On October 20 2012 04:26 xDaunt wrote: Let me make a prediction about these polls and where they'll eventually end up. Take the average of any set of polls for a battleground state (or nationally for that matter), add all of the "undecideds" to Romney's column, and then move another 2 points from Obama to Romney, and you'll have something fairly close to where I believe we'll be election day.
This prediction is subject to some major gaffe or other election-rocking event occurring over the next two weeks.
So basically you're saying we'll see a historically unprecedented shift in polling data that completely ignores both the RCP and 538 model (the latter of which is probably the most accurate one in the business) because...why?
Because Rasmussen is accurate? I hope not, because they're the least reliable poll aggregator in the business. Because one moderately accurate national tracking poll shows outlier numbers?
Just three weeks ago, democrats were saying that the election was in the bag for Obama because polls were showing that he had anywhere from 6-12 point leads in several key swing states. Back then, I posed the following question: Assuming Romney comes back and wins this election, does it mean that people's minds really changed or does it mean that the polls were wrong? I, of course, suggested the latter.
So what am I basing my prediction on? Three things. First, undecideds tend to break for the challenger. Second, I've noticed a 2-3 point bias against republicans in the polls since the 2010 election. Third, Romney clearly has all of the momentum.
Take it for what you will, but this my honest analysis.
But people's minds really did change. Or, at least, he reassured his base during the first debate.
How does Romney have all the momentum when he clearly lost the last debate? lol
pundits are saying he lost the debate, but thus far, i haven't seen much evidence that this is so. (polls of "who won the debate" mean nothing, IMO)
Romney's performance in the polls hasn't seemed to slow, he is still on a steady gain. (i know we have to wait a couple days to see the real effects, but still) I don't see how you can say someone won the debate when they failed to convince anyone of anything, but....
Obama's gaining on fivethirtyeight, the only poll that's ever mattered to me. Take that for what you will.
On October 20 2012 04:26 xDaunt wrote: Let me make a prediction about these polls and where they'll eventually end up. Take the average of any set of polls for a battleground state (or nationally for that matter), add all of the "undecideds" to Romney's column, and then move another 2 points from Obama to Romney, and you'll have something fairly close to where I believe we'll be election day.
This prediction is subject to some major gaffe or other election-rocking event occurring over the next two weeks.
So basically you're saying we'll see a historically unprecedented shift in polling data that completely ignores both the RCP and 538 model (the latter of which is probably the most accurate one in the business) because...why?
Because Rasmussen is accurate? I hope not, because they're the least reliable poll aggregator in the business. Because one moderately accurate national tracking poll shows outlier numbers?
Just three weeks ago, democrats were saying that the election was in the bag for Obama because polls were showing that he had anywhere from 6-12 point leads in several key swing states. Back then, I posed the following question: Assuming Romney comes back and wins this election, does it mean that people's minds really changed or does it mean that the polls were wrong? I, of course, suggested the latter.
So what am I basing my prediction on? Three things. First, undecideds tend to break for the challenger. Second, I've noticed a 2-3 point bias against republicans in the polls since the 2010 election. Third, Romney clearly has all of the momentum.
Take it for what you will, but this my honest analysis.
But people's minds really did change. Or, at least, he reassured his base during the first debate.
How does Romney have all the momentum when he clearly lost the last debate? lol
pundits are saying he lost the debate, but thus far, i haven't seen much evidence that this is so. (polls of "who won the debate" mean nothing, IMO)
Romney's performance in the polls hasn't seemed to slow, he is still on a steady gain. (i know we have to wait a couple days to see the real effects, but still) I don't see how you can say someone won the debate when they failed to convince anyone of anything, but....
So pundits claim romney lost the debate, and he's shown to have lost the debate in polls of likely voters.
Nah that still isn't enough evidence of an Obama debate victory.
On October 20 2012 05:23 Souma wrote: What do people here think of the Electoral College? And if you could reform it what would you do to it?
while i think the EC is a good thing that makes sure parts of the country that wouldnt matter get some love, i do wonder how many more people woud vote if it was a popular vote.
