EPTPresident Obama Re-Elected - Page 1243
| 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 | ||
|
Hrrrrm
United States2081 Posts
| ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On November 07 2012 07:30 sc2superfan101 wrote: I see that you're dropping the Nate Silver theory (Freudian slip?) about Romney's only chance being a "systematic bias against him in all the polls". I was shocked that he was brave enough to write that, because now if Romney does win, and wins big, then we have a straight up admission from Nate Silver that all the polls are biased against Romney. Or we could just accuse the other side of massive election fraud... Why don't you go look at all the polls for yourself and come to your own conclusion? Even at a conservative estimate, Obama is ahead on average by about 0.5% in almost all of the swing states. (Read: every state you predicted would be a win for Romney except NC) He has to lose several states in which he currently has leads in order to lose the electoral college. Statistically, the likelihood of that happening is pretty minimal. Nate Silver is stating the obvious for anyone who is remotely knowledgeable in basic statistics. | ||
|
Maxyim
430 Posts
| ||
|
Fueled
United States1610 Posts
| ||
|
Ryalnos
United States1946 Posts
On November 07 2012 07:38 wherebugsgo wrote: Why don't you go look at all the polls for yourself and come to your own conclusion? Even at a conservative estimate, Obama is ahead on average by about 0.5% in almost all of the swing states. (Read: every state you predicted would be a win for Romney except NC) He has to lose several states in which he currently has large leads in order to lose the electoral college. Statistically, the likelihood of that happening is pretty minimal. Nate Silver is stating the obvious for anyone who is remotely knowledgeable in basic statistics. Turnout is the potential surprise factor. All of those polls have reported their results based on their models of 'likely voting' - it's not too hard to imagine scenarios where pollsters could (collectively) incorrectly predict the body of people that actually make it to the polls and cast a vote - especially since such things are tricky to pin down precisely (and state level races / referendums / amendments will affect turnout in somewhat unpredictable ways). Now I wouldn't say that such potential source of error makes the race 50-50, just that it makes things complicated. | ||
|
hifriend
China7935 Posts
On November 07 2012 07:41 Fueled wrote: Man, these CNN hypothetical situations where Romney and Obama having a tie in the EC, would just be a mess :s wtf was that faithless elector thing? o_o | ||
|
Laneir
United States1160 Posts
On November 07 2012 07:41 Fueled wrote: Man, these CNN hypothetical situations where Romney and Obama having a tie in the EC, would just be a mess :s i JUST SAW THAT BE CRAZY TO HAVE THAT HAPPEN User was warned for this post | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6220 Posts
On November 07 2012 07:41 Fueled wrote: Man, these CNN hypothetical situations where Romney and Obama having a tie in the EC, would just be a mess :s http://what-if.xkcd.com/ Perfect for this occasion. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
| ||
|
ey215
United States546 Posts
On November 07 2012 07:26 DamnCats wrote: Kinda hope Romney wins just so everyone at Fox News will be like... "Well, shit guys... What the fuck do we do now?" There's always Harry Reid and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to go after.  | ||
tree.hugger
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On November 07 2012 06:56 ThomasjServo wrote: Wellstone's death was a tremendous loss for Minnesota and for the country. I wish I could elect him president too. The ones that get out on the federal stage tend to make a name for themselves, though some in more positive ways than others. First time I saw my father cry was when Wellstone's plane went down (He worked on his first election campaign), I wish I could vote that man into the White House.  On November 07 2012 07:30 sc2superfan101 wrote: You don't understand what Silver is saying. He's a statistician, he means bias in the neutral, stats-speak sense. He doesn't mean it in the "Unskewed Polls, MSM is biased towards Democrats" way. Just as he's giving Romney as 10% chance that this bias exists, there's a 10% chance that Obama will outperform his polls by the same measure of magnitude. I see that you're dropping the Nate Silver theory (Freudian slip?) about Romney's only chance being a "systematic bias against him in all the polls". I was shocked that he was brave enough to write that, because now if Romney does win, and wins big, then we have a straight up admission from Nate Silver that all the polls are biased against Romney. Or we could just accuse the other side of massive election fraud... | ||
|
419fish
United States35 Posts
On November 07 2012 07:44 Laneir wrote: i JUST SAW THAT BE CRAZY TO HAVE THAT HAPPEN it would be insane but the outcome would be obvious the election would go to the House so Romney wins ties. | ||
|
TotalBalanceSC2
Canada475 Posts
On November 07 2012 07:48 419fish wrote: it would be insane but the outcome would be obvious the election would go to the House so Romney wins ties. Yeah but he gets to have Biden as his VP haha. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On November 07 2012 07:43 Ryalnos wrote: Turnout is the potential surprise factor. All of those polls have reported their results based on their models of 'likely voting' - it's not too hard to imagine scenarios where pollsters could (collectively) incorrectly predict the body of people that actually make it to the polls and cast a vote. Right-the Republicans generally gain traction if turnout is lower and vice versa for the Democrats. I don't think turnout is going to be much different this time around, though. It might be a bit lower than it was in 2008, but not significantly. I think it's also possible that, if in Florida and Ohio voting is difficult for many people (e.g. with the long lines and stuff) then Romney would have a better chance of winning in these states. I still think that it's unlikely that Romney would win significantly. If he were to win by a small margin then it wouldn't be so surprising, just somewhat unlikely. However, if he were to win several swing states it would most definitely be a surprise and probably a suggestion of something more sinister going on than simple low turnout. | ||
|
Fueled
United States1610 Posts
On November 07 2012 07:48 419fish wrote: it would be insane but the outcome would be obvious the election would go to the House so Romney wins ties. But, would the Senate pick Biden over Ryan for VP? | ||
|
Maxyim
430 Posts
| ||
|
ey215
United States546 Posts
On November 07 2012 07:50 Fueled wrote: But, would the House pick Biden over Ryan for VP? The Senate picks VP. | ||
|
Comeh
United States18919 Posts
| ||
|
ACrow
Germany6583 Posts
On November 07 2012 07:48 419fish wrote: it would be insane but the outcome would be obvious the election would go to the House so Romney wins ties. Yeah, but with Biden as his VP if I understood correctly, due to Dem's Senate majority. | ||
|
Maxyim
430 Posts
On November 07 2012 07:50 Fueled wrote: But, would the House pick Biden over Ryan for VP? House picks President, Senate picks VP. | ||
| ||
