US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
Excal said:
Why in the world do you consider it more likely that a polling agency was unable to calcluate basic crosstab information in some but not all of the categories then that those crosstabs were too small a sample?
Click to expand...

First off, please go back and READ my answer again, only this time read what I wrote not what you assume it to mean.

In truth we do not know why the tabs say N/A, so in reality one assumption is not anymore valid then another.

It is another possibility especially when you try to consider what the overall averages were. I did not imply that the agency was completely unable to do it just that the data was not available to CNN when they went to press with the poll and I even indicated it could come down to a simple communication error.

Or we can just assume as someone else put it that they called a group of retirees in a home in someplace in the south.

Now I am not saying that I think the results of the poll are going to reflect accurately how the entire nation feels about the debate, just offering another thought as to what went wrong on the published numbers.

Take a deep breath, I am quite certain that come election day Obama will get all the votes he needs to remain President. and just to be clear in white print and all, I am not talking about just carrying the popular vote, I am talking about getting the votes he needs where he needs them to carry the get the electoral votes he needs.
 
Feeky_Magee said:
Mate, I want Obama to win too, that doesn't mean I have to try to make every Obama blunder a stroke of genius. Romney won the debate. The majority of the people who watched last night who didn't know that he was lying a lot of the time aren't going to be the type of people who look up fact-checks and Obama ads and speeches that make comebacks after the event.
Click to expand...

Obama was subdued. It was not a stroke of genius. If he had got into a mud slingging match with a ruthless liar, he would have been brought down to his level. Lets remember this guy destroyed thousands of lives, leaving their familes to lose their health care...and yes even die. do you think he would be averse to sinking as low as possible. When Romeny blatantly lies and denies every major issue, that is where the moderator needs to step in and make a call. Lehr was an utter arsehole.

So Romney's lies 'stood' as truths.

The people who decide to move because of this performance will not change anything. If by now they had not moved to Obama they were never going to anyway.
 
Feeky_Magee said:
Mate, I want Obama to win too, that doesn't mean I have to try to make every Obama blunder a stroke of genius. Romney won the debate. The majority of the people who watched last night who didn't know that he was lying a lot of the time aren't going to be the type of people who look up fact-checks and Obama ads and speeches that make comebacks after the event.
Click to expand...

Hey Feeky, out of interest, why do you...a self-confessed 20 year-old Irish lad have such a deep interest in this? You are remarkably well-informed on policy minutiae for a foreigner...are you studying this stuff?
 
JustAFan said:
First off, please go back and READ my answer again, only this time read what I wrote not what you assume it to mean.
Click to expand...

What you said was:

Other option is that the data is incomplete when they went to press with the poll. They had the totals and some of the breakdown but not all the break down data available. Whether through miscommunication with the polling agency or just rushing to get something out there.
Click to expand...

How are you actually differentiating that from "being unable to calculate basic crosstab information" other by rather weirdly having a minor tantrum about it? This is a 20 page report that was put up on the website, not something that was spoken into Candy Crowley's earpiece while she was on the air. Any "miscommunication" between the pollster and CNN has had plenty of time to be cleared up, especially given the attention that's receiving.

In truth we do not know why the tabs say N/A, so in reality one assumption is not anymore valid then another.
Click to expand...

Oh well in that case, I assume that Poll Gremlins ate the crosstabs. It's just as valid an assumption, right?

They have crosstab information, complete with margin of error listed below it. If you know how to read a poll, you can see that the percentages of the N/A columns are represented in the left-most totals, and that they are much smaller portions of the total data collected then the columns with percentages.

But hey, since you don't seem willing to take my word:

CNN Washington Bureau Chief said:
CNN Washington Bureau Chief Sam Feist told Meditate via email “The N/A in the demographic columns were there because the sample size was not sufficient for cross-tab demographic comparisons. Every reputable pollster uses N/A in its crosstab columns like that in order to make sure that nobody tries to make scientifically valid comparisons using relatively small sample sizes."
Click to expand...

But hey, what's that guy know? I still like the Poll Gremlins theory.

JustAFan said:
It is another possibility especially when you try to consider what the overall averages were. I did not imply that the agency was completely unable to do it just that the data was not available to CNN when they went to press with the poll and I even indicated it could come down to a simple communication error.
Click to expand...

