Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Duh Bates

Duh Bates (Page 6)
Thread Tools
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2012, 05:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
The three prongs of the Romney campaign: lies, fear-mongering, and tax-cuts.

Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
The three prongs of the Obama campaign: lies, fear-mongering, and tax-increases.
One of these seems much more likely than the other to reduce that deficit that everyone is so concerned about.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2012, 05:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Isn't it a bit of a risk to vote for someone when you really don't know what he'll do?
The last 4 years is proof of that.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2012, 05:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Rasmussen is playing it safe - they're predicting that Romney wins the popular vote, but implicitly have him losing the electoral college. They're calling Wisconsin and Nevada for Obama and are the only outlier in calling Ohio a perfect tie right now (everyone else has Obama consistently up by two points or more, and Ohio is the state with the most focus from pollsters, the most focus for get-the-vote-out campaigns).
Rasmussen isn't "calling" anything yet. We've still got a week or so to go.

Ohio? You mean the state where most of the polls are still using 2008 weighting and there's 3 percent undecided?

Anything less than an Obama 6 point lead will be gone by the election when turnout is even and the undecideds go for the challenger (as they historically do this late in the election). This is the case with most of the "toss up" states.

I give Romney +4 in the popular, and 280 electoral votes unless something drastic changes.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2012, 06:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Couple of things:
First, I couldn't find PPP, which seems odd. Not that I think they were the most accurate (I've heard otherwise).
Second, being the most accurate on election day is not the greatest stat. For starters, it could be a fluke.
I found PPP in a roll-up of other polls while looking for Ohio polling. Otherwise, I don't know what the greatest stat is here. I'm just citing information to defend my position that Romney will win.


Next, if you're going to debate polls, two weeks out, wouldn't it be better to focus on whoever was most accurate over the last two weeks of the election (whoever that is)?
The reaction to my prediction was shock and dismay. I'm not necessarily debating polls as much as defending my prediction with information. Based on your preferred polls, what is your prediction?

Third, as someone for whom 2000 still hurts, isn't worrying about national polls a little short-sighted? Granted I don't see a situation where Obama wins the electoral and Romney wins the popular vote by several percentage points, but wouldn't polls in swing states or aggregators be far more useful or accurate?
I was challenged for my prediction of a 5% point Romney win on election day. I don't think the popular vote will contest the electoral result this time around. Much of the conflicting information between polls has to do with how they're sampled. Much of the polling showing a much more favorable outcome for Obama are oversampling Democrats based on turn-out in 2008 which I don't think is as accurate as sampling based on ancillary polling on enthusiasm among likely voters. Rasmussen is generally among the most respected of polling entities no? We can dig into the battleground states if you want to get into the weeds, but they're all pretty much within the margin of error as well.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2012, 06:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The last 4 years is proof of that.
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2012, 06:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The last 4 years is proof of that.
That doesn't make Romney's inability to articulate his plan any less apparent, as evidenced by Badkosh's statement.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2012, 06:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Much of the polling showing a much more favorable outcome for Obama are oversampling Democrats based on turn-out in 2008 which I don't think is as accurate as sampling based on ancillary polling on enthusiasm among likely voters. Rasmussen is generally among the most respected of polling entities no? We can dig into the battleground states if you want to get into the weeds, but they're all pretty much within the margin of error as well.
Rasmussen has been pretty accurate the past couple of Presidential polls. The reason why is that he polls specifically on voter ID and turnout to determine weighting. The other guys are either guessing or assuming turn-out for Obama will be the same or greater than 2008 which isn't realistic.

Again, that's why state polls using +7 - +10 Democrat advantage are seriously overestimating Obama's chances. Add that to the undecideds (usually about 3%) which typically go for the challenger this late, and most of the "toss up" states go to Romney.

I'm not as confident as eBuddy though. I only think he'll be up by 4, which is probably more than will allow for someone else to get a EC win.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2012, 06:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
That doesn't make Romney's inability to articulate his plan any less apparent, as evidenced by Badkosh's statement.
I don't think he has an "inability." I think he's choosing to remain vague, just as the last guy who got into office did. It's apparently a winning strategy that the Democrats had no problem with 4 years ago.