How many republicans in CA dont vote because it really does not matter if they do? how many dems in TX dont vote because of the same thing?
Speaking of polls and 538, one of the things I like the most about that site is that it shows a polling average and an adjusted polling average. In the latter, polls that have consistently shown a bias, perhaps like Rasmussen or PPP, are adjusted by a bias metric he's calculated for each pollster. It's not based on some kind of cross-tabs "unskewing" -- rather simply, if PPP has over time shown results (say) 1.5% more favorable to the D candidate than the consensus of polls, then the PPP numbers are adjusted by 1.5% to bring their results back in line with the consensus.
This matters a lot on the state-by-state polls, where there aren't necessarily multiple polling organizations releasing new polls several times a week each. Ohio, for example, has had just 3 state polls released between 10/11 and now.
When Obama was really doing well on 538's projections, the adjusted numbers were better for him than the actual numbers. Obama had the lead in the polls, and those were polls that in the past had shown some evidence of a Republican tilt.
Right now, the adjusted polls are looking better for Romney than the published polls. Using Ohio again, Obama's lead in the published polls averages 3.4%, but in the adjusted polls it's 2.0%.
On October 20 2012 04:26 xDaunt wrote: Let me make a prediction about these polls and where they'll eventually end up. Take the average of any set of polls for a battleground state (or nationally for that matter), add all of the "undecideds" to Romney's column, and then move another 2 points from Obama to Romney, and you'll have something fairly close to where I believe we'll be election day.
This prediction is subject to some major gaffe or other election-rocking event occurring over the next two weeks.
So basically you're saying we'll see a historically unprecedented shift in polling data that completely ignores both the RCP and 538 model (the latter of which is probably the most accurate one in the business) because...why?
Because Rasmussen is accurate? I hope not, because they're the least reliable poll aggregator in the business. Because one moderately accurate national tracking poll shows outlier numbers?
Just three weeks ago, democrats were saying that the election was in the bag for Obama because polls were showing that he had anywhere from 6-12 point leads in several key swing states. Back then, I posed the following question: Assuming Romney comes back and wins this election, does it mean that people's minds really changed or does it mean that the polls were wrong? I, of course, suggested the latter.
So what am I basing my prediction on? Three things. First, undecideds tend to break for the challenger. Second, I've noticed a 2-3 point bias against republicans in the polls since the 2010 election. Third, Romney clearly has all of the momentum.
Take it for what you will, but this my honest analysis.
But people's minds really did change. Or, at least, he reassured his base during the first debate.
How does Romney have all the momentum when he clearly lost the last debate? lol
pundits are saying he lost the debate, but thus far, i haven't seen much evidence that this is so. (polls of "who won the debate" mean nothing, IMO)
Romney's performance in the polls hasn't seemed to slow, he is still on a steady gain. (i know we have to wait a couple days to see the real effects, but still) I don't see how you can say someone won the debate when they failed to convince anyone of anything, but....
Obama's gaining on fivethirtyeight, the only poll that's ever mattered to me. Take that for what you will.
Nate Silver isn't a pollster, he's just a statistical genius. But yes, his 538 blog is much more telling than any individual poll.
On October 20 2012 04:26 xDaunt wrote: Let me make a prediction about these polls and where they'll eventually end up. Take the average of any set of polls for a battleground state (or nationally for that matter), add all of the "undecideds" to Romney's column, and then move another 2 points from Obama to Romney, and you'll have something fairly close to where I believe we'll be election day.
This prediction is subject to some major gaffe or other election-rocking event occurring over the next two weeks.
So basically you're saying we'll see a historically unprecedented shift in polling data that completely ignores both the RCP and 538 model (the latter of which is probably the most accurate one in the business) because...why?
Because Rasmussen is accurate? I hope not, because they're the least reliable poll aggregator in the business. Because one moderately accurate national tracking poll shows outlier numbers?
Just three weeks ago, democrats were saying that the election was in the bag for Obama because polls were showing that he had anywhere from 6-12 point leads in several key swing states. Back then, I posed the following question: Assuming Romney comes back and wins this election, does it mean that people's minds really changed or does it mean that the polls were wrong? I, of course, suggested the latter.