Caused by Poll Gremlins, no doubt.

Or we can just assume as someone else put it that they called a group of retirees in a home in someplace in the south.
Click to expand...

And I plainly stated that I was joking when I said that. Is this the part where it's my turn to be an ass and tell you to READ that?
 
This is an ipsos-Reuters poll of favorability ratings before and after the debate.

p0RpR.jpg


What really strikes me is that right column. It appears Obama made small but significant gains with independents, while Romney's gains were all with Democrats (who are still probably going to vote for Obama,) and Republicans (who were always going to vote for Romney.)
 
As my first post said it was very possible the poll was skewed (though you chose not to quote that part, lol). I basically just tossed another possibility out there based on the info I had read up to that point. I know that was a horrible thing for me to do. I had not read the quote from the CNN chief, at the time, oh well such is life.

Based on the overall averages even the explanation that some of the data was too small to report seems a bit odd since it does seem enough to move the overall average. Particular in the White and Non White subsegments. Non-white too small to report but large enough to swing 5 percentage points to Obama. Yes overall the size of the polling population is small, but still that is a pretty decent swing for a group too small to report.

Yes I knew the comment about the retirees was a joke and I chose to mention that one to play along with joke. Sorry you missed that. I forget that I had to explain everything in detail to avoid being misunderstood.

Sorry it bothers you so much that I offered a counter explanation. Good luck with the poll gremlins. Again don't worry so much Obama is going to win, I have a good feeling about that.
 
Oh do sod off. You jumped into a discussion of a subject you're clearly ignorant of, came up with a nonsensical "counter explanation" based on SFA, and had a strop when I asked you why "your guess" as to the reason (your words, though you're now passing it off as just idle speculation) was likelier than what was already plain.

You find it strange that the non-white group (which should represent over a quarter of the population if not undersampled) is "large enough to swing 5 percentage points to Obama", despite the fact that the "non-white" population as a whole is about 28% of the population, and prefers Obama by better than 80-20. Can you do the math on how much that should be swinging it if that group gave the same answer that Democratic respondents did as a whole? (51-35)

Or if that's too hard, note that while the total poll's margin of error is +/- 4.5%, the margin of error for the white portion of respondents is +/- 5% Does this further explain to you how this 72% of the population might have been oversampled?
 
Don't pollsters usually build demographics and stuff into the model? Or are they really just contacting 500 or whatever people and reporting the results straight?

Also Excal - cheers for that Reuters breakdown, really interesting.
 
Oh god.. Ann Coulter came out with a cracking put down. She said that at the end of the debate Obama looked depressed like he knew 'anniversary or not Michelle wanted to go home with Mitt.'
 
It's always one rule for paedophiles, another for right-wing hacks with you nimic.
 
On the contrary. I also hope criminal paedophiles get eaten by comically small bears, but I wouldn't support the building of government run comically small bear pits. In my view, when government starts feeding its citizens to bears, you're on a dangerous road.
 
Ubik said:
Don't pollsters usually build demographics and stuff into the model? Or are they really just contacting 500 or whatever people and reporting the results straight?
Click to expand...

It's common practice to weight your results based on the real demographics of the country, meaning if you undersampled Demographic A, you weight the answers of the demographic more heavily in your final tally. Doing so increases the possibility for error, though, so most pollsters will attempt the obvious solution of getting a large enough sample that no demographic is likely to be heavily undersampled. To be fair to CNN's pollster, of course, this was a rush job to get on-air as quickly after the debate as they could.

While I can't be certain without seeing the raw data, it doesn't look like CNN has done this, though, given how many demographics they've undersampled, that isn't surprising. The margin of error would be in the 6-7% range!
 
Excal said:
It's common practice to weight your results based on the real demographics of the country, meaning if you undersampled Demographic A, you weight the answers of the demographic more heavily in your final tally. Doing so increases the possibility for error, though, so most pollsters will attempt the obvious solution of getting a large enough sample that no demographic is likely to be heavily undersampled. To be fair to CNN's pollster, of course, this was a rush job to get on-air as quickly after the debate as they could.

While I can't be certain without seeing the raw data, it doesn't look like CNN has done this, though, given how many demographics they've undersampled, that isn't surprising. The margin of error would be in the 6-7% range!
Click to expand...