We know that the guy who won last time doesn't have a plan that will work. The record the past 4 years shows that, and his "resume" really doesn't show him ever coming up with a plan to turn anything around and make it a success. The new guy has always had a reputation of being able to create success for the stakeholders in whatever task he was given. That makes it much more of a gamble to bet on the guy who has no experience, and has no record, IMO.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2012, 06:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I don't think he has an "inability." I think he's choosing to remain vague, just as the last guy who got into office did. It's apparently a winning strategy that the Democrats had no problem with 4 years ago.
Ah. So, it's a race to the bottom, then.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2012, 06:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Ah. So, it's a race to the bottom, then.
No, the bottom is already occupied -- it's a race to just a little better than bottom. The US is a big ship that cannot turn on a dime, we'll have to settle for a really large ferris wheel.
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2012, 07:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No, the bottom is already occupied --
I don't know about that. Stupendousman is clearly saying that Romney is emulating Obama's winning strategy.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2012, 07:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Isn't it a bit of a risk to vote for someone when you really don't know what he'll do?
You mean like 2008?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2012, 07:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I don't know about that. Stupendousman is clearly saying that Romney is emulating Obama's winning strategy.
...for campaigning. Most likely, not for leading.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2012, 08:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
...for campaigning. Most likely, not for leading.
If he's copying one strategy, who's to say he won't copy others.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2012, 09:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
If he's copying one strategy, who's to say he won't copy others.
Past precedence. Romney has a history of leading in ways that get things accomplished, and does it in a less partisan fashion.

While he is by no means a perfect candidate, he has the background to back-up the type of campaign Obama ran in 2008 and follow-through. There really was no reason to believe Obama could, and he didn't. That doesn't sound like any kind of "copy" to me.

As for Ohio, here's another bit of info that should dissuade people of thinking that Obama has the lead there, if they had previously:

"220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008. And 30,000 more Republicans have cast their ballots compared with four years ago. That is a 250,000-vote net increase for a state Obama won by 260,000 votes in 2008."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82948.html

At BEST, they are tied in Ohio, with undecideds likely to break for Romney given history, and who has the momentum right now.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2012, 10:48 AM
 
Party affiliation in Ohio is determined by what primary you last voted in.

Don't you always have less votes in a primary with an uncontested incumbent?
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2012, 12:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The other guys are either guessing or assuming turn-out for Obama will be the same or greater than 2008 which isn't realistic.
Citation needed. Those same polling institutes are polling enthusiasm, and enthusiasm is lower than 2008 (which was a pretty extreme year all around) - are you seriously suggesting that they're polling those things and then not using their own data?

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Again, that's why state polls using +7 - +10 Democrat advantage are seriously overestimating Obama's chances. Add that to the undecideds (usually about 3%) which typically go for the challenger this late, and most of the "toss up" states go to Romney.
Actually, that's not the way it works. The principles here are "you know what you have, but not what you get" and "everyone likes a winner", which means that late undecideds tend to either go to the incumbent or pile on in case there is clear momentum. This is why there is a clear incentive for the GOP to portray the race as Romney still having the momentum.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2012, 12:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Rasmussen isn't "calling" anything yet. We've still got a week or so to go.
I know. I'm merely pointing out that their predictions on a national and a state level did not correspond (at the time of writing. Their poll numbers are moving all over the map, I'm sure they say something else right now. I just saw that they had Romney up by only 2 in Florida after having moved the state completely out of the toss ups and into the Romney column the day before.)

Ohio? You mean the state where most of the polls are still using 2008 weighting and there's 3 percent undecided?
You just said (below) that Rasmussen's weighting is the best. Here you're saying that they're using 2008 weighting. You can't have it both ways.

