More or less. If Stuart Pearce is somehow involved in this election I'm going to just give up and die.
New NBC/Marist polls of Florida and Ohio later tonight.
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
More or less. If Stuart Pearce is somehow involved in this election I'm going to just give up and die.
New NBC/Marist polls of Florida and Ohio later tonight.
her voice is like dragging your fingernails on a blackboard....
time they are out?
Rationally speaking I think Obama is looking good for the win.
But there is an irrational side of my brain that is scared shitless.
Midnight, eastern I presume.
I understand. We democrats need to become even more ruthless than them.
we need to be focused. I believe the current team are prepared for all their hanky panky...they are not 'rollovers' like Kerry.
after this win, we need to make it the main objective to win the house by whatever means.
Not likely to be in the next 10 years, most districts have been gerrymandered beyond belief.
Well it's just not irrational. Romney's the underdog, but it's very tight and he could easily win. Low turnout among young / ethnic voters in a couple of swing states might be enough. Systematic polling error is less likely but possible - it's happened before; Gallup has a good record and might be on the mark. Etc., etc.
It really is no different from playing Liverpool at OT: we're considerable favourites to win, but a loss wouldn't be particularly surprising so there's plenty of reason to shit it.
Arsenal at OT is a different matter, of course. That's kind of like if Gingrich had won the nomination: he had a good spell in the nineties but is now a bit of a joke.
Fwiw, Gallup has a shit record when they're outside the consensus.
Gallup's likely voter screen estimates 20% minority vote share, down from 26% in '08.
Apparently GOP internals aren't showing good numbers for them in Ohio so that's reassuring, they think too close to call in Florida as well.
Where's that from?
(Don't say Politico)
(Don't say Politico)
That Repub woman who I quoted earlier, few hours after that one. She seemed quite the pessimist though.
Also Politico.
Also Politico.
Well, it's not official until Politico says so. Race still on.
What I didn't realise is that if Obama holds the west - Colorado and Nevada - and Iowa and NH, he can lose Florida, Virginia, NC and Ohio and still win the EC.
And all of those except NH are looking pretty safe.
Though I suppose the point is that in a universe where Romney wins Ohio and Virginia it's hard to see him not picking up one of those others.
And all of those except NH are looking pretty safe.
Though I suppose the point is that in a universe where Romney wins Ohio and Virginia it's hard to see him not picking up one of those others.
Not really, they're not demographically similar at all. Your scenario is quite conceivable.
Yeah that be their western strategy, I'd be more concerned with Colorado there as the Repubs seem to be doing well in early voting and Obama's relying on independents more. The most reassuring way of looking at it is that if he takes Wisconsin, Nevada (both likely), Iowa and New Hampshire (more likely than not), he'd only need 1 more out of Ohio, Colorado, Virginia or Florida, 2 of which are at least 50/50 chances, 1 is slightly under that and one a fair bit better. So he's basically got to get one out of the four, with better than 50/50 odds for each go.
I guess so, but nor are Virginia and Ohio... it would imply a fairly significant late national swing.
Yeah of the last 11 Florida polls, 9 have been Obama ahead or tied. Nate still has it as a slight Romney lean, by 0.4 points... but if the polling stays like this the model might start forgetting the older pro-Romney polls over the weekend.
Without FL Romney's truly fecked. He could take NC, VA, OH, NH, CO and even WI (or NM and NV instead of WI) and he'd still lose. If he loses FL he basically needs PA and IA as well as OH and he still might come up short! No wonder he's been campaigning there again today.
I thought those were the control factors in this hypothesis!
Anyway, I think the national swing concept is fairly meaningless in a close election.
Yup, being tied in Florida for Romney is more or less as if Pennsylvania was tied for Obama - it basically means you're behind everywhere else, including Ohio. The reason I mentioned my contrasting confidence earlier in fact was that I was starting to think Obama's likely to win Florida, given how the numbers are moving towards him. A Miami pollster has actually put Romney ahead by 6 there just now, but given that it produced the +7 outlier a few weeks back it could be another. The Marist poll in the next half hour should be a good gauge.
Well, the Marist polls are good. 51-45 in Ohio, 49-47 in Florida. They've had a bit of a Dem tilt to the norm though, but still, definitely ahead in Ohio and definitely in the game in Florida.
don't believe the Mason Dixon poll....
excellent news indeed.
Obama has got Ohio.
I think he is getting Florida too. Well ahead in voter turnouts for both states.
Yeah they definitely have a GOP tilt. I just had a look out of interest at the RCP average at the close of 08 in Ohio, Mason Dixon had McCain at +2...
btw RCP is so biased for the right.
That young kid on Maher tonight has a bright future.
The gallup poll on sunday/monday will be interesting.
Who's betting that they will have adjusted the sampling.. To make the race closer.
Who's betting that they will have adjusted the sampling.. To make the race closer.
I really doubt Gallup put their finger on their polls. Their reputation's good enough to withstand a poor cycle, and if they're right and everyone else but Rasmussen are wrong, it'll be enhanced.
