care (Obama was once all about it but has since backed off).
Can't really comment on the foreign affairs angle since it's something I know nothing about.
In the end my focal point is the economy, which Romney has a much better handle on than Obama (in my opinion). However, I do not like Romney's sudden desire to incite a currency war with China.
Where are you getting these early voting numbers from? The first exit polls aren't being released until 5 pm today.
Obama is underperforming in some areas, doing better in others. Supposedly the early turnout in the cities of Ohio has been rather good, and that's where he needs to get the votes.
The term Early Voting is for voting done before today. Today's voting is called Election Day Voting (not being sarcastic, that's how you define it as different from EV).
Yes, I know you're hearing on the news that "Obama is doing great in early voting" herp, derp, derp, herp! Guess what, the media tends to be biased towards Democrats.
Actual analysis of the hard data by county suggests Obama is doing MUCH worse than 2008, including, and specifically, in the key Ohio counties he needs like Cuyahoga. It does not mean he will lose, not by a long-shot, but I am telling you that the media are pants-on-fire liers on this.
Obama is doing net worse almost in every friggin' battleground state EV from 2008, with the exception of VA (which is worrisome for Republicans) and NV.
But if you and millions of Americans knew this, it would potentially be positive for Romney and his voters' engthusiasm, so you aint gonna know this! The good news for Obama is that he's not doing as catastrophically bad in EV as Gallup said he was (which you also probably didnt hear because it was very bad news for Obama, and disagreed 100% completely from the "Obama is killing it in EV" narrative they wanted to spin, so the media had no interest in covering it).
The term Early Voting is for voting done before today. Today's voting is called Election Day Voting (not being sarcastic, that's how you define it as different from EV).
Yes, I know you're hearing on the news that "Obama is doing great in early voting" herp, derp, derp, herp! Guess what, the media tends to be biased towards Democrats.
Actual analysis of the hard data by county suggests Obama is doing MUCH worse than 2008, including, and specifically, in the key Ohio counties he needs like Cuyahoga. It does not mean he will lose, not by a long-shot, but I am telling you that the media are pants-on-fire liers on this.
Obama is doing net worse almost in every friggin' battleground state EV from 2008, with the exception of VA (which is worrisome for Republicans) and NV.
But if you and millions of Americans knew this, it would potentially be positive for Romney and his voters' engthusiasm, so you aint gonna know this! The good news for Obama is that he's not doing as catastrophically bad in EV as Gallup said he was (which you also probably didnt hear because it was very bad news for Obama, and disagreed 100% completely from the "Obama is killing it in EV" narrative they wanted to spin, so the media had no interest in covering it).
why do you keep using the ‘liberally biased media’ as your trump card for Romney? if anything, democrats need to be told to get out and vote, which they would be less inclined to do if they thought it was in the bag.
why do you keep using the ‘liberally biased media’ as your trump card for Romney? if anything, democrats need to be told to get out and vote, which they would be less inclined to do if they thought it was in the bag.
People like to vote for a winner. If they feel like they're going to vote for a loser or their vote won't matter then they are less likely to go out.
why do you keep using the ‘liberally biased media’ as your trump card for Romney? if anything, democrats need to be told to get out and vote, which they would be less inclined to do if they thought it was in the bag.
Common misnomer.
It's logical to think the above, but it's false. People want to support the winner, and will do so. Similar to sports in how the rentals come out of the woodwork, but the team eliminated from the playoffs has the empty barn.
This is why campaigns always say they're going to win even if they know they're not (SEE: John McCain), because if people do not have the illusion of victory, your down-ballot candidates will be left hung out to dry.
Yes, I know you're hearing on the news that "Obama is doing great in early voting" herp, derp, derp, herp! Guess what, the media tends to be biased towards Democrats.
Actual analysis of the hard data by county suggests Obama is doing MUCH worse than 2008, including, and specifically, in the key Ohio counties he needs like Cuyahoga. It does not mean he will lose, not by a long-shot, but I am telling you that the media are pants-on-fire liers on this.
Obama is doing net worse almost in every friggin' battleground state EV from 2008, with the exception of VA (which is worrisome for Republicans) and NV.
But if you and millions of Americans knew this, it would potentially be positive for Romney and his voters' engthusiasm, so you aint gonna know this! The good news for Obama is that he's not doing as catastrophically bad in EV as Gallup said he was (which you also probably didnt hear because it was very bad news for Obama, and disagreed 100% completely from the "Obama is killing it in EV" narrative they wanted to spin, so the media had no interest in covering it).
Come on BG, you're getting a little too far into tinfoil hat territory here.
Of course Obama's early numbers are looking worse than they did in 2008. Nobody expects a ****housing like that again. But they aren't as bad as some of the Republican leaning pollsters have said. You're denouncing bias in one direction and not seeing it in the other.
Odds are, while Obama's margins are slimmer in many of the swing states, they are still enough to put him over the top. I just do not see a way Romney wins Ohio with the poll numbers there looking the way they do. Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and New Hampshire are probably out of reach too.