If they'd weighted the demographics? So they've basically gone for getting the technical score of the margin of error lower, over having an accurate poll (it seems)? Amazing.

niMic said:
On the contrary. I also hope criminal paedophiles get eaten by comically small bears, but I wouldn't support the building of government run comically small bear pits. In my view, when government starts feeding its citizens to bears, you're on a dangerous road.
Click to expand...

I agree in principle... but when the bears become comically small, I think you enter more of a grey area.
 
Who said this about Mitt Romney?

“As a man who wants to run for president of the United States who can’t be honest with the American people, why should we expect him to level about anything if he’s president?”

“You’d certainly have to say that Bain at times engaged in behavior where they looted a company leaving behind 1,700 unemployed people."

“There was a pattern, in some companies, a handful of them, of leaving them with enormous debt, and then within a year or two or three, having them go broke. I think that is something he ought to answer.”

"You're calling Mitt Romney a liar?" "Yes."

Newt Gingrich

The scum was on Piers Morgan tonight along with a female Governor, can't recall her name/state, talking about the debate. The governor claimed Obama was so ghostly last night because all he kept hearing were lies from Romney, falsehoods and plans he seemingly just made up that moment. She said it's impossible to debate a liar and called out Gingrich for saying basically the same thing during the GOP debates. Gingrich tried to back off and slam Obama, yadda yadda.

And lots more in this http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57351153/gingrich-mitt-romney-is-a-liar/ where Gingrich shreds Romney. These things need to be out in the public eye.


Now he has another panel including Romney's debate coach, and a black female who is a Romney campaigner (conservativeblackchick.com). What the living feck? Why would a black female support that fake, elitist, arrogant prick that would probably prefer all blacks to work the stables?
 
Given that Romney made quite a bit of stuff up that Obama should have nailed live doesn't this just now mean that he can make the next debate about Romneys lies in the last debate? Hopefully he will be in better form this time and better prepared/less tired/less crap.
 
Whoever fires that stupid Bernanke should get people's vote.

During times, when the world is still in a precarious financial position, I would prefer Romney win than Obama.
 
Forevergiggs said:
Whoever fires that stupid Bernanke should get people's vote.

During times, when the world is still in a precarious financial position, I would prefer Romney win than Obama.
Click to expand...

And why is that? Is there any evidence to suggest he can deal with in a meaningful way? He hasn't even managed to come up with a consistent and detailed plan.
 
Saliph said:
And why is that? Is there any evidence to suggest he can deal with in a meaningful way? He hasn't even managed to come up with a consistent and detailed plan.
Click to expand...

Any plan is better than - Print money, keep our fingers crossed and let's get out of this bitch - plan.

Romney has a better financial pedigree, is more sound with economics and help set up one the biggest private equity firms in the world. He is no chump.
 
Assuming that preferring someone with a better economic and financial soundness is supporting the "rich man" is stupider and worthy of a gold at the bellend Olympics.
 
Equating "Made a lot of money" with "a better economic and financial soundness" is (insert whatever insulting analogy really winds you up here, I can't be arsed for you.)

Herbert Hoover was a very wealthy man. At age 40, he had a fortune equivalent to about $92M in today's money. I am not recalling his Presidency being a particularly auspicious one in terms of the economic health of the nation, however.

Romney's entire mission at his equity firm was to make money for that firm. And that's fine. It's a skill with no particular relevance to the office of the Presidency. What's he going to do? Acquire Switzerland, strip it of assets, and then declare Switzerland to be bankrupt?

Or hey, we can look at how Massachusetts did when he was Governor. Let's see, 47th in job creation, he had the 2nd-largest shrink in labor force in the nation (behind Louisiana, which was below Massachusetts on the list until it got hit by Katrina,) and when he left office, the state had the highest per-capita bond debt in the nation.

Yep, that's some gooood financial soundness, there.
 
Excal said:
That CNN poll that showed 67-25 win for Romney? Something funny there:

CNN+polling+universe+debate.PNG


N/A doesn't mean they interviewed no one fitting that description, but it does mean the number is so low it can't be considered statistically significant. This is shockingly dishonest on CNN's part.
Click to expand...

I think you're misleading people by using demographic subgroups to support a factious version that the poll was wrong.

You're over analysing a single poll, but you have to recognise that other instant polls (emphasis instant) also suggested that Romney won the debate.
 
Jaz said:
I think you're misleading people by using demographic subgroups to support a factious version that the poll was wrong.
Click to expand...

I think I'm not doing that.

Feel free to actually back up your assertion, if you'd like this to proceed farther.

You're over analysing a single poll, but you have to recognise that other instant polls (emphasis instant) also suggested that Romney won the debate.
Click to expand...

You're erroneously assuming I'm arguing that Romney didn't win the debate. I'm not, though long-term effects are still to be seen. I'm arguing CNN fecked up this poll, and absent evidence, leaning towards Hanlon's Razor for assigning motive. Other instant polls had Romney up by margins like we saw in CBS' poll, where it was 46-22 Romney. That's a long way from 69-25.
 
Forevergiggs said:
Any plan is better than - Print money, keep our fingers crossed and let's get out of this bitch - plan.

Romney has a better financial pedigree, is more sound with economics and help set up one the biggest private equity firms in the world. He is no chump.
Click to expand...

Mitt Romney also has a pedigree in making his own fortune by ruining the livelihoods of ordinary workers.

Him and Paul Ryans plan is largely non-existent and just goes to back George Bush economics.

I don't agree that anything is better. Berlusconi is also a very succesful business man, but he was an awful president for Italy.
 
Well now I'm curious, was there any head of state who, prior to their entry into politics, was primarily a business executive who was actually GOOD at being head of state? There must be some. Let's stick to G8 nations to narrow the field down.
 
Excal said:
Equating "Made a lot of money" with "a better economic and financial soundness" is (insert whatever insulting analogy really winds you up here, I can't be arsed for you.)

Herbert Hoover was a very wealthy man. At age 40, he had a fortune equivalent to about $92M in today's money. I am not recalling his Presidency being a particularly auspicious one in terms of the economic health of the nation, however.

Romney's entire mission at his equity firm was to make money for that firm. And that's fine. It's a skill with no particular relevance to the office of the Presidency. What's he going to do? Acquire Switzerland, strip it of assets, and then declare Switzerland to be bankrupt?

Or hey, we can look at how Massachusetts did when he was Governor. Let's see, 47th in job creation, he had the 2nd-largest shrink in labor force in the nation (behind Louisiana, which was below Massachusetts on the list until it got hit by Katrina,) and when he left office, the state had the highest per-capita bond debt in the nation.

Yep, that's some gooood financial soundness, there.
Click to expand...

Let's try and ignore the cut in budget deficits, the universal health insurance, the recession before he took office, the annual job growth that moved Mass. to 28th position in his last year in office, the fact that the unemployment rate dropped one percent from 2003 to 2007 when he was in office.

Then call it some good financial imprudence,there.
 
MichaelS said:
Mitt Romney also has a pedigree in making his own fortune by ruining the livelihoods of ordinary workers.

Him and Paul Ryans plan is largely non-existent and just goes to back George Bush economics.

I don't agree that anything is better. Berlusconi is also a very succesful business man, but he was an awful president for Italy.
Click to expand...

I don't want to start a "Private Equity - right or wrong" debate but that is not entirely true.

The plan is simple, spending cuts to reduce budget deficits while instilling confidence in businesses and households to go out and spend money. It's not rocket science as they have you believe.
 
Forevergiggs said:
I don't want to start a "Private Equity - right or wrong" debate but that is not entirely true.

The plan is simple, spending cuts to reduce budget deficits while instilling confidence in businesses and households to go out and spend money. It's not rocket science as they have you believe.
Click to expand...

But it does not seem that their plan in reality lowers taxes for the Middle Class.

And taxes in US are already quite low compared other rich countries. Mitt Romney himself who belongs to the 1% paid a 14% tax rate in the last decade according to the latest report anyway. That is incredibly low.

And their proposed tax cuts will vastly increase the deficiet

I can emphasize why people want someone else than Obama, I just don't believe that Romney and his ilk are the right people. And frankly pricks like them don't deserve to become the most powerful people in world
 
His plan is stupid, and the math doesn't add up. That's why he's lying about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.