Rasmussen seems much more the sort to tamper in Tampa, though it's notable that both Nate Silver and Sam Wang (who doesn't pull his punches) maintain that they think he has a lean, not a deliberate bias.
Yeah Mason-Dixon and Marist are both clear outliers. No-one's winning FL or OH by 6 points.
Rasmussen seems much more the sort to tamper in Tampa, though it's notable that both Nate Silver and Sam Wang (who doesn't pull his punches) maintain that they think he has a lean, not a deliberate bias.
Yeah Mason-Dixon and Marist are both clear outliers. No-one's winning FL or OH by 6 points.
Nerds rush to Nate Silver's defense....
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/10/nerds-rush-nate-silvers-defense/58516/
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/10/nerds-rush-nate-silvers-defense/58516/
I don't know Bush won by +5.
You could call the NBC/Marist poll an outlier too, Every 2 polls have it as Obama leading (within MOE) and 6 polls with Romney.
BTW, Silver's "Chance of Winning" graph is quite interesting. It seems to react to each debate. Going into debate 1 on Oct 6th, Obama was at his peak and began to nosedive shortly thereafter - until Biden/Ryan the following week and Obama's two subsequent wins on the 16th and 22nd. Debate performances, in this election, definitely weighed heavily into the momentum trajectories of each campaign. Had Obama had a howler in the 2nd or 3rd debates, there's little doubt that Romney's momentum would have carried him into leads in the swing states that would have been sufficient to win the election.
Both Rasmussen and Gallup could survive several cycles of bad polling. They have a lot of media backers are reliable in terms of consistent polling.
In terms of Gallup, what i mean is that they might adjust their sample weights to be more in-line with consensus. This isn't fiddling, it's just a correction. This should reduce the Romney +5, to something more likely.
Doubtful in today's climate. Zogby used to be commonly cited poll as recently as 2000 and they've completely disappeared of the map. The problem these days is that national polling carries less weight than in previous years, and that's not factoring in Gallup's bizarre fluctuations in the last few elections. Rasmussen still have to contend with their cell phone v landline methodologies. If Obama wins the election and the state polling reflects what people like Nate Silver are predicting, then it will massively impugn the credibility of Gallup and Rasmussen in future elections.
Let's see what Gallup says on Sunday/Monday. Finally, the bizarre fluctuations are just nonsense clap-trap, when people have not made up their minds, it's conceivable that they might consider voting for the other candidate afe ra high profile speech or exposure. Such swings also happen in the UK after conventions. What matters is when people have made up their minds, are they right?
As for Rasmussen, it's the only pollster that has consistently polled almost every battleground state regularly, so it's a good pollster to have on-board. It's inevitable they will switch to cellphones soon.
Oh and Zogby has Obama leading: http://www.jzanalytics.com/
After the rise of people like Silver, Wang etc - I can even see the RCP average being less respected in coming elections. Simply showing an average of polls is increasingly unsatisfying in an age where others (like Silver) are actually spitting out preduction models that provide meaningful implications to elections.
Mitt Romney’s campaign insults voters
Mitt Romney’s campaign insults voters
By Editorial Board, Saturday, November 3, 12:34 AM
THROUGH ALL THE flip-flops, there has been one consistency in the campaign of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney: a contempt for the electorate.
How else to explain his refusal to disclose essential information? Defying recent bipartisan tradition, he failed to release the names of his bundlers — the high rollers who collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations. He never provided sufficient tax returns to show voters how he became rich.
How, other than an assumption that voters are too dim to remember what Mr. Romney has said across the years and months, to account for his breathtaking ideological shifts? He was a friend of immigrants, then a scourge of immigrants, then again a friend. He was a Kissingerian foreign policy realist, then a McCain-like hawk, then a purveyor of peace. He pioneered Obamacare, he detested Obamacare, then he found elements in it to cherish. Assault weapons were bad, then good. Abortion was okay, then bad. Climate change was an urgent problem; then, not so much. Hurricane cleanup was a job for the states, until it was once again a job for the feds.
The same presumption of gullibility has infused his misleading commercials (see: Jeep jobs to China) and his refusal to lay out an agenda. Mr. Romney promised to replace the Affordable Care Act but never said with what. He promised an alternative to President Obama’s lifeline to young undocumented immigrants but never deigned to describe it.
And then there has been his chronic, baldly dishonest defense of mathematically impossible budget proposals. He promised to cut income tax rates without exploding the deficit or tilting the tax code toward the rich — but he refused to say how he could bring that off. When challenged, he cited “studies” that he maintained proved him right. But the studies were a mix of rhetoric, unrealistic growth projections and more serious economics that actually proved him wrong.
This last is important — maybe the crux of the next four years. History has shown that it’s a lot easier to cut taxes than to reduce spending. Republican presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush promised to do both, managed to do only the first and (with plenty of help from Congress) greatly increased the national debt.
