·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- If the election happened today.
If the election happened today.Follow
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
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 hell have you been? Hell. 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
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.
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
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
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.
Edited, Sep 18th 2012 10:54am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
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.
rdmcandie wrote:
oh great you had to go and bring facts into this....thanks Joph.
See sig.
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 hell have you been? Hell. 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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
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.
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.
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.
crazylegz1975 wrote:
I'm sure as hell not going to waste my time looking up something I read last month.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
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 hell not going to waste my time looking up something I read last month.
Look it up. I'm sure as hell 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.
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 hell not going to waste my time looking up something I read last month.
Look it up. I'm sure as hell 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.
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Go on keep making excuses and apologizing for Obama's lies and poor leadership.
kk
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
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.
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 hell not going to waste my time looking up something I read last month.
Look it up. I'm sure as hell 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.
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.
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.
You all totally fail at duck duck goose. 
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Well, you don't have to ask with that one.
/*** hag swoon
(Where's Maverick?)
/*** hag swoon
(Where's Maverick?)
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.
Recent Visitors: 281
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (281)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- If the election happened today.
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC