President Obama Re-Elected - Page 589

On September 26 2012 08:11 Defacer wrote:


Actually either way, there is no confidence among conservative high-rollers that Romney will or can win. Romney can't afford to have a bad debate. And the first debate could be Obama's opportunity to put Romney away early, and turn a respectable lead into a blow-out.

On September 26 2012 08:17 kmillz wrote:


The first debate could be Obama's opportunity to blow the election too, what is your point? I'd hardly call the lead respectable, Romney is still within the margin of error, and there are still 42 days til the election.

On September 26 2012 08:34 Defacer wrote:


You didn't read the actual article, did you?

The point is that Obama has out-raised Romney significantly, and has more money to spend. The only actual money-advantage Romney has is Karl Rove's Super-PAC, which has out-raised Paul Begala's, about 5 to 1. But Romney has no control over that money, Karl Rove can spend it however he fucking wants.

That's why you're seeing less and less advertising coming out of Rove in these battleground states. People assume Romney has the funding advantage, when it's actually Rove. He'll be deciding whether or nor Romney is going to have a ad blitz after the debates.

If Obama blows the first debate -- and it's typically for an incumbent to lose the first debate -- he still has a campaign, with more than enough money to sustain his campaign. If Romney blows it, he might as well hang up his gloves.

Almost Everyone Misinterprets The Polling On The Presidential Election — Here's Why

There's a few things that are significant when it comes to polling that people don't understand.

Polls are conducted by statisticians with the intention of being interpreted by people with some background in statistics, but as the number of firms conducting polling increased and the number of people following the "horse race" part of politics also increased, there's been a lot of misunderstanding regarding interpretation.

So in essence, you've got it wrong.

If you think that the President has re-election sewn up because of some of the latest numbers, you're way off the mark.

Here's what you need to know about polling, and here's why your candidate may be doing way better — or worse — than you think:
Margin of Error

Here's the part most people miss, and even others fail to report. The Margin of Error is a built in range with the poll. Most people believe that when a candidate is at 48 points in the polls, the candidate is exactly at 48% in the state. That's inaccurate.

There is error in the poll by statistical default, and if the announced margin of error is, for example ±4, then that means that the pollster is very sure that — in the real world — between 44% and 52% of the people actually support the candidate.

normal distributio

Wikimedia

Normal Distribution

This is obviously enough to push a candidate over or under the threshold for victory, and means that even with a six point lead in a poll with a margin of error of ±4 a favored candidate still may very well lose or landslide.

One more thing on this possible range: The range — in our example, 44% to 52% — is normally distributed, so the likelihood that a poll is four points off is much lower than the likelihood it is a little bit off.
Bias

There are two kinds of bias you need to know about to understand polling.

Voting polling station

Eric Thayer / Getty Images
The first is more akin to in-house effects, or the partisan skew that is consistently built into some polls. These firms don't need to be listed here, but they are on both sides of the aisle and I'm sure the commenters will be kind enough to point out a few.

One way that in-house effect can be used to learn about the real world is that, while the polls may not be accurate (i.e. correct) they may be precise (a consistent and correctable amount of wrong).

The other kind of bias is statistical bias, and to understand that you have to understand how polls are carried out. When a pollster sets out to do a poll, the pollster does not say to herself "I'll get fifty Democrats and twenty Independents and forty Republicans."

Instead, the poll contacts a random sample, usually drawn from a phone bank, with a random geographic distribution in the desired region. They then ask the person who picks up the phone their party affiliation.

So a poll with 40% Democrats and 30% Republicans (usually) isn't cooking its books, it just so happened that either (a) more Democrats picked up the phone or (b) The state has inherently more Democrats or even (c) that Republican voters are identifying as independents more, or (d) the pollster didn't get a statistically large enough sample.
One of the most important parts: Sampling

nokia old phone ad

The third and final thing that most people misunderstand about polling is that all polls are not created equal.

Some polls contact people via cell phone as well as by landline. Some are carried out on the internet. Others, even, are pooled from volunteers, while others are sampled randomly. The way a poll is carried out has measurable effects on the outcome.

When a poll is strictly land line, it skews older and traditionally to the right. When a poll is cellphone only, the opposite effect is seen.

This is why many firms try a hybrid model, calling both cell phones and landlines. Internet polls are either entirely useless or require a large grain of salt at the moment, but the medium is rapidly maturing as a source of credible polls.

Even more, look at where the final number comes from. If it's from registered voters, that is better than "adults of voting age" but is still imperfect.

A poll that reports Likely voters — as in, people who said "yes" when asked if they were planning to vote — is a much more compelling picture of how election day will go.

Polls now are switching to likely voter reports at this point in the cycle, and it's worth noting that Republicans get an edge when likely voters are polled rather than merely registered voters.
Here's why you need to know all of this:

Any way you cut it, polls are going to change, and it's really easy to see how you could make a compelling case for either candidate based on recent polling — Therefore Romney is undervalued.

The polls we've seen for the past few weeks have been almost exclusively registered voter polls, and polling firms are just starting to ask about likely voters. Mitt Romney should expect a bump from that, maybe in the area of one to two points. That's the difference between a victory and a loss in a few states.

Even more, the thesis that Democrats are oversampled has validity, and the cause has to be investigated. It's almost certainly not because of across the board deliberate house effects, but something about either the method of sampling (landlines, cell phones) is off a bit or Republican voters outside of the mainstream, particularly the Tea Party and Libertarian wings, are increasingly identifying themselves as "independent" to pollsters for some reason.

Plus, Romney is well within the margin of error in several states. So it's statistically possible that he's ahead and we just haven't seen it yet.

Either way, oversampling democrats mean that the reality is more in Romney's camp.

In short: stop freaking out if your candidate is a little behind, and resume freaking out if your candidate isn't that far ahead in one of these polls.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/presidential-election-polling-bias-2012-9#ixzz27WrExi3w

On September 26 2012 08:56 kmillz wrote:


The money part is relatively moot simply because they are very close in fundraising. The Republicans are going to support Romney, they want Obama out, they aren't going to jump ship. And yes, I did read the article, Including the part that says Romney hasn't led in the polls since 2011. Interesting, because I saw him tied as early as last week and in the lead last month in one poll:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx

But as I have stated before, polls are not very significant, especially when you take into account margin of error and poll bias (because, as you said, of those who have money involved).



Basically, my household that has 6 people who are voting for Romney, is just 1 small piece of the margin of error, seeing as none of us have been randomly polled. We live in Ohio, there is always the chance that they are polling more Obama supporters than Romney supporters, whether on accident or on purpose.

On September 26 2012 08:56 kmillz wrote:

The money part is relatively moot simply because they are very close in fundraising. The Republicans are going to support Romney, they want Obama out, they aren't going to jump ship. And yes, I did read the article, Including the part that says Romney hasn't led in the polls since 2011. Interesting, because I saw him tied as early as last week and in the lead last month in one poll:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx

But as I have stated before, polls are not very significant, especially when you take into account margin of error and poll bias (because, as you said, of those who have money involved).

On September 26 2012 10:36 xDaunt wrote:
Rove is still bullish on Romney. In his analysis, things have been steadily improving for Romney since this spring, and he sees that trend continuing.

On September 26 2012 11:03 Defacer wrote:


I see Rove as bullish on cutting off Obama at the knees. And if he can't get Republicans the presidency, he gladly take the Senate and Congress -- which is just as good, if not better.

And Rove has enough to absolutely DROWN Democrats running for congress. He can have a much greater impact in the congressional races than the presidential one.

Karl Rove

This Too Shall Pass, but What Follows Is Crucial
Romney has had a bad week, but he can recover—if he tells voters more clearly what he would do as president.

It's over. Gov. Mitt Romney's statements last week about the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, followed by the release this week of a video of Mr. Romney at a May fundraiser, have brought the 2012 election to an early end.

At least that is what you'd take away from some pundits. But this is a classic example of the commentariat investing moments with more meaning than they deserve.

Mr. Romney's comments about Americans who don't pay taxes were, as he admitted during a Monday press conference, "inelegant." But every campaign has its awkward moments that the media magnify. Mr. Obama had his after saying on July 13, "You didn't build that." For a while thereafter, Team Obama could do little right. Then it passed.

This moment, too, will pass for Mr. Romney. More important, the past week's events have not significantly altered the contours of the race. A month ago, Gallup had Mr. Obama at 45% and Mr. Romney at 47%. On Wednesday, Gallup reported 47% for Obama, 46% for Romney. A month ago Rasmussen said it was 45% for Mr. Obama, 43% for Mr. Romney. In its Wednesday poll, Rasmussen reported 46% for Obama, 47% for Romney.

Presidential races can look one way now but much differently on Election Day. In mid-September 1980, President Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan 44% to 40% in the Gallup poll. By late October, Reagan had slumped to 39% in Gallup, while Mr. Carter had risen to 47%. Reagan won by nine points.

As for the here-and-now, one key number to watch is Mr. Obama's vote share. In the past month, there have been 83 national polls and daily tracking surveys. Mr. Obama reached 50% in just nine and his average was 47%. That is bad news for an incumbent when attitudes about the No. 1 issue—the economy—are decidedly sour.

This isn't to suggest the Romney campaign doesn't have big challenges. But both camps do.

In the two weeks before the presidential debates begin, Mr. Romney must define more clearly what he would do as president. In spelling out his five-point plan for the middle class, he'll have to deepen awareness of how each element would help families in concrete, practical ways, and offer optimism for renewed prosperity.

Mr. Romney and his team (and supporters) must also steel themselves for more brutal attacks. The Florida fundraising video will not likely be the last surprise. The Romney campaign has largely refused to respond to attacks as a waste of time and resources. But in politics, sometimes the counter punch is stronger than the punch.

There's little tolerance among Republican donors, activists and talking heads for more statements by Mr. Romney that the media can depict as gaffes. But concerns about avoiding missteps must not cause Mr. Romney to favor cautious and bland. To win, he'll need to be bold and forceful as he offers a compelling agenda of conservative reform.

Mr. Obama's challenges may be more daunting. His strategy hasn't worked. Team Obama planned to use its big financial edge to bury Mr. Romney under negative ads over the summer. From April 15 to Labor Day, they spent an estimated $215 million on TV. But this was more than offset by conservative groups (principally American Crossroads, which I helped found). While Mr. Obama drained his coffers his own negatives climbed, and Mr. Romney partially repaired his image with voters.

Mr. Obama needs a different strategy, but his team seems stubbornly focused merely on disqualifying Mitt Romney by whatever argument or means necessary. Yet as Rahm Emanuel has repeated for most of the year, Mr. Obama must, as he put it on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sept. 2, "lay out an agenda and a clear vision of the next four years" or he'll lose.

The blunt fact is that Mr. Obama's economic policies are still not working. And in a tacit declaration that they won't, the Federal Reserve has announced a third round of quantitative easing. Team Obama realizes this is a serious indictment of its handling of the economy, so it is intensifying attacks on Mr. Romney as an economic royalist.

The campaign's next likely inflection point will be the debates, which start Oct. 3. Both candidates will be under intense pressure. Mr. Romney, a skilled debater, must reassure voters he's up to the job of being president. Fluid and agile, Mr. Obama will be expected to command each encounter. If he doesn't, polls may slowly shift against him.

On September 26 2012 11:16 kmillz wrote:


It seems to me the average joe only pays attention to the presidential election, IF even that, you really think he would have a greater impact on the congressional votes than the presidential one? I'm not saying I don't believe it, just seems surprising to me.

