or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Mitt Romney is Going to Win
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mitt Romney is Going to Win - Page 4

post #121 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

What corporations  are you referring to that owns America?

Big Oil
Big Health
Big Agri
Big Pharma
Military Industrial

All the very things that we need to live ... are run and owned by the Corporations, through their proxy the US government.
post #122 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post


Big Oil
Big Health
Big Agri
Big Pharma
Military Industrial
All the very things that we need to live ... are run and owned by the Corporations, through their proxy the US government.

 

 

And I don't see how Mitt Romney's rhetoric is different from theirs.

 

(Yes, I know "Mussilini" should be "Mussolini". I didn't make the graphic. But you get the point.)

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #123 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by womblingfree View Post


As I said, we have one of the most, if not the most, deregulated workforces in Europe. Possibly even more-so than in many US States. We also pay less tax at the lower rate and have plenty of billionaires paying close to zero tax with accounts in the Cayman Islands and Belize. If you earn over $240,000 a year you are still paying way less tax than you were during the other recessions you mentioned.
The UK pays less as a proportion of GDP on health care than the USA, despite it being universal. I'm not sure what the other social programs you're referring to are, but that's by far the biggest.
That isn't what I said, I said it doesn't happen in a short period of time.
I would strongly disagree with that. What we saw then were historical booms and busts, whereas the recent debt crisis was the mother of all busts. And yes in the 70's and 90's there was strong growth after the busts, after about eight years. But it was the enormity of this growth that led us to the last crash. houses went up in value from £30,000 to £300,000 in a decade, people were borrowing 20 times their income to buy property off the back of that huge boom. A recipe for disaster, not recovery.
They staved off a double dip recession, let alone a depression. And modest growth is not stagnation.

 

We are not comparing Europe to the UK.  We are comparing the U.S. to Europe.  Your statement regarding regulation vs. the States is absolutely absurd.  Compared to the U.S., you cannot even fire someone.  How you can be serious? 

 

As for Healthcare, you can make the GDP argument if you want.  But I'll go ahead and point to the fact that our actual healthcare providers are far superior.  The issue we have is insurance and the cost of care.  Either way, defending the NHS on efficiency or quality of care grounds is a tough road to hoe. 

 

WRT recessions, you are free to disagree, but the numbers say otherwise.  Unemployment, growth, inflation, mortgage rates, etc.  It was all far worse.  I am not looking past how severe the most recent bust was, but the economy was in much worse shape in 1980, and arguably in 1991. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by signal View Post

 

Do you have any evidence of that?

 

Just read the poll breakdown for the most recent CNN poll.  I believe it was 441 D's, 397 R's, and 37 I's.  However, the electorate is about 35% GOP, 34% DEM, 30% IND.  These are also likely voter polls.  The only time in the last decade where African-American turnout was above 11% was 2008.  It was 13% then, but 11% in 2004, 2006, and 2010 (and lower at other times).  Rasmussen, for example, weighted the turnout at 13+%.  They also under-weighted seniors.  The result is the polls are vastly inaccurate.  The CNN poll had Obama at 52 and Romney at 46.  The actual number, assuming the weighting was correct, was an 8 point Romney lead.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by womblingfree View Post


We have one if the most deregulated work-forces in Europe
We pay no income tax on the first $13000, then 10% up to just over $55,000, whereas you pay 10% on all earnings up to $8700 and 15% up to $35,350. So our tax is actually less than yours on all earnings up to $55,000. We then have a flat rate of 32.5% whereas yours in banded from 25% to 33%, but you will be paying the higher rates on a lower income than the UK. At the very top end our taxes are higher, over $240,000, at 42.5%. But by that point you can afford a decent accountant to get it back down again. So in relation to UK vs USA we actually pay less income tax up to $55,000.
Damn right it doesn't work.