I can understand Romney backers wanting to trust Rasmussen's polls, because they are a big and respected pollster, and if their model of the electorate is correct, Romney might actually be ahead. But even with their model, Romney isn't leading the electoral college. At best it's undecided, with at least Ohio, Iowa, Colorado too close to call. If you honestly think that this is in the bag or even that your guy is confidently ahead, you're only fooling yourself.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2012, 05:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Citation needed. Those same polling institutes are polling enthusiasm, and enthusiasm is lower than 2008 (which was a pretty extreme year all around) - are you seriously suggesting that they're polling those things and then not using their own data?
So you are saying that their data shows the same or greater enthusiasm as 2008?

I've seen no poll data that shows that. If those using +7 - 12 Dem enthusiasm advantage have polls to show that, I'd love to see them. I've looked - and can't find any. However, I can find polls that show a big Republican advantage. If you look at the polls showing it tied or an Obama advantage, those polls average a +7 Dem advantage -the same as 2008 which I've yet to see data that would support.

http://www.examiner.com/article/analysis-mainstream-media-polls-are-more-skewed-than-independent-polls?cid=db_articles
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2012, 05:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
You just said (below) that Rasmussen's weighting is the best. Here you're saying that they're using 2008 weighting. You can't have it both ways.
Rasmussen has it tied at 48, with 3 percent still undecided. Undecideds in an election with an incumbent normally swings to the challenger as a majority. Especially a candidate with the economic numbers this incumbent has. I predict Ohio at +1 Romney, because the Democrats are hard at work pressuring vulnerable people in Ohio to vote Democat.

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/26/is-voter-fraud-being-committed-in-ohio/
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2012, 07:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
If he's copying one strategy, who's to say he won't copy others.
But we already know for certain the strategy of the incumbent while the other remains a curiosity. For change, I'd bet on the curiosity.
ebuddy
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2012, 07:41 AM
 
Disclaimer: Share prices can go down as well as up.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2012, 09:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
So you are saying that their data shows the same or greater enthusiasm as 2008?
No, I'm saying that the results are a lower enthusiasm than 2008.

You were saying that the likely voter models used by pollsters other than Rasmussen were similar to the actual voter numbers from 2008. For the pollsters to do that they'd have to ignore their own data on enthusiasm. I find that highly unlikely, ie, I think that they've made new models to account for the lower enthusiasm.

Undecideds in an election with an incumbent normally swings to the challenger as a majority.
This is another point I'd like you to back up with some studies.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2012, 10:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
But we already know for certain the strategy of the incumbent while the other remains a curiosity. For change, I'd bet on the curiosity.
So, you're saying that *this* time represents change we can believe in?

For my part, I don't think Romney/Ryan would be as horrible McCain/Palin would have been; I just take issue with complaining about your opponent's strategy without being clear about your own. Ryan appears to represent the same sort of Social Conservative insert as Palin, but he's at least under control and isn't campaigning for President at the same time as his running-mate.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2012, 12:03 PM
 
The only reason Romney is promising to create 12 million jobs is the American economy is already on track to create 12 million jobs without anyone needing to do anything.

This is a cynical promise, typical of Romney: promise something that an Obama presidency would already deliver. And then Romney could crow about fulfilling that promise 4 years from now. Too bad he won't get to see the inside of the Oval Office.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2012, 01:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
The only reason Romney is promising to create 12 million jobs is the American economy is already on track to create 12 million jobs without anyone needing to do anything.
This has got to be the richest gem you've posted here in some time mckenna. I want you to read your article again and then draft an email to the Chief economist at Moody's Analytics featured in your article, requesting that they put their money where his mouth is and retract Moody's change of outlook to negative in June of 2011. And then tell him to run this info back through Standard and Poor's so we can get our AAA credit rating back and hopefully Fitch will follow suit and pull their negative outlook as well.


This is a cynical promise, typical of Romney: promise something that an Obama presidency would already deliver. And then Romney could crow about fulfilling that promise 4 years from now. Too bad he won't get to see the inside of the Oval Office.
It's a promise based on real numbers. I'd rather hear Romney crow about fulfilling a promise of 12 million jobs than hear Obama crow about an unemployment rate that drops to 7.8%. Which is why Obama will be unemployed in January.
ebuddy
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2012, 01:56 AM
 
The flaw is using 2008 demographics instead of 2010 ones. It doesn't show a Democrat majority, but a Republican one. Hence the results in the last round of elections
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2012, 02:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
The flaw is using 2008 demographics instead of 2010 ones. It doesn't show a Democrat majority, but a Republican one. Hence the results in the last round of elections
So you don't see the flaw in thinking that the public opinion about congress is identical to their thinking about the presidency?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2012, 02:06 AM
 
So, some of you guys (I'm pretty sure stupendousman is one) predicted that McCain would win the last election. To those of you whom this applies to, what adjustments in your analysis of poll data have you made?

