EPTAmericans do like to go back to their roots and look fondly on their slave owning relatives :D. Always reminds me of speeches saying "our forefathers this and that" and Dave Chappelle making a comment about them all being slave owners in one of his routines haha
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 1204
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
NeMeSiS3
Canada2972 Posts
Americans do like to go back to their roots and look fondly on their slave owning relatives :D. Always reminds me of speeches saying "our forefathers this and that" and Dave Chappelle making a comment about them all being slave owners in one of his routines haha | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On November 06 2012 08:27 NeMeSiS3 wrote: Americans do like to go back to their roots and look fondly on their slave owning relatives :D. Always reminds me of speeches saying "our forefathers this and that" and Dave Chappelle making a comment about them all being slave owners in one of his routines haha There weren't that many slave owners around. Just the super elite in the bottom half of the country. It's like saying that Americans today are all CEO's of fast food chains. | ||
|
Chunhyang
Bangladesh1389 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 06 2012 08:35 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: There weren't that many slave owners around. Just the super elite in the bottom half of the country. It's like saying that Americans today are all CEO's of fast food chains. everyone in the south owned them, vicariously. | ||
|
NeMeSiS3
Canada2972 Posts
On November 06 2012 08:35 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: There weren't that many slave owners around. Just the super elite in the bottom half of the country. It's like saying that Americans today are all CEO's of fast food chains. I don't think so. George Washington, the first President of the United States, was a slave owner for practically all of his life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_and_slavery Both sides owned slaves : P lol, I'm not even meaning this in an entirely negative way the entire western world was racist and I'm in no way placing it on the Americans I just think it's always cute how they're so fond of a rebellious group of slave owners | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On November 06 2012 08:27 whatevername wrote: The poll methodology is open to the public, and we have this thing called the internet-- so theres no excuse for anyone here having not opened up the polls and checking out who they asked, relative to who they polled in 2008, and 2008's actual turnout rate. Virtually all the polls ask more democrats as a percent of the population than they did in 2008, despite a decline in the democrats percentage of the country. In some cases they ask more democrats than Obama even had in support in that area before. Theres plenty of biased statistics out there, which is precisely the reason the Romney camp is fairly sure there going to win and the Obama camp is equally sure Obama will win. They have there own internal polling and it differs from the constructed polls of various pollsters. The polls aren't "asking more Democrats", more Democrats are responding to the polls. Which you would know if you read the methodology. I mean, come on. The only people that weight by party ID are Rasmussen (who were off by 4% for Republicans in 2010), and even THEY are showing a national tie right now. Edit: I mean think about what you're saying here. To say polls are "asking too many Democrats" is to say that there is a proper number of Democrats to ask. The entire point of polls is to find out how many Democrats and Republicans there are! If every poll asked even numbers of Republicans and Democrats, 50/50, and there were ten times as many Democrats as Republicans, you would get an "even" poll, but you sure as heck wouldn't get a tied election. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On November 06 2012 08:37 oneofthem wrote: everyone in the south owned them, vicariously. No. The upper middle class would get one to be more farmhand than slave, and everyone below that would be on their own devices. | ||
p4NDemik
United States13896 Posts