 

Even if you do pay less taxes up to 55,000, your overall taxes are far higher.  Arguing otherwise is just silly.  We don't disagree about spending cuts alone.  That said, you're not dealing with the kind of debt and deficits we are.  At a certain point, cutting is about not destroying the country financially, not just economy growth.  In fact, I'm not even claiming that cutting spending creates growth.  Cutting taxes most definitely does (with some exception...depending on amount and type). 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Is there a good explanation for why the pollsters would skew their samples? Presumably it does nothing for their credibility come election time if they turn out to have been way off. Are they paid to do distort, perhaps? But by whom - who gains? For example, if they oversample Democratic voters, and end up showing a higher support level for Obama than really exists, does that benefit the Democrats, and if so, why? Is a political demographic more motivated to vote if it believes its party is ahead? I would have guessed the opposite, so I'm puzzled by what you think is happening here. Any studies or historical analyses of this phenomenon?

 

It's pure bias...nothing more.  They can play those polls off as simply having changed if it becomes clear Romney will win.  You have to understand...CNN, MSNBC et al simply don't care.  They have stopped even pretending to be objective.  They are 100% in the tank for Barack Obama. 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #124 of 1062

Mitt Romney is ( Not ) Going to Win. ( wink if I could  )

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #125 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
For example, if they oversample Democratic voters, and end up showing a higher support level for Obama than really exists, does that benefit the Democrats, and if so, why?

 

It benefits the Democrats in a number of ways. First people will contribute money to help in a close race. They won't do so if it is a blow out. If Obama were shown down 8 points for example, there isn't a fundraising letter or appeal that would work for him. People wouldn't throw good money after a bad cause. If they can keep it close, the money keeps flowing it, the campaign can go through the motions and there can be a hope that some unforeseen event can alter the outcome. They can hope the star quarterback blows out his knee.

 

 

Your other points don't make much sense to me since polling is a business, not a hobby, but this one seems very reasonable as a general principle. The only problem is that the race is obviously at least close (your 8 point Romney lead claims are not credible) so it's not clear that this scenario should have been triggered in this situation.

 

The 8 point lead was a hypothetical. You asked what the benefit would be. As for polling being a business, who pays for the polling and what results do they want? There are broad dailly polling firms. Rausmussen and Gallup are two of the major polls and Nate Silver has obviously taken issue with Rausmussen in part because of his "transparency" initiative which he doesn't follow himself. Gallup is currently being leaned on by the justice department.

 

Most other polling is done by news organizations. The organizations themselves are bleeding viewership and money but appear not to care as long as other aspects of the entertainment business can still support what they do. For example CNN has had their viewership decline for years, 20% in the last year alone. Yet CNN is owned by Time-Warner and appears not to care abou their abysmal performance as long as the rest of the company has money for them to bleed. CBS is owned by Viacom as another example. Jersey Shore and the Ex-Basketball Wives can help finance a news division that bleeds money. Also the most common angle of news coverage is HORSE RACE coverage about the candidates and who is winning or losing. Much like a sports event, when the contest is close, people tune in and when it is clearly decided or a blow out, they tune out and go away.

 

I've posted plenty of things that show this here in the past. Some google searches can find information about it now. The point though is you asked for a rationale as to why someone would do this. I've easily provided that. You can dismiss it or declare it doesn't make sense to you and that is your choice but you got what you asked for.

 

Perhaps I didn't make my point very clearly: I agree with your observation that there is a reason to keep a race looking close to avoid people giving up / losing interest, but invoking that as a reason to distort the numbers only works if the race is, in fact, not close. That's why 8 point lead bit matters - yes - hypothetically if there were a substantial lead your explanation would seem plausible. Otherwise it seems unlikely.

 

Is the deal with the news organizations that perhaps they try to report what their viewers want to hear? I could believe that might have an effect of this kind.

post #126 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Is there a good explanation for why the pollsters would skew their samples? Presumably it does nothing for their credibility come election time if they turn out to have been way off. Are they paid to do distort, perhaps? But by whom - who gains? For example, if they oversample Democratic voters, and end up showing a higher support level for Obama than really exists, does that benefit the Democrats, and if so, why? Is a political demographic more motivated to vote if it believes its party is ahead? I would have guessed the opposite, so I'm puzzled by what you think is happening here. Any studies or historical analyses of this phenomenon?