I've yet to find a reliable aggregate poll of poll type source that is really predicting Romney to win the electoral college, yet a few of you have predicted his victory. What is your basis for your beliefs?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2012, 02:07 AM
 
I believe Nate Silver's poll data/website was among the most accurate in 2008. Here's his new site: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2012, 02:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
This has got to be the richest gem you've posted here in some time mckenna. I want you to read your article again and then draft an email to the Chief economist at Moody's Analytics featured in your article, requesting that they put their money where his mouth is and retract Moody's change of outlook to negative in June of 2011. And then tell him to run this info back through Standard and Poor's so we can get our AAA credit rating back and hopefully Fitch will follow suit and pull their negative outlook as well.
Yeah, I'll get right on that.

So here's a timely reminder of how Romney is completely unfit to be President:
Mitt Romney in 2011: 'We Cannot Afford' Federal Disaster Relief.

KING: You've been a chief executive of a state. I was just in Joplin, Missouri. I've been in Mississippi and Louisiana and Tennessee and other communities dealing with whether it's the tornadoes, the flooding, and worse. FEMA is about to run out of money, and there are some people who say do it on a case-by-case basis and some people who say, you know, maybe we're learning a lesson here that the states should take on more of this role. How do you deal with something like that?

ROMNEY: Absolutely. Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that's even better.

Instead of thinking in the federal budget, what we should cut -- we should ask ourselves the opposite question. What should we keep? We should take all of what we're doing at the federal level and say, what are the things we're doing that we don't have to do? And those things we've got to stop doing, because we're borrowing $1.6 trillion more this year than we're taking in. We cannot...

KING: Including disaster relief, though?

ROMNEY: We cannot -- we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we'll all be dead and gone before it's paid off. It makes no sense at all. (emphasis added)
That's right: Federal Disaster relief is immoral, because, you know, think of the children. This jerk wants to be President?

The Obama campaign should get this turned into an ad immediately.

And of course, there's this gem: Romney's 5 point plan is exactly the same as McCain's 5 point plan, which was exactly the same as Bush's 5 point plan. Of course, anyone who's not an idiot already knows Romney is a return to the Bush policies, but worse.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2012, 02:20 AM
 
Its far more important to piss money away on Green bankruptcies, wasted stimulus billions, union job protection etc. money wasted on a few.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2012, 02:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I believe Nate Silver's poll data/website was among the most accurate in 2008. Here's his new site: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
That's what I read mostly.

A hint: The NYT limits you to ten free articles per month, but they implement it in a rather silly way: First it shows you the article, and then it draws something else on top, telling you to pay up. This can be circumvented using l33t hacker trick of pushing the stop button once it has loaded what you want to see.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2012, 06:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
No, I'm saying that the results are a lower enthusiasm than 2008.
If that's the case, then it's highly unlikely that party breakdown will be what it was in 2008, which is what polls showing Obama up are reporting. I think the link I offered goes over that.

You were saying that the likely voter models used by pollsters other than Rasmussen were similar to the actual voter numbers from 2008.
I believe that Gallup also uses their own recent poll driven likely voter models as well.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2012, 06:33 AM
 
I don't think I predicted McCain to win. I do believe I claimed that the polls showing Obama would beat him by 12-14 points where way off, and they where.

