|
|
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening.
|
On October 25 2012 11:50 ey215 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 11:42 xDaunt wrote:On October 25 2012 11:37 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 11:29 xDaunt wrote:On October 25 2012 11:26 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 11:22 Jaaaaasper wrote:On October 25 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:Are we feeling the imminent blowout yet? Foster McCollum White Baydoun (FMW)B, a national public opinion polling and voter analytics consulting firm based in Michigan and representing the combined resources of Foster McCollum White & Associates (Troy Michigan) and Baydoun Consulting (Dearborn Michigan) conducted a telephone-automated polling random survey of Michigan registered and most likely November 2012 General election voters for Fox 2 News Detroit to determine their voting and issue preferences for the presidential election.
An initial qualifying statement was read to respondents asking them to participate only if they were very likely to vote in the November General Election.
Thirty five thousand (35,000) calls were placed, and 1,122 respondents fully participated in the survey. The margin of error for this total polling sample is 2.93% with a confidence level of 95%.
The 2012 United States Presidential election will be held on November 6, 2012. Who are you most likely to vote for in the election?
President Barack Obama 46.92%
Republican Nominee Mitt Romney 46.56%
another candidate 2.30%
Undecided 4.23% Source. The fact the it came from fox makes it look unreliable to my eye, but Obama has a lead even in their poll And there it is... RCP has the polling firm listed as (D) next to it's name. That does mean what I think it means right? Reading comprehension isn't so good around here. Not only did Fox News not do the poll, but Fox News did not release the story.... Yep, I just knew someone would see "Fox" and assume it's FNC and claim bias. I am curious as to the internals of the poll though, can't seem to find them anywhere. Most of the polls that I have seen still have voter-ID internals way out of whack in favor of Obama. I have seen the arguments suggesting that this shouldn't matter, but I really am not convinced, if for no other reason than Romney has been crushing Obama among independents for months. Hell, I don't even really buy that there has been a 15-point swing towards Romney as these polls reflect. I simply can't imagine that there are really that many people who haven't made up their minds. I know the argument is that most of these polling firms are using a turnout model that is similar to the 2008 election. I don't buy that turnout model either. The question is how much does it change the polls? One thing I'm curious about, is if the media keeps telling us that the party identification doesn't matter why does CNN go out of their way before announcing their debate night snap polls that more Republicans tend to watch the debates than Democrats and so the numbers may not reflect the actual electorate. (I think they end up with a 1/3 each D/R/I on that specific poll.)
Maybe to explain why their post-debate polls are +20 in favor of Romney compared to CBS'?
Does that mean CBS weights by party ID?
|
On October 25 2012 11:50 ey215 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 11:42 xDaunt wrote:On October 25 2012 11:37 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 11:29 xDaunt wrote:On October 25 2012 11:26 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 11:22 Jaaaaasper wrote:On October 25 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:Are we feeling the imminent blowout yet? Foster McCollum White Baydoun (FMW)B, a national public opinion polling and voter analytics consulting firm based in Michigan and representing the combined resources of Foster McCollum White & Associates (Troy Michigan) and Baydoun Consulting (Dearborn Michigan) conducted a telephone-automated polling random survey of Michigan registered and most likely November 2012 General election voters for Fox 2 News Detroit to determine their voting and issue preferences for the presidential election.
An initial qualifying statement was read to respondents asking them to participate only if they were very likely to vote in the November General Election.
Thirty five thousand (35,000) calls were placed, and 1,122 respondents fully participated in the survey. The margin of error for this total polling sample is 2.93% with a confidence level of 95%.
The 2012 United States Presidential election will be held on November 6, 2012. Who are you most likely to vote for in the election?
President Barack Obama 46.92%
Republican Nominee Mitt Romney 46.56%
another candidate 2.30%
Undecided 4.23% Source. The fact the it came from fox makes it look unreliable to my eye, but Obama has a lead even in their poll And there it is... RCP has the polling firm listed as (D) next to it's name. That does mean what I think it means right? Reading comprehension isn't so good around here. Not only did Fox News not do the poll, but Fox News did not release the story.... Yep, I just knew someone would see "Fox" and assume it's FNC and claim bias. I am curious as to the internals of the poll though, can't seem to find them anywhere. Most of the polls that I have seen still have voter-ID internals way out of whack in favor of Obama. I have seen the arguments suggesting that this shouldn't matter, but I really am not convinced, if for no other reason than Romney has been crushing Obama among independents for months. Hell, I don't even really buy that there has been a 15-point swing towards Romney as these polls reflect. I simply can't imagine that there are really that many people who haven't made up their minds. I know the argument is that most of these polling firms are using a turnout model that is similar to the 2008 election. I don't buy that turnout model either. The question is how much does it change the polls? One thing I'm curious about, is if the media keeps telling us that the party identification doesn't matter why does CNN go out of their way before announcing their debate night snap polls that more Republicans tend to watch the debates than Democrats and so the numbers may not reflect the actual electorate. (I think they end up with a 1/3 each D/R/I on that specific poll.)
It changes the poll a lot. Generally, 90% of party voters vote party line. Thus, when we see these polls reflecting a 2008 voter turnout instead of a 2010 voter turnout, there is like a 8-9 point swing that favors Obama. In other words, and assuming that party matters in these polls, there is at least a 5 point artificial bias for Obama in these polls. If this is in fact true, then Obama will lose in a blowout on Election Day.
|
On October 25 2012 11:54 DeepElemBlues wrote:
If the rest of the world has a problem with who we elect, they can remember that a democratic election means you can't complain about who wins, especially if its Hamas.
I don't believe the polls are meant to show that we should elect leaders based on what the rest of the world thinks; rather, they merely demonstrate how conservative we are compared to the rest of the world.
|
On October 25 2012 11:51 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 11:35 Mindcrime wrote:On October 25 2012 11:21 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 25 2012 11:20 nevermindthebollocks wrote:Hey check this out. When you get away from fox news and get an unbiased view of who is better this is the result ![[image loading]](http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/_63592042_worldservicepoll_464_obama_embargoed23102012.gif) single digits in almost every country for romney sounds about right Looks like Pakistan didn't like the way Obama pronounced their country's name. or violated its sovereignty If they don't like it, maybe they should stop taking American foreign aid while harboring terrorist leaders.
That might make sense if taking American aid were a prerequisite for America violating a country's sovereignty. 
|
On October 25 2012 11:50 ey215 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 11:42 xDaunt wrote:On October 25 2012 11:37 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 11:29 xDaunt wrote:On October 25 2012 11:26 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 11:22 Jaaaaasper wrote:On October 25 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:Are we feeling the imminent blowout yet? Foster McCollum White Baydoun (FMW)B, a national public opinion polling and voter analytics consulting firm based in Michigan and representing the combined resources of Foster McCollum White & Associates (Troy Michigan) and Baydoun Consulting (Dearborn Michigan) conducted a telephone-automated polling random survey of Michigan registered and most likely November 2012 General election voters for Fox 2 News Detroit to determine their voting and issue preferences for the presidential election.
An initial qualifying statement was read to respondents asking them to participate only if they were very likely to vote in the November General Election.
Thirty five thousand (35,000) calls were placed, and 1,122 respondents fully participated in the survey. The margin of error for this total polling sample is 2.93% with a confidence level of 95%.
The 2012 United States Presidential election will be held on November 6, 2012. Who are you most likely to vote for in the election?
President Barack Obama 46.92%
Republican Nominee Mitt Romney 46.56%
another candidate 2.30%
Undecided 4.23% Source. The fact the it came from fox makes it look unreliable to my eye, but Obama has a lead even in their poll And there it is... RCP has the polling firm listed as (D) next to it's name. That does mean what I think it means right? Reading comprehension isn't so good around here. Not only did Fox News not do the poll, but Fox News did not release the story.... Yep, I just knew someone would see "Fox" and assume it's FNC and claim bias. I am curious as to the internals of the poll though, can't seem to find them anywhere. Most of the polls that I have seen still have voter-ID internals way out of whack in favor of Obama. I have seen the arguments suggesting that this shouldn't matter, but I really am not convinced, if for no other reason than Romney has been crushing Obama among independents for months. Hell, I don't even really buy that there has been a 15-point swing towards Romney as these polls reflect. I simply can't imagine that there are really that many people who haven't made up their minds. I know the argument is that most of these polling firms are using a turnout model that is similar to the 2008 election. I don't buy that turnout model either. The question is how much does it change the polls? One thing I'm curious about, is if the media keeps telling us that the party identification doesn't matter why does CNN go out of their way before announcing their debate night snap polls that more Republicans tend to watch the debates than Democrats and so the numbers may not reflect the actual electorate. (I think they end up with a 1/3 each D/R/I on that specific poll.)
