To be honest, the Obama campaign would never have been in such a mess if it wasn't for the first debate.
It's shockingly close.
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
To be honest, the Obama campaign would never have been in such a mess if it wasn't for the first debate.
It's shockingly close.
You hit the nail on the head, there. The people in this country who are obsessed not just with their religion but with YOUR religion, whatever it happens to be, are Republicans. And they're biting their tongues because the religious right in this country cares more about a right-wing political agenda then they do actually obeying the tenets of their faith.
That's what I thought. If Romney loses will there be a huge backlash from the Tea Party that he had the wrong religion? I also wonder if some of the Tea Party will not vote if they feel Romney is going to lose.
But isn't your economy starting to improve? Surely people can see that; and look at the world situation. The U.S. is doing better than a lot of countries but I can see that rationale does not help if your out of work. My fear is that if Romney wins he will get credit for the economy which is improving anyway.
I'd imagine that those who do care about such things also probably think Obama is a Muslim Arab with terrorist sympathies. So Romney's mormonism will inevitably be seen as the lesser evil. Besides, for many Republicans the no.1 priority is to get rid of the black, socialist, Muslim Obama, even if that means electing a moderate Mormon who doesn't really believe in anything.
Its improving but very slowly. Some of the policies will probably stifle the economy in the coming years.
Unfortunately we need a government that will cut spending and increase taxes (or at least tax revenues), and neither party offer both.
Bollocks. What we need is a government that won't let austerity hawks stifle our economic recovery by anti-stimulative spending cuts masquerading as "fiscal responsibility".
That's pretty much my reaction. How blinded by ideology do you have to be to not see the different effect the US' relatively mild efforts at stimulus had on its recovery vs the double-dip recession that the Tories' austerity policies have brought about there?
OK scooter, slow down. I didn't say we needed tax increases and spending cuts right away BUT long term both are required. The debt needs addressing, and that can't be done whilst running a deficit. The deficit can't be reeled in with spending cuts or tax increases alone; it has to be a healthy mix of both. AND no party is offering that.
Short term infrastructure spending is a fine way of stimulating the economy but some of the policies introduced have added a long term spending commitment, which is a worry. I am all for a huge roads/rail/power spending spree and education. That would pay short and long term dividends.
They wouldn't be without the disastrous 'Really, feck math' economics of the Bush Administration. Roll back the changes that we had there and we should be able to get back to a small surplus like we had before. Once we're out of Afghanistan and once the economy improves, the Bush tax cuts can expire. At that point I think we'll be close to a balanced budget, though that's a bit speculative.
Right, no party except the Democrats, who have constantly said they're willing to make cuts if paired with some modest tax increases for the wealthy.
People on this forum are typical of the two party system. Everyone is too blinkered to their own 'team' that they have to pigeon hole every other poster.
Just for the record I am in favor of:
- A single payer national health service
- A 50% tax rate for all earnings over $1 million
- Free education thru four years of college (providing its in a field there is demand)
- More alternative energy
- Taxing large vehicles and engines off the roads
- Building regulations to improve fuel efficiency, like solar water heaters in Florida.
etc etc
I could go on but my beliefs are a million miles from anything in the GOP. The stuff above is actually way to the left of the current administration, OR at least their current policies.
Just for the record I am in favor of:
- A single payer national health service
- A 50% tax rate for all earnings over $1 million
- Free education thru four years of college (providing its in a field there is demand)
- More alternative energy
- Taxing large vehicles and engines off the roads
- Building regulations to improve fuel efficiency, like solar water heaters in Florida.
etc etc
I could go on but my beliefs are a million miles from anything in the GOP. The stuff above is actually way to the left of the current administration, OR at least their current policies.
no arguments.
but also Obama cannot put forward his plan which even if the Bush tax cuts are rolled back, will still need deficit financing in the short term. Jobs bills. The economy will turn around but we need to spend on jobs.
Which would be contrary to what so many people tried to tell us (including mjs), that debates are essentially meaningless in the grand scheme.
I don't think it was purely Obama's ineptitude in the first debate that swung things Romneys way. A lot of independents and swing voters don't like the direction the country is going, they want an alternative to Obama. It was many peoples first real look at Romney and he performed fairly well.
Gallup still +7 on likely. And +3 on Registered.
Surely they have to do something about the methodology. This is predicting a landslide territory for Romney, which isn't going to happen!
Surely they have to do something about the methodology. This is predicting a landslide territory for Romney, which isn't going to happen!
Gallop have by far the highest sample and subsequently the lowest MoE. Interestingly enough the four largest polls being used for the RCP average all give Romney the lead.
I don't like these crappy small sample sizes. Pretty much all the State polls are tiny samples so they may be well off base.
I don't like these crappy small sample sizes. Pretty much all the State polls are tiny samples so they may be well off base.
They have smaller samples because the states have a smaller population.
In terms of samplesize/population ratios, the state polls are probably more reliable.
It's only the media and the polls that's picturing it as "close" IMO.
I think Obama will win pretty comfortably in reality, but do you think the media will want to tell us that now?
The question in my opinion is, will Obama get the popular majority (>50%) of total votes?