Rasmussen hit it the closest in 2008 in regards to the popular vote. They've had Romney up 2-4 points through this month. Gallup 4-6. Normally, polls undervalue Republican votes, not overvalue and most polls are still allowing for "Undecideds" at around 3 percent, which historically go with the challenger. I'm betting if nothing screwy happens between now and next Tuesday, Romney will get 4 points over Obama. If that's the case, absent widespread voter fraud, that would be tough to lose electorally too.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2012, 07:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I found PPP in a roll-up of other polls while looking for Ohio polling. Otherwise, I don't know what the greatest stat is here. I'm just citing information to defend my position that Romney will win.
So, weird conclusion – that guy you linked to? He released a second analysis, ranking Rasmussen 9th in accuracy.

I still posit using the last available poll leaves a lot of noise, and further, we should be using their past presidential elections, too. Once again, one accurate prediction could be a fluke.



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The reaction to my prediction was shock and dismay. I'm not necessarily debating polls as much as defending my prediction with information.
A good and fair point.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Based on your preferred polls, what is your prediction?
Haha, I'm not sure I have the nuts for it. To begin with, I'm you're stereotypical volatile liberal, prone to mood swings based on the latest news. I try to keep in check but now that we're running down to the wire, the anxiety is just too much to wrestle.

I'm aboard the aggregator train, and further ignoring national polls for state-by-state, given the electoral system. So I keep abreast of Nate Silver and realclearpolitics and make whatever sense I can of it, which isn't much.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Much of the polling showing a much more favorable outcome for Obama are oversampling Democrats based on turn-out in 2008 which I don't think is as accurate as sampling based on ancillary polling on enthusiasm among likely voters.
This is a big talking point for republicans this year. It may not be without merit, seeing with this economy I found it unbelievable the lead Obama had the entire summer, but by the same token I heard stuff about how a portion of republicans have moved away from that party identification to independents and undecideds, which in turn has shown a very strong Romney in those fields. I don't ****ing know. It does seem to me that the enthusiasm for Romney was (rightfully) severely lacking, and after his decisive victory at the first debate it seemed to reenergize the base and very suddenly the race became very competitive. I'm still waiting to see if Obama managed to salvage some enthusiasm himself after the last two.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Rasmussen is generally among the most respected of polling entities no
No idea, really. They do get dogged for having a conservative lean, but it seems to be the case that every outlet gets dogged for their lean depending on where you read.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
We can dig into the battleground states if you want to get into the weeds, but they're all pretty much within the margin of error as well.
We don't have to, but I do think your view of them as "weeds" is misguided. National polls seems like the quintessential missing the trees for the forest. (And depending on your definition of battleground, no several states are not within MOE.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2012, 07:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
The flaw is using 2008 demographics instead of 2010 ones. It doesn't show a Democrat majority, but a Republican one. Hence the results in the last round of elections
Hint: Presidential Election Year demographics differ greatly from off-year election demographics.


Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
absent widespread voter fraud, that would be tough to lose electorally too.
Heh, if we're playing conspiracy theories, it's hard not to think Husted won't try to steal the election for Romney, given all the hard work he's put in so far.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2012, 07:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I don't think I predicted McCain to win. I do believe I claimed that the polls showing Obama would beat him by 12-14 points where way off, and they where.
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Smart money isn't on Obama. Especially given the number of undecideds, the "bradley effect" and the fact that whatever lead he did have was enhanced by unrealistic weighting of Democrats in the sample. If it's a statistical tie now in the polls, that pretty much means that Obama is down in reality. He needs to be up at least 6 just to be even. He's NEVER going to get double the record turnout that some pollsters are giving him in the polls.

It's a fun thread. History repeats itself: A lot of beating on the sampling favoring democrats too highly.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2012, 10:40 AM
 
Someone on another forum aptly pointed out that Sandy is going give opportunity to voter suppression mailers that indicate the election has been postponed.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2012, 10:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post

I don't think I predicted McCain to win.
Are you going to make me look through the MacNN archives to prove you wrong?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2012, 12:15 PM
 
I am noticing a statistical correlation between the people who like Romney and the people who think Nate Silver is full of shit.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2012, 12:33 PM
 
Sorry Stupendousman, I was mistaking you for Big Mac who famously wrote in this thread:

http://forums.macnn.com/0/forum/379257/gallup-race-is-statistical-tie-again/100

Quote:
I love this overconfidence. Keep it up, lemmings.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2012, 12:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I am noticing a statistical correlation between the people who like Romney and the people who think Nate Silver is full of shit.
Nah, I'm pretty sure if the statistical analysis had been more favorable to Romney UnskewedPolls would still have been created to demonstrate the obvious then-blow-out.