So what am I basing my prediction on? Three things. First, undecideds tend to break for the challenger. Second, I've noticed a 2-3 point bias against republicans in the polls since the 2010 election. Third, Romney clearly has all of the momentum.
Take it for what you will, but this my honest analysis.
But people's minds really did change. Or, at least, he reassured his base during the first debate.
How does Romney have all the momentum when he clearly lost the last debate? lol
pundits are saying he lost the debate, but thus far, i haven't seen much evidence that this is so. (polls of "who won the debate" mean nothing, IMO)
Romney's performance in the polls hasn't seemed to slow, he is still on a steady gain. (i know we have to wait a couple days to see the real effects, but still) I don't see how you can say someone won the debate when they failed to convince anyone of anything, but....
So pundits claim romney lost the debate, and he's shown to have lost the debate in polls of likely voters.
Nah that still isn't enough evidence of an Obama debate victory.
well, most pundits claim he won. a few are calling it a Romney win (i agree with the minority).
also, the reason i don't like polls of "who won the debate" is that people, in general, don't understand what it means to "win" a debate. i would say that one could claim to have "won" a debate if, and only if:
1) the opposition concedes the argued position or 2) the general audience is convinced of the position one is arguing.
however, most of the pundits, politicians, and general public seem to have an idea that there is some way to "score" points in a debate, and that at the end we can tally these points, and determine a winner. so when asked to name a winner in the debate, people are going to use their own internal "point" system to score the candidates and declare a winner. their declaration is made off of a couple of assumptions. mainly, they will be assuming the effect of the debate on other people.
why would a conservative say Obama won the debate, but remain unconvinced of Obama's position? because that conservative believes that Obama has, with some argument or arguments, convinced the majority of the people of his position's validity and/or rightness. but how can one person, without looking at any polling data or doing a headcount, accurately gauge the effectiveness of a persons argument on the general populace? especially when that one person is probably a relatively low-information individual, without much expertise in the field.
in my opinion, such analysis is pretty useless except as a pretty number for the campaigns to fight over, unless it actually is reflected in the general election polls, and even further in that greatest and most accurate poll: the actual election. if Obama doesn't make considerable gains among Independents and Undecideds than his reelection chances are quite low, and unless he can make those gains, I will call his debate performance a loss. if Romney can maintain his lead, or further a potential lead (for those of you who don't believe he is in the lead), than it seems to me that he is the winner.
we'll have to wait until next week, and even the election, before we can really know who won the debates.
On October 20 2012 04:26 xDaunt wrote: Let me make a prediction about these polls and where they'll eventually end up. Take the average of any set of polls for a battleground state (or nationally for that matter), add all of the "undecideds" to Romney's column, and then move another 2 points from Obama to Romney, and you'll have something fairly close to where I believe we'll be election day.
This prediction is subject to some major gaffe or other election-rocking event occurring over the next two weeks.
So basically you're saying we'll see a historically unprecedented shift in polling data that completely ignores both the RCP and 538 model (the latter of which is probably the most accurate one in the business) because...why?
Because Rasmussen is accurate? I hope not, because they're the least reliable poll aggregator in the business. Because one moderately accurate national tracking poll shows outlier numbers?
Just three weeks ago, democrats were saying that the election was in the bag for Obama because polls were showing that he had anywhere from 6-12 point leads in several key swing states. Back then, I posed the following question: Assuming Romney comes back and wins this election, does it mean that people's minds really changed or does it mean that the polls were wrong? I, of course, suggested the latter.
So what am I basing my prediction on? Three things. First, undecideds tend to break for the challenger. Second, I've noticed a 2-3 point bias against republicans in the polls since the 2010 election. Third, Romney clearly has all of the momentum.
Take it for what you will, but this my honest analysis.
But people's minds really did change. Or, at least, he reassured his base during the first debate.
How does Romney have all the momentum when he clearly lost the last debate? lol
pundits are saying he lost the debate, but thus far, i haven't seen much evidence that this is so. (polls of "who won the debate" mean nothing, IMO)
Romney's performance in the polls hasn't seemed to slow, he is still on a steady gain. (i know we have to wait a couple days to see the real effects, but still) I don't see how you can say someone won the debate when they failed to convince anyone of anything, but....