On September 26 2012 11:19 kmillz wrote:
I think what you (Defacer) said has some merit, but it seems Karl Rove isn't quite ready to give up on Romney:

On September 26 2012 11:19 kmillz wrote:
I think what you (Defacer) said has some merit, but it seems Karl Rove isn't quite ready to give up on Romney:

On September 26 2012 11:36 ticklishmusic wrote:


I'm sorry, I can't take any article that cites "You didn't build that" as a gaffe seriously. It's pretty clearly a quotation out of context.

Anyways, can you post the link for this article?

On September 26 2012 11:24 Defacer wrote:


All these people running for congress have much, much less money to run ads or compete through the media. Rove has the capacity to overwhelm them.

In fact, I think that would be a diabolical strategy: spread Obama thin. Use the Super PAC to back Republicans so aggressively that Obama is forced to either waste time and resources supporting Democrats or deal with a Republican congress so strong he will never be able to get anything done his next term. Run Obama ragged -- he's already exhausted trying to campaign and do his job at the same time.

And then when the moment's right, Romney will break Obama's back over his knee. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

On September 26 2012 12:00 kmillz wrote:


Interesting point and I guess what you said could give Republicans some peace of mind that even if Obama wins again, he will be hard-pressed to make things happen his way..

My only hope for this election as that something comes out of it that could open a door for a third party to start aggressively campaigning. I really wish some rich people would start backing up other party members.

On September 26 2012 12:00 kmillz wrote:


Interesting point and I guess what you said could give Republicans some peace of mind that even if Obama wins again, he will be hard-pressed to make things happen his way..

My only hope for this election as that something comes out of it that could open a door for a third party to start aggressively campaigning. I really wish some rich people would start backing up other party members.

On September 26 2012 11:19 kmillz wrote:
I think what you (Defacer) said has some merit, but it seems Karl Rove isn't quite ready to give up on Romney:

Climate change caused by global warming is slowing down world economic output by 1.6 percent a year and will lead to a doubling of costs in the next two decades, a major new report said.

The DARA and Climate Vulnerable Forum report, which was commissioned by 20 governments and is due to be presented on Wednesday in New York, paints a grim picture of the economic fallout of climate change.

The "Climate Vulnerability Monitor" report finds "unprecedented harm to human society and current economic development that will increasingly hold back growth, on the basis of an important updating and revision of previous estimates of losses linked to climate change."

However, according to the report, tackling climate change's causes would instead bring "significant economic benefits for world, major economies and poor nations alike."

Key findings include estimates that carbon-intensive economies and associated climate change are responsible for five million deaths a year, nearly all of them due to air pollution.

"Failure to act on climate change already costs the world economy 1.6 percent of global GDP amounting to $1.2 trillion in forgone prosperity a year," the report says.

In addition, "rapidly escalating temperatures and carbon-related pollution will double costs to 3.2 percent of world GDP by 2030."

Although poorer countries face the steepest economic damage in terms of GDP losses, big countries will not be spared.

"In less than 20 years China will incur the greatest share of all losses at over $1.2 trillion. The US economy will be held back by more two percent of GDP; India, over five percent of its GDP," the report said.

It said these projected losses "dwarf the modest costs" of addressing climate change.

On September 26 2012 08:34 Defacer wrote:


You didn't read the actual article, did you?

The point is that Obama has out-raised Romney significantly, and has more money to spend. The only actual money-advantage Romney has is Karl Rove's Super-PAC, which has out-raised Paul Begala's, about 5 to 1. But Romney has no control over that money, Karl Rove can spend it however he fucking wants.

That's why you're seeing less and less advertising coming out of Rove in these battleground states. People assume Romney has the funding advantage, when it's actually Rove. He'll be deciding whether or nor Romney is going to have a ad blitz after the debates.

If Obama blows the first debate -- and it's typically for an incumbent to lose the first debate -- he still has a campaign, with more than enough money to sustain his campaign. If Romney blows it, he might as well hang up his gloves.