 

It's pure bias...nothing more.  They can play those polls off as simply having changed if it becomes clear Romney will win.  You have to understand...CNN, MSNBC et al simply don't care.  They have stopped even pretending to be objective.  They are 100% in the tank for Barack Obama. 

 

Maybe so. It's an unsatisfying explanation, but it is self-consistent. On the other hand, Fox News was also reporting poll numbers that were positive for Obama, which leads me to wonder if (a) they are also biased towards the Democrats or (b) these polls are actually fairly accurate.

post #127 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Is there a good explanation for why the pollsters would skew their samples? Presumably it does nothing for their credibility come election time if they turn out to have been way off. Are they paid to do distort, perhaps? But by whom - who gains? For example, if they oversample Democratic voters, and end up showing a higher support level for Obama than really exists, does that benefit the Democrats, and if so, why? Is a political demographic more motivated to vote if it believes its party is ahead? I would have guessed the opposite, so I'm puzzled by what you think is happening here. Any studies or historical analyses of this phenomenon?

 

It's pure bias...nothing more.  They can play those polls off as simply having changed if it becomes clear Romney will win.  You have to understand...CNN, MSNBC et al simply don't care.  They have stopped even pretending to be objective.  They are 100% in the tank for Barack Obama. 

 

Maybe so. It's an unsatisfying explanation, but it is self-consistent. On the other hand, Fox News was also reporting poll numbers that were positive for Obama, which leads me to wonder if (a) they are also biased towards the Democrats or (b) these polls are actually fairly accurate.

Wink if I could.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #128 of 1062

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #129 of 1062

I wish Democrats would realize that the US can never be like Europe is now.  There are a dozens reasons for this, but a lot of it has to do with our congressional system of government vs. their parliamentarian systems.  The second biggest element is the way courts work in the US vs. EU.  Do you realize that it's cheaper to hire German autoworkers than it is Detroit autoworkers?  Despite the education gap, despite all of the HR regulations.  America is the country with the most favorable labor terms in the world ... as long as you are in the right district.

 

As far as I can observe, the course the Democrats seem to endorse is probably going to make the US a lot like Brazil is.  Brazil has nice beaches, rainforest, soccer players, but it's a corrupt mess and a terrible place to be enterprising unless you're an aristocrat.

Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #130 of 1062

Yes because General Electric is the sole backer of MSNBC and has Obama in it's control like a puppet.
 

post #131 of 1062

Backed by Obama of course.

post #132 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Mitt Romney is ( Not ) Going to Win. ( wink if I could  )

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Perhaps I didn't make my point very clearly: I agree with your observation that there is a reason to keep a race looking close to avoid people giving up / losing interest, but invoking that as a reason to distort the numbers only works if the race is, in fact, not close. That's why 8 point lead bit matters - yes - hypothetically if there were a substantial lead your explanation would seem plausible. Otherwise it seems unlikely.

 

Is the deal with the news organizations that perhaps they try to report what their viewers want to hear? I could believe that might have an effect of this kind.

 

The media always tries to make it more of a horse race.  That said, I'm not claiming that's the primary driver here.  I think it's outright bias towards Obama.  The media completely failed to vet him in 2008 in their quest to elect the anti-Bush, first black President.  Now, they are simply campaigning for him.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Maybe so. It's an unsatisfying explanation, but it is self-consistent. On the other hand, Fox News was also reporting poll numbers that were positive for Obama, which leads me to wonder if (a) they are also biased towards the Democrats or (b) these polls are actually fairly accurate.

 

Fair point.  However, the Fox News poll showed a 48-43 Obama lead after the convention bounce, which was within the polls margin.  That's a lot different than Obama being up 52-46 (or whatever it was) in the CNN poll.  I'd also like to see Fox's sampling and turnout models.   

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

I wish Democrats would realize that the US can never be like Europe is now.  There are a dozens reasons for this, but a lot of it has to do with our congressional system of government vs. their parliamentarian systems.  The second biggest element is the way courts work in the US vs. EU.  Do you realize that it's cheaper to hire German autoworkers than it is Detroit autoworkers?  Despite the education gap, despite all of the HR regulations.  America is the country with the most favorable labor terms in the world ... as long as you are in the right district.

 

As far as I can observe, the course the Democrats seem to endorse is probably going to make the US a lot like Brazil is.  Brazil has nice beaches, rainforest, soccer players, but it's a corrupt mess and a terrible place to be enterprising unless you're an aristocrat.

 

It's quite clear that Obama wants us to be more like Europe...economically, politically, militarily and in terms of our global role.  Meanwhile, many European nations are going the other way after decades of failed quasi-socialist policies.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #133 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Perhaps I didn't make my point very clearly: I agree with your observation that there is a reason to keep a race looking close to avoid people giving up / losing interest, but invoking that as a reason to distort the numbers only works if the race is, in fact, not close. That's why 8 point lead bit matters - yes - hypothetically if there were a substantial lead your explanation would seem plausible. Otherwise it seems unlikely.

 

Is the deal with the news organizations that perhaps they try to report what their viewers want to hear? I could believe that might have an effect of this kind.

 

The media always tries to make it more of a horse race.  That said, I'm not claiming that's the primary driver here.  I think it's outright bias towards Obama.  The media completely failed to vet him in 2008 in their quest to elect the anti-Bush, first black President.  Now, they are simply campaigning for him.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Maybe so. It's an unsatisfying explanation, but it is self-consistent. On the other hand, Fox News was also reporting poll numbers that were positive for Obama, which leads me to wonder if (a) they are also biased towards the Democrats or (b) these polls are actually fairly accurate.

 

Fair point.  However, the Fox News poll showed a 48-43 Obama lead after the convention bounce, which was within the polls margin.  That's a lot different than Obama being up 52-46 (or whatever it was) in the CNN poll.  I'd also like to see Fox's sampling and turnout models.   

 

 

CNN's poll from the same day was 50-46 for Obama.  That's a narrower margin than Fox's 48-43. I'm still not seeing the egregious bias.

post #134 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Perhaps I didn't make my point very clearly: I agree with your observation that there is a reason to keep a race looking close to avoid people giving up / losing interest, but invoking that as a reason to distort the numbers only works if the race is, in fact, not close. That's why 8 point lead bit matters - yes - hypothetically if there were a substantial lead your explanation would seem plausible. Otherwise it seems unlikely.

 

Is the deal with the news organizations that perhaps they try to report what their viewers want to hear? I could believe that might have an effect of this kind.

 

The media always tries to make it more of a horse race.  That said, I'm not claiming that's the primary driver here.  I think it's outright bias towards Obama.  The media completely failed to vet him in 2008 in their quest to elect the anti-Bush, first black President.  Now, they are simply campaigning for him.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Maybe so. It's an unsatisfying explanation, but it is self-consistent. On the other hand, Fox News was also reporting poll numbers that were positive for Obama, which leads me to wonder if (a) they are also biased towards the Democrats or (b) these polls are actually fairly accurate.

 

Fair point.  However, the Fox News poll showed a 48-43 Obama lead after the convention bounce, which was within the polls margin.  That's a lot different than Obama being up 52-46 (or whatever it was) in the CNN poll.  I'd also like to see Fox's sampling and turnout models.   

 

 

CNN's poll from the same day was 50-46 for Obama.  That's a narrower margin than Fox's 48-43. I'm still not seeing the egregious bias.

 

The bias isn't just in the outcome, it is in the sample. The country is pretty evenly divided in terms of party size. If a same has +8-10% more Democrats, that would lead to a result weighted toward Obama. The point people are bringing up most with these polls is that they are often only 25-28% Republican on the low end.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #135 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 

Fair point.  However, the Fox News poll showed a 48-43 Obama lead after the convention bounce, which was within the polls margin.  That's a lot different than Obama being up 52-46 (or whatever it was) in the CNN poll.  I'd also like to see Fox's sampling and turnout models.   

 

 

CNN's poll from the same day was 50-46 for Obama.  That's a narrower margin than Fox's 48-43. I'm still not seeing the egregious bias.

