Rick Perry To Drop Out Of 2012 Presidential Race Ahead Of South Carolina Primary
will help Newt. Santorum to get out next me thinks....
will help Newt. Santorum to get out next me thinks....
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
Santorum now leads in Iowa following a recount.
yes. but the GOP does not want to take the thunder away from Romney it seems.
...so after all the millions...Romney still did not win..so far he has only won NH.
What are headers?
For Canadian/UK viewers, if you are using firefox, install the following addon:
http://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/967 then:
1) In Firefox, Go to tools->modify headers
2) From the drop down box on the left select add
3) Then enter: “X-Forwarded-For” in the first input box without the quotation marks
4) Enter: “12.13.14.15″ in the second input box without the quotation marks
5) Leave the last input box empty, and save the filter, and enable it
http://imgur.com/Feb4.png
6) Click the ‘Configuration’ tab on the right then proceed to check the ‘always on’ button.
Close the Modify Headers box and it should work.
Szeretlek, cinc. Remélem kényelmes vele.
I am.
Also, its almost right, but the the second sentence needs a verb (second person singular - vagy) after kényelmes.
And kényelmes means physically comfortable, what you should say is: Remélem, hogy nem zavar. Which means I hope it doesnt bother you.
Weekly Jobless Claims Fall To Almost A Four-Year Low; Biggest Drop Since 2005
wait for the GOP spin on this
wait for the GOP spin on this
Marianne Gingrich, Newt Gingrich's Ex-Wife, Says He Wanted An 'Open Marriage' (VIDEO)
now...this is the woman who was having an afair with Newt while he was married right?
...Family Values party..
now...this is the woman who was having an afair with Newt while he was married right?
...Family Values party..
The jobless numbers are encouraging to a point, however measuring new claims doesn't give you half the picture. Several hundred thousand people have stopped claiming benefits and dropped off the jobless numbers all together. With payroll numbers increasing many of them will resurface again and possibly have a negative impact of the jobless numbers.
Things aren't getting worse but its unlikely any stats will surface this year to create a swell of optimism either.
Things aren't getting worse but its unlikely any stats will surface this year to create a swell of optimism either.
They also "lost" votes from 8 precincts, which is more than 34 votes.
Yeah, the real unemployment rate is higher. Still, it's hard to deny that the economy has got a bit of momentum going. If it continues reasonably steadily like this for the next six months, it's hard to sea Obama losing, even with unemployment still high.
Big if, though
Meanwhile, Romney's lead over Gingrich as dropped to well within the margin of error.
Shit day for Newt. First his ex wife gives an interview saying he wanted an open marriage, then Perry drops out and endorses him.
Perry spent, at a - ahem - conservative estimate, $21.16 million. That's $1,477 per vote.
No-one can claim he hasn't done his bit to stimulate the economy.
I'd vote if you paid me that much.
Also we don't count unemployed people who haven't worked for 2 years or more, so the real unemployment numbers are unknown.
Will be interesting to see if Newt gets a bump from the Perry endorsement. Perry has to be wondering what the difference is between him and the last Republican president.
The latest Rasmussen poll has Newt ahead by 2% in South Carolina!
Also we don't count unemployed people who haven't worked for 2 years or more, so the real unemployment numbers are unknown.
Will be interesting to see if Newt gets a bump from the Perry endorsement. Perry has to be wondering what the difference is between him and the last Republican president.
The latest Rasmussen poll has Newt ahead by 2% in South Carolina!
Great news if true. It would mean Romney retroactively lost Iowa and fell behind Gingrich in SC all in one day.
Please don't ever, EVER rely on the Rasmussen poll results as they're nothing more than a shill for the right-wing. They were started by a right-wing nutter; they frequently get commissioned by right-wing groups; and they have a rather incestuous relationship with Fox News. Moreover, the numbers don't lie: Data from the '10 elections unsurprisingly confirmed that they were the least accurate of all the pollsters. Scoundrels, the lot of them!
Silver is calling SC a 50/50 contest as of now, and admitting the momentum may be on Newt's side.
very true. In fact even Fox polls are more accurate
guess which poll is not accurate
RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Generic Congressional Vote
more than 1 million signatures to recall Scott Walker in Wisconsin
this is going to be fun...
this is going to be fun...
Is Real Clear Politics a bad site, then?
Even including an inaccurate poll makes me question them, if that's the case. Can you recommend any good ones?
For the SC primary they list Rasmussen, Insider Advantage, Public Policy Polling, Politico/Tarrance and NBC News/Marist, how are the rest of them as far as reliability?
The current numbers are Newt +2, Newt +3, Newt +6, Mitt +7, Mitt +10 respectively.
Even including an inaccurate poll makes me question them, if that's the case. Can you recommend any good ones?
For the SC primary they list Rasmussen, Insider Advantage, Public Policy Polling, Politico/Tarrance and NBC News/Marist, how are the rest of them as far as reliability?
The current numbers are Newt +2, Newt +3, Newt +6, Mitt +7, Mitt +10 respectively.