Obama's gaining on fivethirtyeight, the only poll that's ever mattered to me. Take that for what you will.
I take it as evidence of an Obama win (if he is, in fact, gaining), but not, by any means, conclusive evidence.
On October 20 2012 04:26 xDaunt wrote: Let me make a prediction about these polls and where they'll eventually end up. Take the average of any set of polls for a battleground state (or nationally for that matter), add all of the "undecideds" to Romney's column, and then move another 2 points from Obama to Romney, and you'll have something fairly close to where I believe we'll be election day.
This prediction is subject to some major gaffe or other election-rocking event occurring over the next two weeks.
So basically you're saying we'll see a historically unprecedented shift in polling data that completely ignores both the RCP and 538 model (the latter of which is probably the most accurate one in the business) because...why?
Because Rasmussen is accurate? I hope not, because they're the least reliable poll aggregator in the business. Because one moderately accurate national tracking poll shows outlier numbers?
Just three weeks ago, democrats were saying that the election was in the bag for Obama because polls were showing that he had anywhere from 6-12 point leads in several key swing states. Back then, I posed the following question: Assuming Romney comes back and wins this election, does it mean that people's minds really changed or does it mean that the polls were wrong? I, of course, suggested the latter.
So what am I basing my prediction on? Three things. First, undecideds tend to break for the challenger. Second, I've noticed a 2-3 point bias against republicans in the polls since the 2010 election. Third, Romney clearly has all of the momentum.
Take it for what you will, but this my honest analysis.
But people's minds really did change. Or, at least, he reassured his base during the first debate.
How does Romney have all the momentum when he clearly lost the last debate? lol
pundits are saying he lost the debate, but thus far, i haven't seen much evidence that this is so. (polls of "who won the debate" mean nothing, IMO)
Romney's performance in the polls hasn't seemed to slow, he is still on a steady gain. (i know we have to wait a couple days to see the real effects, but still) I don't see how you can say someone won the debate when they failed to convince anyone of anything, but....
So pundits claim romney lost the debate, and he's shown to have lost the debate in polls of likely voters.
Nah that still isn't enough evidence of an Obama debate victory.
Except those same pundits and polling data show that the President won the debate mainly on expectations. He was so bad in the first it was going to be hard for him not to win the second.
Also, those polls showed Romney ahead in the three most important issues for this election, the economy, jobs, and deficits/debt. In addition, all three focus groups performed by the cable networks that night showed little movement in people actually changing their vote and a good portion of those that did moved towards Romney.
"Won the debate" doesn't matter if it doesn't show up in the actual polling. For example, if a pollster had called xDaunt that night my suspicion from his scoring is that he would have said the President won the debate but that it wouldn't have changed his vote.
On October 20 2012 05:33 ey215 wrote: "Won the debate" doesn't matter if it doesn't show up in the actual polling. For example, if a pollster had called xDaunt that night my suspicion from his scoring is that he would have said the President won the debate but that it wouldn't have changed his vote.
Yeah, this is exactly right. There are "wins" and there are "WINS." The first debate was clearly a WIN for Romney. The second debate would fall into the category of win for Obama to extent that a majority of voters perceive that he won.
On October 20 2012 04:26 xDaunt wrote: Let me make a prediction about these polls and where they'll eventually end up. Take the average of any set of polls for a battleground state (or nationally for that matter), add all of the "undecideds" to Romney's column, and then move another 2 points from Obama to Romney, and you'll have something fairly close to where I believe we'll be election day.
This prediction is subject to some major gaffe or other election-rocking event occurring over the next two weeks.
So basically you're saying we'll see a historically unprecedented shift in polling data that completely ignores both the RCP and 538 model (the latter of which is probably the most accurate one in the business) because...why?
Because Rasmussen is accurate? I hope not, because they're the least reliable poll aggregator in the business. Because one moderately accurate national tracking poll shows outlier numbers?