Well, the party ID internals aren't really related to the turnout models. That's more the marked decrease in Republicans and the rise in independents. When a poll shows 40% of respondents were Democrats, 30% were Republican, and 30% were independents, it looks like the poll is oversampling Democrats and Independents and (if the outcome is about 50/50) also looks like independents overwhelmingly favor Romney.
Now, there are a couple ways you can look at this. One is that pollsters are using methodologies that are oversampling Democrats. If they've changed their methods, there's a chance of this; the problem is most polls keep the same methods from election to election. Another explanation is that the demographics have changed such that the old methodologies are no longer accurate ways to gather samples; cell phones and land lines could be an explanation here. The problem is that cell phone polls tend to be more favorable to Obama, so that doesn't seem to explain it. There's also potential changes in response to phone calls, ad saturation, and overpolling, but that's a hell of a problem that crushes surveying in general.
The most cogent explanation (in my opinion), is that the vitriolic nature of the U.S. has lowered partisan identification in both parties and increased the number of self-proclaimed "independents." Meanwhile many members of the Tea Party don't necessarily identify as Republican anymore, and thus independents lean Romney.
Which explanation you pick probably depends a great deal on which candidate you want to win. We'll probably know which was right in retrospect, but only in retrospect.
Edit: Then there's the likely/registered voter dichotomy, which is another kettle of fish.
Edit2: It's also why trends in the polls are much more informative than the polls themselves. For example, no matter how inaccurate the sampling methods are, we can conclude that the Denver debate devastated Obama's number's; that the Democratic Convention gave a bounce; that the 47% video gave a much smaller Obama bounce; and that none of the following three debates gave Obama back his earlier lead (whatever it was).
|
On October 25 2012 11:57 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 11:54 DeepElemBlues wrote:
If the rest of the world has a problem with who we elect, they can remember that a democratic election means you can't complain about who wins, especially if its Hamas. I don't believe the polls are meant to show that we should elect leaders based on what the rest of the world thinks; rather, they merely demonstrate how conservative we are compared to the rest of the world.
Well that is why people are mentioning them here - they love them some appeal to the majority - but yes, that is what they actually show.
|
On October 25 2012 11:55 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 11:50 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 11:42 xDaunt wrote:On October 25 2012 11:37 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 11:29 xDaunt wrote:On October 25 2012 11:26 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 11:22 Jaaaaasper wrote:On October 25 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:Are we feeling the imminent blowout yet? Foster McCollum White Baydoun (FMW)B, a national public opinion polling and voter analytics consulting firm based in Michigan and representing the combined resources of Foster McCollum White & Associates (Troy Michigan) and Baydoun Consulting (Dearborn Michigan) conducted a telephone-automated polling random survey of Michigan registered and most likely November 2012 General election voters for Fox 2 News Detroit to determine their voting and issue preferences for the presidential election.
An initial qualifying statement was read to respondents asking them to participate only if they were very likely to vote in the November General Election.
Thirty five thousand (35,000) calls were placed, and 1,122 respondents fully participated in the survey. The margin of error for this total polling sample is 2.93% with a confidence level of 95%.
The 2012 United States Presidential election will be held on November 6, 2012. Who are you most likely to vote for in the election?
President Barack Obama 46.92%
Republican Nominee Mitt Romney 46.56%
another candidate 2.30%
Undecided 4.23% Source. The fact the it came from fox makes it look unreliable to my eye, but Obama has a lead even in their poll And there it is... RCP has the polling firm listed as (D) next to it's name. That does mean what I think it means right? Reading comprehension isn't so good around here. Not only did Fox News not do the poll, but Fox News did not release the story.... Yep, I just knew someone would see "Fox" and assume it's FNC and claim bias. I am curious as to the internals of the poll though, can't seem to find them anywhere. Most of the polls that I have seen still have voter-ID internals way out of whack in favor of Obama. I have seen the arguments suggesting that this shouldn't matter, but I really am not convinced, if for no other reason than Romney has been crushing Obama among independents for months. Hell, I don't even really buy that there has been a 15-point swing towards Romney as these polls reflect. I simply can't imagine that there are really that many people who haven't made up their minds. I know the argument is that most of these polling firms are using a turnout model that is similar to the 2008 election. I don't buy that turnout model either. The question is how much does it change the polls? One thing I'm curious about, is if the media keeps telling us that the party identification doesn't matter why does CNN go out of their way before announcing their debate night snap polls that more Republicans tend to watch the debates than Democrats and so the numbers may not reflect the actual electorate. (I think they end up with a 1/3 each D/R/I on that specific poll.) Maybe to explain why their post-debate polls are +20 in favor of Romney compared to CBS'? Does that mean CBS weights by party ID?
I don't know the methodology behind either. I'm just saying, the media laughing at poll "truthers" and then making sure to cover their ass points to the makeup mattering to some extent. The question is how much?
Then you get into the whole "Is the media intentionally skewing polls to help the President?" thing and to be honest that's a bridge too far for me.
|
On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening.
People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy.
Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy?
|
On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy?
And that is simply contingent on the belief that fetuses aren't people.
Lots of people disagree.
|
On October 25 2012 11:58 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 11:50 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 11:42 xDaunt wrote:On October 25 2012 11:37 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 11:29 xDaunt wrote:On October 25 2012 11:26 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 11:22 Jaaaaasper wrote:On October 25 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:Are we feeling the imminent blowout yet? Foster McCollum White Baydoun (FMW)B, a national public opinion polling and voter analytics consulting firm based in Michigan and representing the combined resources of Foster McCollum White & Associates (Troy Michigan) and Baydoun Consulting (Dearborn Michigan) conducted a telephone-automated polling random survey of Michigan registered and most likely November 2012 General election voters for Fox 2 News Detroit to determine their voting and issue preferences for the presidential election.
An initial qualifying statement was read to respondents asking them to participate only if they were very likely to vote in the November General Election.
Thirty five thousand (35,000) calls were placed, and 1,122 respondents fully participated in the survey. The margin of error for this total polling sample is 2.93% with a confidence level of 95%.
The 2012 United States Presidential election will be held on November 6, 2012. Who are you most likely to vote for in the election?
President Barack Obama 46.92%
Republican Nominee Mitt Romney 46.56%
another candidate 2.30%
Undecided 4.23% Source. The fact the it came from fox makes it look unreliable to my eye, but Obama has a lead even in their poll And there it is... RCP has the polling firm listed as (D) next to it's name. That does mean what I think it means right? Reading comprehension isn't so good around here. Not only did Fox News not do the poll, but Fox News did not release the story.... Yep, I just knew someone would see "Fox" and assume it's FNC and claim bias. I am curious as to the internals of the poll though, can't seem to find them anywhere. Most of the polls that I have seen still have voter-ID internals way out of whack in favor of Obama. I have seen the arguments suggesting that this shouldn't matter, but I really am not convinced, if for no other reason than Romney has been crushing Obama among independents for months. Hell, I don't even really buy that there has been a 15-point swing towards Romney as these polls reflect. I simply can't imagine that there are really that many people who haven't made up their minds. I know the argument is that most of these polling firms are using a turnout model that is similar to the 2008 election. I don't buy that turnout model either. The question is how much does it change the polls? One thing I'm curious about, is if the media keeps telling us that the party identification doesn't matter why does CNN go out of their way before announcing their debate night snap polls that more Republicans tend to watch the debates than Democrats and so the numbers may not reflect the actual electorate. (I think they end up with a 1/3 each D/R/I on that specific poll.) Well, the party ID internals aren't really related to the turnout models. That's more the marked decrease in Republicans and the rise in independents. When a poll shows 40% of respondents were Democrats, 30% were Republican, and 30% were independents, it looks like the poll is oversampling Democrats and Independents and (if the outcome is about 50/50) also looks like independents overwhelmingly favor Romney. Now, there are a couple ways you can look at this. One is that pollsters are using methodologies that are oversampling Democrats. If they've changed their methods, there's a chance of this; the problem is most polls keep the same methods from election to election. Another explanation is that the demographics have changed such that the old methodologies are no longer accurate ways to gather samples; cell phones and land lines could be an explanation here. The problem is that cell phone polls tend to be more favorable to Obama, so that doesn't seem to explain it. There's also potential changes in response to phone calls, ad saturation, and overpolling, but that's a hell of a problem that crushes surveying in general. The most cogent explanation (in my opinion), is that the vitriolic nature of the U.S. has lowered partisan identification in both parties and increased the number of self-proclaimed "independents." Meanwhile many members of the Tea Party don't necessarily identify as Republican anymore, and thus independents lean Romney. Which explanation you pick probably depends a great deal on which candidate you want to win. We'll probably know which was right in retrospect, but only in retrospect. Edit: Then there's the likely/registered voter dichotomy, which is another kettle of fish.
Not living in a swing state and never being called by a pollster I don't know the answer to this, but I thought I heard that some of the reputable polling firms don't actually ask which party you id with but it's based off of a set of questions? I know I heard that they do that to determine "Likely Voters" in the last couple of days.
I could be way off base here and feel free to correct me.
|
On October 25 2012 11:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 11:37 ThreeAcross wrote:On October 25 2012 11:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 25 2012 11:28 ThreeAcross wrote:On October 25 2012 11:22 Jaaaaasper wrote:On October 25 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:Are we feeling the imminent blowout yet? Foster McCollum White Baydoun (FMW)B, a national public opinion polling and voter analytics consulting firm based in Michigan and representing the combined resources of Foster McCollum White & Associates (Troy Michigan) and Baydoun Consulting (Dearborn Michigan) conducted a telephone-automated polling random survey of Michigan registered and most likely November 2012 General election voters for Fox 2 News Detroit to determine their voting and issue preferences for the presidential election.
An initial qualifying statement was read to respondents asking them to participate only if they were very likely to vote in the November General Election.
Thirty five thousand (35,000) calls were placed, and 1,122 respondents fully participated in the survey. The margin of error for this total polling sample is 2.93% with a confidence level of 95%.
The 2012 United States Presidential election will be held on November 6, 2012. Who are you most likely to vote for in the election?
President Barack Obama 46.92%
Republican Nominee Mitt Romney 46.56%
another candidate 2.30%
Undecided 4.23% Source. The fact the it came from fox makes it look unreliable to my eye, but Obama has a lead even in their poll Local Fox =/= Fox News. It is an interesting poll because Michigan has always been expected to be an Obama state. The fact that it is polling this close is surprising. Even in August (before Ryan was introduced when Obama was a total shoe-in in the state) this polling firm showed a 4% Romney lead. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/21/mi-2012-president-48-romn_n_1819592.htmlI'd hold my breath till I see enough polls to gauge this. Good catch. I skimmed the release, but I couldn't find specifics on party affiliations. Will look into it more now before passing judgement. Yeah, I wanted to scan more of their polls, but as near as I can tell the only ones that got wide circulation showed Romney +14 in FL in August and Romney +4 in August in Wisconsin. If you find more I'd love to know, maybe those two were just flukes and they don't have any lean, but I can't find them. Edit: Whoops, he was announced on 8/11? Holy cow time flies. I didn't realize I'd disliked the man so long. My bad. I /think/ the average bounce was less than +4 even five days later, though.
It seems to be a pretty erratic polling state. One Poller - 6/18 Obama +1 , 7/23 Romey +1 -- Ryan -- 8/13 Obama +5 , 8/23 Tie .. And the difference between the affiliations vary between 4-6% per poll. Just hard to get a good read on the state right now.
I still think it is going to go Obama.
|
On October 25 2012 12:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? And that is simply contingent on the belief that fetuses aren't people. Lots of people disagree.
Actually, as I argued a few pages back, it doesn't matter.
Even if you accept that fetuses are people, it's a violation of a person's rights to force them to serve as an incubator. Just as you're not forced to donate blood/bone marrow/organs/etc to sustain other's lives (not even your family members), women should not be forced to (temporarily) donate their uteruses/blood/nutrients/etc to sustain another life.
It's fair to consider such a decision to be despicable, but legally permitting abortion is completely consistent with legal rights to bodily autonomy.
|
On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy?
Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution.
|
On October 25 2012 12:04 ey215 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 11:58 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 25 2012 11:50 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 11:42 xDaunt wrote:On October 25 2012 11:37 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 11:29 xDaunt wrote:On October 25 2012 11:26 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 11:22 Jaaaaasper wrote:On October 25 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:Are we feeling the imminent blowout yet? Foster McCollum White Baydoun (FMW)B, a national public opinion polling and voter analytics consulting firm based in Michigan and representing the combined resources of Foster McCollum White & Associates (Troy Michigan) and Baydoun Consulting (Dearborn Michigan) conducted a telephone-automated polling random survey of Michigan registered and most likely November 2012 General election voters for Fox 2 News Detroit to determine their voting and issue preferences for the presidential election.
An initial qualifying statement was read to respondents asking them to participate only if they were very likely to vote in the November General Election.
Thirty five thousand (35,000) calls were placed, and 1,122 respondents fully participated in the survey. The margin of error for this total polling sample is 2.93% with a confidence level of 95%.
The 2012 United States Presidential election will be held on November 6, 2012. Who are you most likely to vote for in the election?
President Barack Obama 46.92%
Republican Nominee Mitt Romney 46.56%
another candidate 2.30%
Undecided 4.23% Source. The fact the it came from fox makes it look unreliable to my eye, but Obama has a lead even in their poll And there it is... RCP has the polling firm listed as (D) next to it's name. That does mean what I think it means right? Reading comprehension isn't so good around here. Not only did Fox News not do the poll, but Fox News did not release the story.... Yep, I just knew someone would see "Fox" and assume it's FNC and claim bias. I am curious as to the internals of the poll though, can't seem to find them anywhere. Most of the polls that I have seen still have voter-ID internals way out of whack in favor of Obama. I have seen the arguments suggesting that this shouldn't matter, but I really am not convinced, if for no other reason than Romney has been crushing Obama among independents for months. Hell, I don't even really buy that there has been a 15-point swing towards Romney as these polls reflect. I simply can't imagine that there are really that many people who haven't made up their minds. I know the argument is that most of these polling firms are using a turnout model that is similar to the 2008 election. I don't buy that turnout model either. The question is how much does it change the polls? One thing I'm curious about, is if the media keeps telling us that the party identification doesn't matter why does CNN go out of their way before announcing their debate night snap polls that more Republicans tend to watch the debates than Democrats and so the numbers may not reflect the actual electorate. (I think they end up with a 1/3 each D/R/I on that specific poll.) Well, the party ID internals aren't really related to the turnout models. That's more the marked decrease in Republicans and the rise in independents. When a poll shows 40% of respondents were Democrats, 30% were Republican, and 30% were independents, it looks like the poll is oversampling Democrats and Independents and (if the outcome is about 50/50) also looks like independents overwhelmingly favor Romney. Now, there are a couple ways you can look at this. One is that pollsters are using methodologies that are oversampling Democrats. If they've changed their methods, there's a chance of this; the problem is most polls keep the same methods from election to election. Another explanation is that the demographics have changed such that the old methodologies are no longer accurate ways to gather samples; cell phones and land lines could be an explanation here. The problem is that cell phone polls tend to be more favorable to Obama, so that doesn't seem to explain it. There's also potential changes in response to phone calls, ad saturation, and overpolling, but that's a hell of a problem that crushes surveying in general. The most cogent explanation (in my opinion), is that the vitriolic nature of the U.S. has lowered partisan identification in both parties and increased the number of self-proclaimed "independents." Meanwhile many members of the Tea Party don't necessarily identify as Republican anymore, and thus independents lean Romney. Which explanation you pick probably depends a great deal on which candidate you want to win. We'll probably know which was right in retrospect, but only in retrospect. Edit: Then there's the likely/registered voter dichotomy, which is another kettle of fish. Not living in a swing state and never being called by a pollster I don't know the answer to this, but I thought I heard that some of the reputable polling firms don't actually ask which party you id with but it's based off of a set of questions? I know I heard that they do that to determine "Likely Voters" in the last couple of days. I could be way off base here and feel free to correct me.