I think Obama will win pretty comfortably in reality, but do you think the media will want to tell us that now?
The question in my opinion is, will Obama get the popular majority (>50%) of total votes?
The RCP is even flawed. Its taking the nine polls and treating them all equal. However 6,700 were sampled in the polls that have Romney up, and only 3,800 were sampled in the polls that have Obama up.
Yep that is easy to deduce from 4,000 miles away without being involved or even having and American mindset. Trust me Romney is comfortable ahead in Florida in terms of his stock and momentum.
Even people you would expect to lean Democrat like hourly paid and call center staff are very anti-Obama and his polices. I am pretty shocked listening to people in the office TBH.
At this stage I can't see Obama getting 50%. He should still win but its mighty close.
Electorate: eligible voters around 200million?
National polls have a sample of 800-2500 people.
State polls:
Florida
Electorate: 12million?
Polls: 600-1200 sample
Statistically, these polls have decent enough samples and powered appropriately to find statistical differences. That's why the MOE never exceed more than 4%. The second point about the validity of state polls: the winner of the election is the electoral-vote, and not popular vote, national polls are not predicting the winner of the 'election', but the popular vote.
The accuracy has zero to do with the size of the electorate, State or country. It is to do with the science of polling and the statistics involved.
That's a load of crap. At a certain point, the sample size becomes irrelevant. It is not a case of "bigger is better". There are much more important considerations in polling.
On the RCP average if you account for the sample sizes the numbers are as follows:
Total Sample = 11,369
Obama = 5,321 (46.8%)
Romney = 5,431 (47.8%)
Other = 626
Yet the RCP method of treating them all equal has Obama 0.2% up.
Total Sample = 11,369
Obama = 5,321 (46.8%)
Romney = 5,431 (47.8%)
Other = 626
Yet the RCP method of treating them all equal has Obama 0.2% up.
There are other considerations but sample size is important. Traditionally anything under 1,500 is considered insufficient. Modern methods and tracking have improved things but some of these sample sizes are still ridiculously low. Its expensive to canvas hundreds of people so media outlets cut the cost and pay for quick polls.
There is no science of polling, it's statistical confidence intervals. They don't make up a random number and say "we are going to poll 500 people today". Their samples are large enough to ensure that margins of errors are minimised and can ensure that they can show statistical difference.
And you should never pool absolute sample results like RCP does, because it doesn't take into account the methodology difference, sample weight differences between pollsters, and time taken of sample. This is why people trust Nate more, he's combining more data and information than any of ther predictors.
mjs, I said that was my opinion. You're close to the people in your office, but still far away from like more than 99.99% of the population, which can also throw some doubts into your observations..
However, I'm not saying that I know better than you, you could very well know better than me, but that's still my opinion.. Remember the 2004 elections? Bush was DOOMED! And then suddenly ended up winning the popular majority, and won pretty comfortably compared to the 2000 elections, and compared to how the media drew the picture before the elections.
The media tells what makes more people watch them, the polls tell what helps them being quoted more often, and people who vote will eventually vote for that candidate that will help them more on a personal level. Nobody cares about the deficit, nobody cares about the national debt, people (those who decide the elections, not the blue and red ones) care only about their pay-cheque at the end of the month (I'm talking about the decisive majority here), and Obama is much easier to trust in that regard.
Bush was up by September, and comfortably so by this stage.
So much wrong with that bit on so many levels. You have no idea how the American voter thinks, pretty much no one in the UK does TBH. As for pay checks and trust most would probably trust Mittens a little more in that respect.
Apparently media hound Gloria Allred has some big bomb shes going to drop about Romney.
http://themoderatevoice.com/164813/republicans-freaking-out-over-gloria-allreds-rumored-october-surprise-though-she-wont-comment/
http://themoderatevoice.com/164813/republicans-freaking-out-over-gloria-allreds-rumored-october-surprise-though-she-wont-comment/
mjs, you realize that by weighting Gallup's single poll (taken over a week's time) over multiple state polls, you are actually favoring a poll with a smaller sample size (and a longer sampling period) than the combined polls of the states?
And who exactly has considered gallop over any poll, let alone a State poll?
I just reworked the RCP average to take account of sample size. Only looked at the national polls as well, not State polls.
I hope you realize what a ludicrous thing you just said.
I hope he doesn't realize it. I prefer an honest idiot to a wum any day of the week.
Please enlighten me.
MJS, before you spot on about me not having a clue, or any other bullshit, how can you support a man who constantly changes his views on anything, he's a vote whore.
''there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. ... My job is not to worry about those people.''
"As president, I will create 12 million new jobs." —Mitt Romney, during the second presidential debate
"Government does not create jobs. Government does not create jobs." —Mitt Romney, 45 minutes later (Oct. 16, 2012)
He's a mug.
''there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. ... My job is not to worry about those people.''
"As president, I will create 12 million new jobs." —Mitt Romney, during the second presidential debate
"Government does not create jobs. Government does not create jobs." —Mitt Romney, 45 minutes later (Oct. 16, 2012)
He's a mug.
Have you not been spouting on about him?
Must have the wrong person, point stands.
Must have the wrong person, point stands.
- Status