On November 06 2012 08:27 whatevername wrote: The poll methodology is open to the public, and we have this thing called the internet-- so theres no excuse for anyone here having not opened up the polls and checking out who they asked, relative to who they polled in 2008, and 2008's actual turnout rate. Virtually all the polls ask more democrats as a percent of the population than they did in 2008, despite a decline in the democrats percentage of the country. In some cases they ask more democrats than Obama even had in support in that area before. Theres plenty of biased statistics out there, which is precisely the reason the Romney camp is fairly sure there going to win and the Obama camp is equally sure Obama will win. They have there own internal polling and it differs from the constructed polls of various pollsters. I'm simply not interested in going down this road again. At this point wasting your breath arguing is pointless when the election is mere hours away. Whatever bias or non-bias there is will be determined shortly. Nate SIlver recently wrote a piece including the historical accuracy of polling average models, I'd recommend you'd read it. Once again, non-biased arithmetic, just looking for bias and analyzing the accuracy of past year's polling models. His conclusion is that yes, in order for Gov. Romney to win that the polls would have to be conspiring against him this year in a fashion that they have never done before in the past. This is pretty much the only scenario Romney wins though. If the polls are reasonably close to reality at all then President Obama should win handily. As cited in the article, polling averages have been very accurate in the past, so I am inclined to disagree with your viewpoint that something has radically changed this year. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
/turns away | ||
|
Mazzi
440 Posts
| ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On November 06 2012 08:40 p4NDemik wrote: I'm simply not interested in going down this road again. At this point wasting your breath arguing is pointless when the election is mere hours away. Whatever bias or non-bias there is will be determined shortly. Nate SIlver recently wrote a piece including the historical accuracy of polling average models, I'd recommend you'd read it. Once again, non-biased, just looking for bias and analyzing the accuracy of past year's polling models. His conclusion is that yes, in order for Gov. Romney to win that the polls would have to be conspiring against him this year in a fashion that they have never done before in the past. This is pretty much the only scenario Romney wins though. If the polls are reasonably close to reality at all then President Obama should win handily. As cited in the article, polling averages have been very accurate in the past, so I am inclined to disagree with your viewpoint that something has radically changed this year. Well, there are other ways Romney could win, though it's still not likely. | ||
|
NeMeSiS3
Canada2972 Posts
I for some reason kinda feel this fits the thread : P I dunno, I've been pondering over posting this but it's relatively offtopic but it fits with the "come together" kinda philosophy I have. Let's all get along haha | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
I have gathered several sources of data and done some "analysis" my own self. The analysis I have done is a simpel gathering of polls and finding the median value to predict percentages. I have only used the last month or at most 18 most recent polls if possible or the latest 3 polls if available. The method is crude and unfair, but let us see how it looks compared to several other predictors. In the following is a list of the 2008 results, Realclearpolitics.com aggregate averages, Electoral-Vote.com's numbers, Nate Silvers numbers post-model and the median value test. For realclearpolitics, there are often too few polls for it to calculate a number. I have guesstimated a number and used that if there is a question-mark after the number. Given that it only occurs in safe states, it is not affecting the electoral college. Here is a state by state rundown (positive numbers are Obama wins and negative numbers are Romney wins): State, 2008, RCP, EV, Nate, median ME, 17.3, 11.5, 10, 12.7, 12.5 VT, 37, 25?, 37, 33, 28 NY, 26.9, 26.4, 27, 25.1, 26 MA, 25.8, 20.1, 20, 18.6, 18 RI, 27.8, 23?, 21, 24.7, 22.5 CT, 22.4, 10.8, 13, 13.5, 13 NJ 15.6, 11.8, 12, 11.6, 10.5 DE, 24.9, -. 