I *think* that they typically use self-reported measures of Democrat and Republican, though again it varies by poll. Asking questions to determine party ID means you are accenting various issues, which may influence how individuals respond due to priming, though there are probably methods to do that without priming.
"Likely voters" are usually asked a separate set of questions similar to how you screen for health studies. I could be wrong on both points, I'm going off 538 and memories of a class a year ago with a political science/network science professor.
Edit: I mean think about it. Party identification is in and of itself a valuable quantity for political scientists. Trying to herd people into a party ID reduces the usefulness of the data.
|
On October 25 2012 12:05 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? And that is simply contingent on the belief that fetuses aren't people. Lots of people disagree. Actually, as I argued a few pages back, it doesn't matter. Even if you accept that fetuses are people, it's a violation of a person's rights to force them to serve as an incubator. Just as you're not forced to donate blood/bone marrow/organs/etc. to sustain other's lives (not even your family members), women should not be forced to temporarily donate their uteruses to sustain another life.
It's a matter of conflicting rights. I put the fetus' right to life above the right of the woman to not have to temporarily donate her uterus. Far, far above it. The only way your position could be so airtight as you're presenting it would be if you said the fetus has no rights at all, which you aren't saying.
|
On October 25 2012 12:05 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? And that is simply contingent on the belief that fetuses aren't people. Lots of people disagree. Actually, as I argued a few pages back, it doesn't matter. Even if you accept that fetuses are people, it's a violation of a person's rights to force them to serve as an incubator. Just as you're not forced to donate blood/bone marrow/organs/etc to sustain other's lives (not even your family members), women should not be forced to (temporarily) donate their uteruses/blood/nutrients/etc to sustain another life. It's fair to consider such a decision to be despicable, but legally permitting abortion is completely consistent with legal rights to bodily autonomy.
This is a good argument I haven't heard it before
|
On October 25 2012 12:05 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? And that is simply contingent on the belief that fetuses aren't people. Lots of people disagree. Actually, as I argued a few pages back, it doesn't matter. Even if you accept that fetuses are people, it's a violation of a person's rights to force them to serve as an incubator. Just as you're not forced to donate blood/bone marrow/organs/etc to sustain other's lives (not even your family members), women should not be forced to (temporarily) donate their uteruses/blood/nutrients/etc to sustain another life.
But is forcing someone into slavery better then murdering an innocent life? For one person its a huge problem and a large inconceivably bad situation. For the other its purely a death sentence.
If you can't understand where the other side is coming from you shouldn't fight so hard against them on the issue.
|
On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution.
Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule.
Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights?
|
On October 25 2012 12:08 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:05 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? And that is simply contingent on the belief that fetuses aren't people. Lots of people disagree. Actually, as I argued a few pages back, it doesn't matter. Even if you accept that fetuses are people, it's a violation of a person's rights to force them to serve as an incubator. Just as you're not forced to donate blood/bone marrow/organs/etc. to sustain other's lives (not even your family members), women should not be forced to temporarily donate their uteruses to sustain another life. It's a matter of conflicting rights. I put the fetus' right to life above the right of the woman to not have to temporarily donate her uterus. Far, far above it. The only way your position could be so airtight as you're presenting it would be if you said the fetus has no rights at all, which you aren't saying.
So let's say the government puts the right of citizen's lives above the right of citizens to not donate parts of their body.
Are you okay with the government demanding that you donate blood, bone marrow, and spare organs to save lives?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
