US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah I fecked it up, edited now with NM blue and NH red:


34ybi51.jpg


As you say, he'll probably win Nevada anyway, which cancels out any threat from IA.

All of which boils down to 'Obama needs to win Ohio to win the election'. And he seems to be well on course.
 
Avatar said:
Yeah I saw it earlier. It sampled more democrats than republicans though, but not sure that would be considered an error.

The electoral map you posted would make sense if Nevada is blue rather than Iowa..not that it will make a difference :) . Also NM is blue.
Click to expand...

There are more Democrats than Republicans registered. That's why Mitt tends to win more indies -a lot are basically Republicans.
 
They're doing every battleground tonight so what does that leave, FL, NV, WI, NC, CO?
 
Ubik said:
They're doing every battleground tonight so what does that leave, FL, NV, WI, NC, CO?
Click to expand...

I'm not on Twitter, if you are, just ask them. They seem to respond to tweets even if people are dicks.
 
Plechazunga said:
What the feck is wrong with New Hampshire? I mean, I know they're rich, but there's no need to start being unreasonable.
Click to expand...

Historically, a big number of conservatives to cancel out the stereotypical New England liberals. If they'd gone for Gore in 2000, world history would be a bit different. In other words, they're cnuts.
 
Red Dreams said:
he really gives you a lot of confidence.

conservatives must hate him more than Nate. :)
Click to expand...

Not that many have heard of him yet, I think. I hope they start the hating soon, I think he'd really enjoy it.
 
Some ridiculous ads doing the rounds in Georgia. From the Lee Anderson ads I posted a few pages back to a new ad featuring a black Republican and how his ad lets all know he's a christian and voted no to gay marriage. When I voted on Friday it was frustrating seeing so many congressional seats with only one candidate to vote for. Then I stumbled across this article explaining why.

Question: Why is this redistricting allowed when it's clearly done so to retain seats and/or ensure one party dominates?

http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/section/154/article/75171/

And here is the loan Democrat running against that hick Anderson (John Barrow)

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/s...arrow-election-competitiveness-down-congress/
 
So glad I don't live in a swing state. Practically no POTUS ads here in Cali and I'm so tired of the ones I'm seeing.

Let's get on to Obamas second term so we can have our month off from campaigning. So who's announced for 2016.....
 
2016: Google perfects an algorithm that predicts voting behavior with a lower error rate than manual vote counting. Elections are abolished and the President is announced on their website. People are initially outraged until they realize it means the end of all political advertising and debates. Corporations, unions and the extremely wealthy cease donating to political campaigns and instead use their millions to feed the poor, educate our children, and provide health care for all citizens.
 
You know in a lot of these polls Obama's lead is conceivably within the margin of error plus the Romney campaign seem to still be confident. I am still nervous despite Silver and Wang.
 
CheadleBeagle said:
You know in a lot of these polls Obama's lead is conceivably within the margin of error plus the Romney campaign seem to still be confident. I am still nervous despite Silver and Wang.
Click to expand...

As has been said in this thread many times, that's why you look at the averages, not a single poll in isolation. The margin of error comes down considerably.
 
CheadleBeagle said:
You know in a lot of these polls Obama's lead is conceivably within the margin of error plus the Romney campaign seem to still be confident. I am still nervous despite Silver and Wang.
Click to expand...

Also, national polls are irrelevant in a close election especially since it boils down to states and electoral college votes.

Nothing to be nervous about really if you're an Obama supporter. The repubs are keeping up a good face because they have to. Couldn't exactly come out now with your concession speech. Besides that would send all the lawyers ready to file suits home. Can't have that now can we.
 
CheadleBeagle said:
You know in a lot of these polls Obama's lead is conceivably within the margin of error plus the Romney campaign seem to still be confident. I am still nervous despite Silver and Wang.
Click to expand...

The point about margins of error is that, when you have enough data points, the realistic margins of error should have been explored. In the last 34 Ohio polls on RCP (since the first debate), there have been 4 showing a Romney lead (of 1 in three of those), 5 showing a tie, and 25 showing an Obama lead of up to 6, mainly 2s, 3s and 4s.