 

The bias isn't just in the outcome, it is in the sample. The country is pretty evenly divided in terms of party size. If a same has +8-10% more Democrats, that would lead to a result weighted toward Obama. The point people are bringing up most with these polls is that they are often only 25-28% Republican on the low end.

 

I know what people are saying - I'm questioning why, if that is true, the Fox poll also shows a similar lead for Obama. Are they also biased towards Democrats in their sampling?

post #136 of 1062

I expect to see increasing panic from the Republicans and especially Mittens himself.  

 

I'm also very interested to see some polls after this latest "Mitt the Twit" moment, to quote a newspaper from a country that is a real ally of the US.

 

For goodness sake, even  Bill O' thought it was bad.  Peggy said Mittens looks like Nixon.

 

Even a Fox poll shows him down.  Ouch.

 

Mittens is already trying to tone things down, but I think the damage has been done.


Edited by Bergermeister - 9/13/12 at 2:17pm

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #137 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I know what people are saying - I'm questioning why, if that is true, the Fox poll also shows a similar lead for Obama. Are they also biased towards Democrats in their sampling?

 

You'd have to look at the samples.  Also, breaking 50% means something in these polls, so the CNN one shows a stronger (but fake) Obama lead.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

I expect to see increasing panic from the Republicans and especially Mittens himself.  

 

I'm also very interested to see some polls after this latest "Mitt the Twit" moment, to quote a newspaper from a country that is a real ally of the US.

 

For goodness sake, even  Bill O' thought it was bad.  Peggy said Mittens looks like Nixon.

 

Ouch.

 

Mittens is already trying to tone things down, but I think the damage has been done.

 

 

Panicking...leading an incumbent whose bounce is now negative and who can't break 50%.  Right.  

 

 

As for the London games, he neither did nor said anything wrong.  He expressed concern over some very concerning things, such as lack of security.  You know who was a classless twit?  David Cameron.  He's the one who slammed Romney's Olympics as some kind of backwoods event, just because it was held in Salt Lake City instead of London. 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #138 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I know what people are saying - I'm questioning why, if that is true, the Fox poll also shows a similar lead for Obama. Are they also biased towards Democrats in their sampling?

 

You'd have to look at the samples.  Also, breaking 50% means something in these polls, so the CNN one shows a stronger (but fake) Obama lead.  

 

Now I'm starting to think that you are just making stuff up. You are asserting that a 4 point lead in a CNN poll (50-46) relative to a 5 point lead in a Fox poll (48-43) is (1) a stronger lead and (2) fake. Because the higher number is just 2 points higher at 50 rather than 48? Please tell me that you have some other basis for claiming that.

post #139 of 1062
Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I know what people are saying - I'm questioning why, if that is true, the Fox poll also shows a similar lead for Obama. Are they also biased towards Democrats in their sampling?

 

We would have to see their sample and methdology and if something were odd there, we'd call it out.

 

I don't think anyone here is simply slamming a poll because it shows an Obama lead or within the margin of error, etc.

 

People CAN see biased reporting though and when the reporting is on who controls the narrative, who is winning the horse race and who is fading, the polls that inform such reporting, generated by the organizations that are doing said reporting ought to have a sound procedure. If a poll is +10% Democrats and Obama is up +1 to 2 points, that really should be seen as more propaganda than news.

 

That is proof of an organization trying to drive the news rather than report it.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #140 of 1062

Ryan voted to increase spending today.

 

I thought Romney Corp was going cut spending?

 

Of course, the GOP is explaining that it's because it's election season...

 

If Ryan was such a great leader, couldn't he have led the charge on this one?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #141 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

I thought Romney Corp was going cut spending?

 

You thought that because you've been listening too closely to Democrat talking points.

 

The Ryan plan, for which there has been much wailing and weeping and gnashing of teeth from the left, merely slows the rate of spending increases. Yes, in Democrat-speak (and politician-speak in general) this is considered a "cut in spending" but not to anyone who understands the English language.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #142 of 1062

Also remember that when Obama decides to cut the rate of increase in spending for say....Medicare, that isn't a cut then. It's only a cut when Republicans do it. When Obama does it, it is because the whole system will be more "efficient" because all the providers will get less money. But that isn't a cut.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #143 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Now I'm starting to think that you are just making stuff up. You are asserting that a 4 point lead in a CNN poll (50-46) relative to a 5 point lead in a Fox poll (48-43) is (1) a stronger lead and (2) fake. Because the higher number is just 2 points higher at 50 rather than 48? Please tell me that you have some other basis for claiming that.