25, 19.4, - MD, 25.4, 20.7, 19, 22.4, 19 DC, 86, -. 80, 86.3, - IL, 25.1, 16, 19, 19.7, 16 MN, 10.3, 5.2, 9, 8.2, 7 NM 15.1, 10, 9, 8.8, 10 WA, 17.2, 13.6, 11, 13.1, 13.5 OR, 16.4, 6, 6, 8.8, 6.5 CA, 24, 14, 19, 16.9, 14 HI, 45.3, 29?, 27, 32.9, 27 PA, 10.3, 3.8, 4, 5.7, 5 NH, 9.6, 2, 2, 3.2, 1 OH, 4.6, 2.9, 3, 3.2, 2 MI, 16.4, 3.8, 6, 6.6, 5.5 WI, 13.9, 4.2, 3, 4.9, 2.5 IA, 9.3, 2.4, 3, 2.9, 2 NV, 12.5, 2.8, 3, 4, 3 CO, 9, 1.5, 0, 1.7, 0.5 VA, 6.3, 0.3, 3, 1.5, -1 NC, 0.3, -3, 0, -2, -3 FL, 2.8, -1.5, -1, -0.3, -1 MO, -0.1, -10.2, -8. -8.6, -11 IN, 1.1, -9.5, -11, -9.2, -10 AZ, -8.5, -7.5, -7. -7.3, -7 WV, -13.1, -15?, -14, -16.8, -13 SC, -9, -6?, -6, -13.1, -7 GA, -5.2, -9.3, -8, -9. -8 AL, -21.6, -, -18, -26.4, -16.5 TN, -15.8, -10?, -25. -16.8, -7 KY, -16.3, -14, -14, -19, -14 MS, -13.2, -12?, -13, 21.1, -12 AR -19.8, -22?. -27, -21.8, -22.5 LA, -18.7. -19.5?. -23, -20.9, -19,5 ND, -8.7, -17.7, -16, -15.1, -14 SD, -8.4, -6?, -8, -13.6, -10.5 NE, -14.9, -14, -16, -18,7, -14 KS, -14.9, -17?, -15, -23.6, -17 OK, -31.3, -30?. -25. -32.6, -29 TX, -11.8, -16.7, -16, -17.4, -16 MT, -2.2, -9, -8. -8.4, -10 WY, -32,3, -, -32, -37.3, - ID, -25.4, -36?, -36, -34.6, -36 UT, -28.2, -42?, -43, -43.4, -43.5 AK, -21.5, -, -24, -21.6, - The total electorals for Obama with each method is: 2008: 365, RCP: 303, Nate: 303, EV: 294, median: 290 Good election everyone! | ||
|
p4NDemik
United States13896 Posts
On November 06 2012 08:41 HunterX11 wrote: Well, there are other ways Romney could win, though it's still not likely. Come on man, don't feed the flames. edit: We're best served to keep this kind of stuff in the back of our minds (and out of this thread ideally) until something concrete happens that highlights a real issue. This goes for both sides. Until we have evidence that there is poll bias, widespread ineptitude or fraud lets just keep cool and stick to the issues. | ||
|
PVJ
Hungary5221 Posts
On November 06 2012 08:42 p4NDemik wrote: Come on man, don't feed the flames. But also don't fight them with fire | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On November 06 2012 03:44 bOneSeven wrote: I thought this was funny: "David Seaman @d_seaman Barack Obama is a can of soda advertising as a health drink. Mitt Romney is a can of soda—advertising as a can of soda. " Mitt Romney is an unknown drink advertising himself as a can a soda, a health drink, a barrel of gasoline and water from the fountain of youth. He is Schrödinger's cat, and the box is the election. | ||
|
NeMeSiS3
Canada2972 Posts
Or... Nope, got nothing. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On November 06 2012 08:46 kwizach wrote: Mitt Romney is an unknown drink advertising himself as a can a soda, a health drink, a barrel of gasoline and water from the fountain of youth. He is Schrödinger's cat, and the box is the election. Don't forget that he's also Mr. Coal. | ||
|
FeUerFlieGe
United States1193 Posts
On November 06 2012 08:38 NeMeSiS3 wrote: I don't think so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_and_slavery Both sides owned slaves : P lol, I'm not even meaning this in an entirely negative way the entire western world was racist and I'm in no way placing it on the Americans I just think it's always cute how they're so fond of a rebellious group of slave owners It's actually true. Slaves were an expensive resource and were on the verge of being phased out until the invention of the cotton gin. But most souther whites didn't actually own slaves, even after the cotton gin. You know the country of Liberia in Africa? That was once an American colony that was set up in the late 1700s so they could send the slaves back to Africa. Nobody expected slavery would last much longer, until the cotton gin of course, so the Americans set up programs to send freed slaves back to Africa. The "send the freed slaves back to africa" mentality reemerged durring the civil war. Lincoln didn't expect the freed slaves to remain in America, and actually he expected they would all leave. Also, George Washington freed his slaves upon his death. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this is some shady shit | ||
| ||