I read another interesting comparison on another forum: The teeth-gnashing against Silver's system is similar to when sabremetrics took baseball by storm. Whereas during the latter, it minimized the importance of judgement and gut-feel from scouts, managers, GMs, etc., Silver (and the other aggregates) devalue pundits by quantifying what they opine.

(Certainly, most of the attacks on Silver have been more personal than professional. I'm not ready to christen him statsjesus, but him predicting a strong gain for Republicans in congress, as well as 36 out of 37 governor races in 2010 seems like a solid foundation to call bullshit on his personal biases influencing his predictions – not counting his under predicting Obama's victory in 2008)
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2012, 01:37 PM
 
These are all good points, but I wasn't talking about the people taking active shots at him, I'm talking about users here making predictions which are so divergent from his.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2012, 01:39 PM
 
Whoops
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2012, 01:59 PM
 
A useful whoops. Your points are more thought provoking than mine.

In pointing out how the pundits are interested in protecting themselves from objective polling data, it occurred to me for the first time to consider how the campaigns are interested in protecting themselves from objective polling data.

It also made me think of what are the optimal "narratives" for a campaign to put forward vs. what the actual numbers are. I'm thinking a lot of them cluster around a candidate who's just slightly behind. If you portray too far behind, people give up. If you portray ahead, your turnout starts to drop.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2012, 05:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
It's a fun thread. History repeats itself: A lot of beating on the sampling favoring democrats too highly.
I'm pretty sure that was when there was a tie within the margin of error, and they were giving him 12 points. Probably around the time of the Republican Convention.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2012, 07:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So, weird conclusion – that guy you linked to? He released a second analysis, ranking Rasmussen 9th in accuracy.
I still posit using the last available poll leaves a lot of noise, and further, we should be using their past presidential elections, too. Once again, one accurate prediction could be a fluke.
I can't disagree, but Romney is still going to win by 5% points.

Haha, I'm not sure I have the nuts for it. To begin with, I'm you're stereotypical volatile liberal, prone to mood swings based on the latest news. I try to keep in check but now that we're running down to the wire, the anxiety is just too much to wrestle.


I'm aboard the aggregator train, and further ignoring national polls for state-by-state, given the electoral system. So I keep abreast of Nate Silver and realclearpolitics and make whatever sense I can of it, which isn't much.
Good luck.

This is a big talking point for republicans this year. It may not be without merit, seeing with this economy I found it unbelievable the lead Obama had the entire summer, but by the same token I heard stuff about how a portion of republicans have moved away from that party identification to independents and undecideds, which in turn has shown a very strong Romney in those fields. I don't ****ing know. It does seem to me that the enthusiasm for Romney was (rightfully) severely lacking, and after his decisive victory at the first debate it seemed to reenergize the base and very suddenly the race became very competitive. I'm still waiting to see if Obama managed to salvage some enthusiasm himself after the last two.
It makes sense to me that this would be a big talking point for republicans this year. The last election revisited voting numbers we hadn't seen since the 60's and I believe any model employing specifics from that election such as turnout is going to be flawed. The word believe is key though because to your point, there's a lot of noise.

We don't have to, but I do think your view of them as "weeds" is misguided. National polls seems like the quintessential missing the trees for the forest.
Why? How often are the national polls different from the election result? I mean, other than black tuesday of course.

(And depending on your definition of battleground, no several states are not within MOE.
Of course, this is the case throughout most of the states. It's not a battleground if the victor is already sitting comfortably atop the castle.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2012, 08:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post

I can't disagree, but Romney is still going to win by 5% points.
If he does, this will be based on your hunch and optimism, but no actual electoral college based polling data.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2012, 08:22 PM
 
I was wondering where the videos of children singing the praises of Dear leader were. This the best they can come up with?

http://www.futurechildrenproject.com/
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:50 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,