538 seems to weight Rasmussen pretty highly actually. I would think a poll that leans Conservative would have a lot more relevance in South Carolina than nationwide. So I wouldn't fault anyone for including them.
they are not a bad site. Nate Silver had an argument with them that they were right leaning. I think they try and represent everyone and there probably are more righty views there.
I used their site to predict the Electoral votes Obama won by and I got them perfect in total numbers. The only states I got wrong were Indiana and Missori which are thesame electoral votes. I predicted Indiana will go for McCain and Missori for Obama.
Two days ago Romney appeared to be surging. Within the span of 48 hours he's managed to lose Iowa and Newt appears to have caught him in SC. Unbelievable really.
Romney still to win it though, you reckon? Or will the right finally settle on a candidate and take it to the wire?
It will still be Romney.
The others have too much baggage.
The others have too much baggage.
Delegates aren't decided until July in Iowa. If Santorum's still in the race by then, they might even end up splitting.
11 delegates to the winner in SC with 2 delegates each to the winners in each congressional district. That's enough to significantly close the gap on any lead Romney has. Perception is always a big factor and if Romney's lead suddenly starts falling apart, people are going to ask questions why and that gives everyone else a better chance to get back into the race.
11 delegates to the winner in SC with 2 delegates each to the winners in each congressional district. That's enough to significantly close the gap on any lead Romney has. Perception is always a big factor and if Romney's lead suddenly starts falling apart, people are going to ask questions why and that gives everyone else a better chance to get back into the race.
Rasmussen is a large and fairly consistent pollster, but they have a pronounced "house effect" as Silver terms it, which almost always skews to the right by a few points. Silver weights their polls heavily because, so long as you account for that house effect, which Silver does, they're relatively accurate.
RCP's effort to be a poll of polls is neutral enough, if not really on par with what Silver himself has down with 538. Their articles and editorials, however, while they try for an "all over" spread, definitely lean right.
RCP's effort to be a poll of polls is neutral enough, if not really on par with what Silver himself has down with 538. Their articles and editorials, however, while they try for an "all over" spread, definitely lean right.
I'm not sure of the weight that 538 is affording Rasmussen these days, but 538 was in fact the same entity that laid Rasmussen to waste for their remarkable inaccuracies in addition to their dubious polling practices.
I'm also not sure of your observation that it wouldn't make much of a difference in a conservative state like South Carolina. Shoddy polling practices are shoddy polling practices. What's more, if Rasmussen somehow has a tendency of placing their thumb on the scale of their choosing in a manner of speaking, then it wouldn't be wholly unimaginable that they might be placing their thumb on the scale in favor of Gingrich who they might view as a 'true conservative' in the hopes of rallying for a true conservative on the GOP ticket. In fact, that's precisely what seems to be happening.
No dispute from me on that. I don't know the details in what makes their polling shoddy, nor do I have an adequate understanding of scientific polling to be able to make any observations if I did.
That said Rasmussen's poll on the 16th had Romney in a 14% lead. If they're skewing the numbers, they would have had to decide to do that in the last couple days, right? I mean the further they show Romney in the lead, the more it hurts the true conservative base. That said, they could've also waited to highlight the impact of Romney's fall as well.
As far as their weighting in 538, it looks like they did a decent job of predicting New Hampshire and Iowa (or at least the order) so that might have something to do with the weighting. For SC, the only poll that seems to have met NYT standards is the CNN one.
Does he explain this "house effect"? I have always tended to adjust the Rasmussen poll for bias in GOP Vs Democrat contests, but I wouldn't have thought that bias would factor in GOP inhouse contests.
Are there pollsters who lean discernibly left? Are there any that both wings would regard as impartial?
It's important to explain that "house effect" doesn't necessarily mean "bias". For example, every pollster adjusts their polls to fit likely voter models. If two pollsters get similar results, but Pollster A believes that the high turnout among youth voters in 2008 is unlikely to be repeated, whereas Pollster B thinks it will be maintained, they're going to give different results, even with the same data. That's not necessarily indicative of either pollster trying to cook the books or favor a certain side, just that their perception of the electorate differs.
Silver said, specifically about Rasmussen in 2008, that if their voter model were correct, and that it could be, they'd look brilliant and everyone else would be wrong.
Answering your other questions, yes there are pollsters with left/Democratic-leaning house effects, and yes there's reputable pollsters who don't have much house effect either way.
I wonder how many votes Cain will get.
Watching last night's debate now. Apparently, the US won the entire second World War in three years.
That's a good oldie that I hadn't seen for a while!
That's a good oldie that I hadn't seen for a while!
1942-1945?
Well, yes. My point wasn't that Gingrich doesn't know mathematics. It's that he doesn't know history (ironic for an "historian").
Btw, I always wondered.. why do your quotes have small letters where they weren't in the original (name, first letter)? I thought maybe you manually used the quote feature when posting, but you still have the post link.
Btw, I always wondered.. why do your quotes have small letters where they weren't in the original (name, first letter)? I thought maybe you manually used the quote feature when posting, but you still have the post link.
- Status