Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

If the election happened today.Follow

#27 Sep 17 2012 at 7:02 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts

You also have to make a distinction between polling of registered voters and "likely voters". Romney tends to do better with the latter (which does not bode well for Obama). Also, there's a significant possibility that even that is skewed. One of the problems Obama has is that the excitement for his campaign this time around isn't nearly as great as it was last time. But the polling assumes he'll get a similar turnout among voters. His lead in many states (especially the battleground states) is likely not anywhere close to as much as polling indicates.


Pretty much all wrong, save the part about Romney having a higher percentage with his likely voters. The idea that any polling firm is using 2008 turnout numbers to model Obama's share of the vote is absurd and shows a shockingly shallow idea of how modern polling works.

Let me guess, you "assume" it's the case, right?

Romney is suffocating and running out of time. He needs, for lack of a better term, a "game changer. He has a lot of money, but also a lot of places where he's going to have to spend it.

It still boggles the mind that you idiots put this stiff forward and are going to lose an election with 8.5% unemployment while US embassies burn. Amazing.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#28 Sep 17 2012 at 8:27 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

You also have to make a distinction between polling of registered voters and "likely voters". Romney tends to do better with the latter (which does not bode well for Obama). Also, there's a significant possibility that even that is skewed. One of the problems Obama has is that the excitement for his campaign this time around isn't nearly as great as it was last time. But the polling assumes he'll get a similar turnout among voters. His lead in many states (especially the battleground states) is likely not anywhere close to as much as polling indicates.


Pretty much all wrong, save the part about Romney having a higher percentage with his likely voters.


All likely voters, not just his. As in, any poll in which likely voters are polled results in about a 2-3 point better result for Romney. But since not all polls use likely voters (actually most in the RCP lineup do not), it skews the entire result.

Quote:
The idea that any polling firm is using 2008 turnout numbers to model Obama's share of the vote is absurd and shows a shockingly shallow idea of how modern polling works.


Huh? Didn't we just have a thread about this like a month or so ago where it was pointed out that a number of polls were oversampling (over weighting actually IIRC) Dem leaning people in their polls and their justification was precisely because of the voter turnout ratio from the 2008 election? Where the **** have you been? ****. This was a big news story because just about everyone was scratching their heads trying to figure out how half of the polls were showing Obama up by like 8-12 points when it was pretty well impossible for that to be true.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#29 Sep 17 2012 at 9:36 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I flew over Ohio today and I can't see a reason why anyone would care about it.

I spent a good deal of time in Ohio in my youth and there isn't much to care about from the ground, either. Still yet to go to the R&R HoF...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#30 Sep 18 2012 at 7:39 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,825 posts
gbaji wrote:
Didn't we just have a thread about this like a month or so ago where it was pointed out that a number of polls were oversampling
It's the default "point" you go to whenever someone mentions positive polling results for anything Democratic.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#31 Sep 18 2012 at 9:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
But since not all polls use likely voters (actually most in the RCP lineup do not), it skews the entire result.

You know, not that I take you seriously anyway when you talk about polling, but this shit just makes it too easy. Did you even bother to look at RCP before making this statement? I sure hope not because the RCP national average right now [ Screen shot since the page will change ] consists of eleven polls, nine of which use a Likely Voter screen. Gallup uses registered voters until closer to election day but has a very large sample size which helps mitigate the variance. The other poll is a IBD/CSM poll.

In fact, if you eliminate the Gallup and IBD/CSM numbers you wind up with a higher margin for Obama of 3.11 rather than 3.0 and a higher voter share of 48.77 versus the 48.5 listed.

So, congratulations. You've totally schooled us and shown us that the lack of a LV screen in the RCP average is skewing the results... in completely the wrong direction. Smiley: schooled

Edited, Sep 18th 2012 10:54am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#32 Sep 18 2012 at 9:56 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
oh great you had to go and bring facts into this....thanks Joph.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#33 Sep 18 2012 at 10:17 AM Rating: Excellent
******
21,720 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
oh great you had to go and bring facts into this....thanks Joph.