Just three weeks ago, democrats were saying that the election was in the bag for Obama because polls were showing that he had anywhere from 6-12 point leads in several key swing states. Back then, I posed the following question: Assuming Romney comes back and wins this election, does it mean that people's minds really changed or does it mean that the polls were wrong? I, of course, suggested the latter.
So what am I basing my prediction on? Three things. First, undecideds tend to break for the challenger. Second, I've noticed a 2-3 point bias against republicans in the polls since the 2010 election. Third, Romney clearly has all of the momentum.
Take it for what you will, but this my honest analysis.
But people's minds really did change. Or, at least, he reassured his base during the first debate.
How does Romney have all the momentum when he clearly lost the last debate? lol
pundits are saying he lost the debate, but thus far, i haven't seen much evidence that this is so. (polls of "who won the debate" mean nothing, IMO)
Romney's performance in the polls hasn't seemed to slow, he is still on a steady gain. (i know we have to wait a couple days to see the real effects, but still) I don't see how you can say someone won the debate when they failed to convince anyone of anything, but....
So pundits claim romney lost the debate, and he's shown to have lost the debate in polls of likely voters.
Nah that still isn't enough evidence of an Obama debate victory.
Except those same pundits and polling data show that the President won the debate mainly on expectations. He was so bad in the first it was going to be hard for him not to win the second.
Also, those polls showed Romney ahead in the three most important issues for this election, the economy, jobs, and deficits/debt. In addition, all three focus groups performed by the cable networks that night showed little movement in people actually changing their vote and a good portion of those that did moved towards Romeny.
"Won the debate" doesn't matter if it doesn't show up in the actual polling. For example, if a pollster had called xDaunt that night my suspicion from his scoring is that he would have said the President won the debate but that it wouldn't have changed his vote.
I don't know anything about "winning" presidential debates, but it sure wasn't bad for Obama's team when Romney took a stab at calling Obama an outright liar and accidentally made himself the outright liar.
On October 20 2012 04:26 xDaunt wrote: Let me make a prediction about these polls and where they'll eventually end up. Take the average of any set of polls for a battleground state (or nationally for that matter), add all of the "undecideds" to Romney's column, and then move another 2 points from Obama to Romney, and you'll have something fairly close to where I believe we'll be election day.
This prediction is subject to some major gaffe or other election-rocking event occurring over the next two weeks.
So basically you're saying we'll see a historically unprecedented shift in polling data that completely ignores both the RCP and 538 model (the latter of which is probably the most accurate one in the business) because...why?
Because Rasmussen is accurate? I hope not, because they're the least reliable poll aggregator in the business. Because one moderately accurate national tracking poll shows outlier numbers?
Just three weeks ago, democrats were saying that the election was in the bag for Obama because polls were showing that he had anywhere from 6-12 point leads in several key swing states. Back then, I posed the following question: Assuming Romney comes back and wins this election, does it mean that people's minds really changed or does it mean that the polls were wrong? I, of course, suggested the latter.
So what am I basing my prediction on? Three things. First, undecideds tend to break for the challenger. Second, I've noticed a 2-3 point bias against republicans in the polls since the 2010 election. Third, Romney clearly has all of the momentum.
Take it for what you will, but this my honest analysis.
But people's minds really did change. Or, at least, he reassured his base during the first debate.
How does Romney have all the momentum when he clearly lost the last debate? lol
pundits are saying he lost the debate, but thus far, i haven't seen much evidence that this is so. (polls of "who won the debate" mean nothing, IMO)
Romney's performance in the polls hasn't seemed to slow, he is still on a steady gain. (i know we have to wait a couple days to see the real effects, but still) I don't see how you can say someone won the debate when they failed to convince anyone of anything, but....
So pundits claim romney lost the debate, and he's shown to have lost the debate in polls of likely voters.
Nah that still isn't enough evidence of an Obama debate victory.
Except those same pundits and polling data show that the President won the debate mainly on expectations. He was so bad in the first it was going to be hard for him not to win the second.
Also, those polls showed Romney ahead in the three most important issues for this election, the economy, jobs, and deficits/debt. In addition, all three focus groups performed by the cable networks that night showed little movement in people actually changing their vote and a good portion of those that did moved towards Romeny.