It's unquestionable that Obama leads there. The only slight worry remaining is getting the vote out there and some kind of Florida 2000-esque debacle.
 
PPP: National +2
White voters Romney 57-41.

Since most analysts project that Obama needs 39% of the White vote to win the popular vote, the PPP number's a good one. Has to be said though, they're a Dem-leaning pollster.
 
Ubik said:
The point about margins of error is that, when you have enough data points, the realistic margins of error should have been explored. In the last 34 Ohio polls on RCP (since the first debate), there have been 4 showing a Romney lead (of 1 in three of those), 5 showing a tie, and 25 showing an Obama lead of up to 6, mainly 2s, 3s and 4s.

It's unquestionable that Obama leads there. The only slight worry remaining is getting the vote out there and some kind of Florida 2000-esque debacle.
Click to expand...

To add to that, both Nate I and Wang factor in the historical accuracy of state poll averages.
 
radd said:
PPP: National +2
White voters Romney 57-41.

Since most analysts project that Obama needs 39% of the White vote to win the popular vote, the PPP number's a good one. Has to be said though, they're a Dem-leaning pollster.
Click to expand...

I had a check through the old 08 swing state records on RCP, and it's surprising the number of times PPP called the state more or less right on their final poll, particularly the close ones - Indiana and NC they had Obama up plus 1, Missouri they called a tie, VA was bang on, in FL they were one below what Obama got, CO one higher. Obviously they had a few miles out as well, but still.

Having said that, just seen a few of their broken down results and they look a bit weird so I'm not sure how much stock to put in that one you highlighted either.

radd said:
To add to that, both Nate I and Wang factor in the historical accuracy of state poll averages.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was intending to mention the "systematic bias" thing too but forgot. But, that worry seems to have lessened of late.
 
Reading this politifact truthmeter has me wishing debates had fact checkers that within 5-10 minutes of a statement/counterpoint the actual fact could show up on screen for the audience and that the moderator would go back every 20 minutes and list the facts, mostly truths, half-truth, mostly-false, and outright lies. That would make for much better debating and allow the viewing audience to see through some outright bullshit from politicians.
 
Ubik said:
I had a check through the old 08 swing state records on RCP, and it's surprising the number of times PPP called the state more or less right on their final poll, particularly the close ones - Indiana and NC they had Obama up plus 1, Missouri they called a tie, VA was bang on, in FL they were one below what Obama got, CO one higher. Obviously they had a few miles out as well, but still.
Click to expand...

Reality does have a liberal bias!

Having said that, just seen a few of their broken down results and they look a bit weird so I'm not sure how much stock to put in that one you highlighted either.
Click to expand...

'12 or '08?
 
Cali Red said:
Also, national polls are irrelevant in a close election especially since it boils down to states and electoral college votes.

Nothing to be nervous about really if you're an Obama supporter. The repubs are keeping up a good face because they have to. Couldn't exactly come out now with your concession speech. Besides that would send all the lawyers ready to file suits home. Can't have that now can we.
Click to expand...

Thank you for this; I'll try to stay calm. I'm not even American but want Obama to win so much!! I just saw the huge lines to vote in Florida early voting today and started to have flashbacks to 2000 and Ohio in 2004. Just hope there are no more dirty tricks by the repubs. Also why cannt the U.S. have a federal voting act which makes the voting times, dates etc uniform across the States to limit the prejudice of local officials?
 
MrMarcello said:
Reading this politifact truthmeter has me wishing debates had fact checkers that within 5-10 minutes of a statement/counterpoint the actual fact could show up on screen for the audience and that the moderator would go back every 20 minutes and list the facts, mostly truths, half-truth, mostly-false, and outright lies. That would make for much better debating and allow the viewing audience to see through some outright bullshit from politicians.
Click to expand...

To be fair, all this 'fact-checking' is a bit of a nonsense. In the old days (I guess!) journalists were expected to be intelligent and informed, and not brook any, what's the word, malarkey.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.