See sig.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#34 Sep 18 2012 at 10:43 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts

Huh? Didn't we just have a thread about this like a month or so ago where it was pointed out that a number of polls were oversampling (over weighting actually IIRC) Dem leaning people in their polls and their justification was precisely because of the voter turnout ratio from the 2008 election? Where the **** have you been? ****. This was a big news story


Was it? I must have missed this "big story". Can you post a link to one of the articles discussing this "big story" where most polling firms admit they're oversampling Democratic voters based on 2008 turnout?

Thanks, I'd be really fascinated to see the polling organizations commenting about oversampling, I think that would provide some interesting context. You can do this surely? How hard can it be to find examples of this "big story"

Let me know, idiot.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#35 Sep 18 2012 at 10:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
Was it? I must have missed this "big story". Can you post a link to one of the articles discussing this "big story" where most polling firms admit they're oversampling Democratic voters based on 2008 turnout?

Well, duh.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#37 Sep 18 2012 at 11:22 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Um... This is still simply the sampling of those being polled. It does not tell us if that sample accurately reflects the nation as a whole, much less those who will be voting in the next election.


Gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Wouldn't individual state polling be more important, considering your president is not decided by popular vote? I mean a national poll is more or less useless as a decisive indicator as to who will win the election or not. Regardless who is leading and who isn't.


Correct.


Contradictions...no wonder you like Romney so much.




Edited, Sep 18th 2012 1:22pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#38 Sep 18 2012 at 11:25 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,825 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
I'm sure as **** not going to waste my time looking up something I read last month.
By read do you mean made up?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#39 Sep 18 2012 at 5:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
The only polls obama is leading are the ones where the dems are polling 10% more dems.

Look it up. I'm sure as **** not going to waste my time looking up something I read last month.

Why the fuck do you bother to post if you're not gonna actually say anything, moron?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#40 Sep 18 2012 at 9:15 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
Debalic wrote:
crazylegz1975 wrote:
The only polls obama is leading are the ones where the dems are polling 10% more dems.

Look it up. I'm sure as **** not going to waste my time looking up something I read last month.

Why the fuck do you bother to post if you're not gonna actually say anything, moron?


anything.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#43 Sep 19 2012 at 6:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Go on keep making excuses and apologizing for Obama's lies and poor leadership.

kk Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#44 Sep 19 2012 at 7:14 AM Rating: Good
******
49,825 posts
Something something wmds something something democracy.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#45 Sep 19 2012 at 8:23 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Debalic wrote:
crazylegz1975 wrote:
The only polls obama is leading are the ones where the dems are polling 10% more dems.

Look it up. I'm sure as **** not going to waste my time looking up something I read last month.

Why the fuck do you bother to post if you're not gonna actually say anything, moron?


I was just thinking the same about you.

I know call me some more names maybe it'll help hide the reality of your pathetic existence.

Hey, if you can't back up anything you say...

Besides, the "it's just *obvious*" is gbaji's bit. Are you really gonna fall back on that after so long?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#46 Sep 19 2012 at 8:30 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Obama promised to cut the deficit by half but apparently you Democrats don't consider this a lie. Go on keep making excuses and apologizing for Obama's lies and poor leadership.


Well considering he proposed a 4 trillion dollar cut package with 1.2 Trillion to take effect immediately that the GOP shot down, you can't say the guy didn't try. 1.2 Trillion in cuts would have taken the deficit down by almost half. (was stated to be around 700 Billion in the first year). But because the proposal targeted the Pentagon the GOP said no.


____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#47 Sep 19 2012 at 8:35 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Something something wmds something something democracy.


Terrorism...Terrorist...Al Qaeda.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#48 Sep 19 2012 at 8:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,400 posts
You all totally fail at duck duck goose. Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#49 Sep 19 2012 at 8:54 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,825 posts
Screenshot
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#50 Sep 19 2012 at 9:33 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
Well, you don't have to ask with that one.

/*** hag swoon

(Where's Maverick?)
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#51 Sep 19 2012 at 9:43 AM Rating: Good
**
456 posts
Duck Maverick Goose doesn't seem like it would work quite as well for that game.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
Thinking outside the box is fine, but the owner's manual is on the inside.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)