"Won the debate" doesn't matter if it doesn't show up in the actual polling. For example, if a pollster had called xDaunt that night my suspicion from his scoring is that he would have said the President won the debate but that it wouldn't have changed his vote.
I don't know anything about "winning" presidential debates, but it sure wasn't bad for Obama's team when Romney took a stab at calling Obama an outright liar and accidentally made himself the outright liar.
I'm probably the most biased person on this website, so take this with a grain of salt, but I don't think the general public saw it that way, at all.
A new poll shows Republican Mitt Romney leading in Pennsylvania, a state that Republicans had all but written off just weeks ago but which is now listed as a toss up by the Real Clear Politics website.
Susquehanna Polling and Research provided The Washington Examiner with a poll it conducted for state party officials that shows Romney with a 49 percent to 45 percent lead over President Obama.
It's the first poll to show Romney leading among likely voters in the Keystone State.
"The polling is very clear that the race is certainly up for grabs and Republicans have a tendency to never believe it," Susquehanna President James Lee told The Examiner.
The Examiner's editorial page is heavily conservative; it is headed by Mark Tapscott, with American Spectator senior editor Quin Hillyer serving as its associate editor. The paper's national political coverage, which also appears in Examiner papers in Baltimore and San Francisco, was previously headed by Bill Sammon, a former Washington Times reporter who has written several books praising George W. Bush. (Sammon is now the deputy managing editor for Fox News Channel's Washington bureau.[1]) Chris Stirewalt, who has been described as "a true conservative voice"[2], is the Examiner's political editor. Mary Katherine Ham, former managing editor of the conservative Townhall.com, briefly served as the Examiner's online editor for a few months in 2008 [3] before joining the Weekly Standard.[4] Matthew Sheffield, executive editor of the Media Research Center blog NewsBusters, is in charge of the Examiner's website.[5] Byron York, formerly of National Review, joined the paper in February 2009.[6]
Oh nos! A clearly conservative paper reports polls favoring Romney!
And right before the latest debate too!
You forgot to mention the part where even the poll that was sampled is highly biased. Susquehanna Polling & Research has been the Republican pollster of choice in Pennsylvania for many years now.
Not to mention the Washington Examiner is one of the most blatantly biased sources I've seen out there.
Kerry was a fine candidate I think, though Edwards did turn out to be a scumbag. Unfortunately, the Republicans (Karl Rove to be exact) decided to stoop to a new low in attack ads with swiftboat.
No joke. I was pretty much republican until 2004. It was awhile before I self labeled as "liberal" (was always socially liberal, fiscally not so) but seeing the swiftboat attacks was just fucking sickening.
This picture more than anything made me realize how vile many in the Republican base were and I never looked back.
Congratulations, here's your new base!
She's just fucking stupid, not fucking vile. Last time I checked "Obama Phone" isn't an official campaign strategy. The GOP was worshipping soldiers while ridiculing a veteran for his service to America. And this was from the fucking top and the base ate it up. Don't even try to compare the two.
well, technically, we were ridiculing a veteran for lying about his service to America.
You really are just a partisan hack aren't you. From Vice Admiral Ronald Route:
Our examination found that existing documentation regarding the Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals indicates the awards approval process was properly followed. In particular, the senior officers who awarded the medals were properly delegated authority to do so. In addition, we found that they correctly followed the procedures in place at the time for approving these awards
Conducting any additional review regarding events that took place over 30 years ago would not be productive. The passage of time would make reconstruction of the facts and circumstances unreliable, and would not allow the information gathered to be considered in the context of the time in which the events took place.
Our review also considered the fact that Senator Kerry's post-active duty activities were public and that military and civilian officials were aware of his actions at the time. For these reasons, I have determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved and will take no further action in this matter.
Or is a Vice Admiral part of a liberal conspiracy?
EPT
![[image loading]](http://bp1.blogger.com/_QTMkWfqFyfk/SHGY4lb05MI/AAAAAAAAA0s/OHXT63QtXVg/s400/purple_heart_bandaid.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/files/2012/10/romney-bolton.jpg)