Now Mr. Romney promises to reduce income tax rates by one-fifth — for the rich, that means from 35 percent to 28 percent — and to raise defense spending while balancing the budget. To do so, he would reduce other spending — unspecified — and take away deductions — unspecified. One of the studies he cited, by Harvard economist Martin Feldstein, said Mr. Romney could make the tax math work by depriving every household earning $100,000 or more of all of its charitable deductions, mortgage-interest deductions and deductions for state and local income taxes.
Does Mr. Romney favor ending those popular tax breaks? He won’t say. But he did take issue with Mr. Feldstein’s definition of the middle class: Mr. Romney said he would protect households earning $250,000 or less. In which case the Feldstein study did not vindicate the Romney arithmetic — it refuted it. Yet the candidate has continued to cite the study.
Within limits, all candidates say and do what they have to say and do to win. Mr. Obama also has dodged serious interviews and news conferences. He has offered few specifics for a second-term agenda. He, too, aired commercials that distorted his opponent’s statements.
But Mr. Obama has a record; voters know his priorities. His budget plan is inadequate, but it wouldn’t make things worse.
Mr. Romney, by contrast, seems to be betting that voters have no memories, poor arithmetic skills and a general inability to look behind the curtain. We hope the results Tuesday prove him wrong.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...-11e2-9313-3c7f59038d93_story.html?tid=pm_pop
Mitt Romney’s campaign insults voters
By Editorial Board, Saturday, November 3, 12:34 AM
THROUGH ALL THE flip-flops, there has been one consistency in the campaign of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney: a contempt for the electorate.
How else to explain his refusal to disclose essential information? Defying recent bipartisan tradition, he failed to release the names of his bundlers — the high rollers who collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations. He never provided sufficient tax returns to show voters how he became rich.
How, other than an assumption that voters are too dim to remember what Mr. Romney has said across the years and months, to account for his breathtaking ideological shifts? He was a friend of immigrants, then a scourge of immigrants, then again a friend. He was a Kissingerian foreign policy realist, then a McCain-like hawk, then a purveyor of peace. He pioneered Obamacare, he detested Obamacare, then he found elements in it to cherish. Assault weapons were bad, then good. Abortion was okay, then bad. Climate change was an urgent problem; then, not so much. Hurricane cleanup was a job for the states, until it was once again a job for the feds.
The same presumption of gullibility has infused his misleading commercials (see: Jeep jobs to China) and his refusal to lay out an agenda. Mr. Romney promised to replace the Affordable Care Act but never said with what. He promised an alternative to President Obama’s lifeline to young undocumented immigrants but never deigned to describe it.
And then there has been his chronic, baldly dishonest defense of mathematically impossible budget proposals. He promised to cut income tax rates without exploding the deficit or tilting the tax code toward the rich — but he refused to say how he could bring that off. When challenged, he cited “studies” that he maintained proved him right. But the studies were a mix of rhetoric, unrealistic growth projections and more serious economics that actually proved him wrong.
This last is important — maybe the crux of the next four years. History has shown that it’s a lot easier to cut taxes than to reduce spending. Republican presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush promised to do both, managed to do only the first and (with plenty of help from Congress) greatly increased the national debt.
Now Mr. Romney promises to reduce income tax rates by one-fifth — for the rich, that means from 35 percent to 28 percent — and to raise defense spending while balancing the budget. To do so, he would reduce other spending — unspecified — and take away deductions — unspecified. One of the studies he cited, by Harvard economist Martin Feldstein, said Mr. Romney could make the tax math work by depriving every household earning $100,000 or more of all of its charitable deductions, mortgage-interest deductions and deductions for state and local income taxes.
Does Mr. Romney favor ending those popular tax breaks? He won’t say. But he did take issue with Mr. Feldstein’s definition of the middle class: Mr. Romney said he would protect households earning $250,000 or less. In which case the Feldstein study did not vindicate the Romney arithmetic — it refuted it. Yet the candidate has continued to cite the study.
Within limits, all candidates say and do what they have to say and do to win. Mr. Obama also has dodged serious interviews and news conferences. He has offered few specifics for a second-term agenda. He, too, aired commercials that distorted his opponent’s statements.
But Mr. Obama has a record; voters know his priorities. His budget plan is inadequate, but it wouldn’t make things worse.
Mr. Romney, by contrast, seems to be betting that voters have no memories, poor arithmetic skills and a general inability to look behind the curtain. We hope the results Tuesday prove him wrong.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...-11e2-9313-3c7f59038d93_story.html?tid=pm_pop
RCP is a waste of time.
Wang saying 322 EVs now for Obama with 99.8% he wins the elections.
The weird thing about RCP is the arbitrary way they include polls in their average.
Rasmussen I think weight to party ID, which coupled with their robo-calling is going to produce a rightward drift.
Sam Wang posted this 2-3 days after the first debate following the mass panic attack.
I post it again for my fellow cafites
I post it again for my fellow cafites
- Status