 

My basis is that breaking 50% has been a good indicator of a candidate's strength, particularly for incumbents.  If the CNN poll was accurate, it would be significant as it would be the first time in quite a while that Obama did so.   In that sense, a 52-47 lead (which is the one I was referring to) is probably more significant than a 48-43 lead, depending on the margin of error.   

 

As for it being "fake," I'm merely saying the lead for Obama did not actually exist.  One has to understand how polls work and what they mean.  In reality, Romney is winning by 5-8 points nationally.  That's because the undecided vote always breaks for the challenger by a margin of 4-1 or more (with some very limited exceptions).  Add in the incorrect turnout models and oversampling/undersampling, and it's not hard to see.  Take this: 

 

Let's say Obama has a 3 point lead, 48-45.  If the sample is like the CNN poll, it's practically useless.  Correct sampling in this case would lead to an 8-10 point Romney lead.  Even assuming the sample is correct and the turnout model is likely accurate, 80% of the undecided votes break for the challenger.  That means Romney would be at least even in the poll.  

 

In reality, the latest Rasmussen poll has Romney up 49-48.  Assuming the turnout model and samples are good, that's actually a 3-4 point Romney advantage.  The only exception over the past 30-40 years was 2004, where undecideds broke about even for Bush/Kerry.  The theory there was the "you don't change your horse mid race" argument, which seems to make sense.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #144 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Now I'm starting to think that you are just making stuff up. You are asserting that a 4 point lead in a CNN poll (50-46) relative to a 5 point lead in a Fox poll (48-43) is (1) a stronger lead and (2) fake. Because the higher number is just 2 points higher at 50 rather than 48? Please tell me that you have some other basis for claiming that.

 

My basis is that breaking 50% has been a good indicator of a candidate's strength, particularly for incumbents.  If the CNN poll was accurate, it would be significant as it would be the first time in quite a while that Obama did so.   In that sense, a 52-47 lead (which is the one I was referring to) is probably more significant than a 48-43 lead, depending on the margin of error.   

 

As for it being "fake," I'm merely saying the lead for Obama did not actually exist.  One has to understand how polls work and what they mean.  In reality, Romney is winning by 5-8 points nationally.  That's because the undecided vote always breaks for the challenger by a margin of 4-1 or more (with some very limited exceptions).  Add in the incorrect turnout models and oversampling/undersampling, and it's not hard to see.  Take this: 

 

Let's say Obama has a 3 point lead, 48-45.  If the sample is like the CNN poll, it's practically useless.  Correct sampling in this case would lead to an 8-10 point Romney lead.  Even assuming the sample is correct and the turnout model is likely accurate, 80% of the undecided votes break for the challenger.  That means Romney would be at least even in the poll.  

 

In reality, the latest Rasmussen poll has Romney up 49-48.  Assuming the turnout model and samples are good, that's actually a 3-4 point Romney advantage.  The only exception over the past 30-40 years was 2004, where undecideds broke about even for Bush/Kerry.  The theory there was the "you don't change your horse mid race" argument, which seems to make sense.  

 

OK - I'm tired of repeatedly having to fact check posts that are full of unsubstantiated assertions. Not saying you are wrong, but do you have citations to back up any of those claims, or is this just selective election-lore?

post #145 of 1062

44% say they're worse off vs. 37% who say they're better off:

 

Quote:
But a majority continue to blame former President George W. Bush and Republicans for the country's economic problems.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #146 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

44% say they're worse off vs. 37% who say they're better off:

 

Quote:
But a majority continue to blame former President George W. Bush and Republicans for the country's economic problems.

 

Those who feel they are worse off may or may not be correct in blaming the previous administration, but those two views are not necessarily contradictory.

post #147 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Those who feel they are worse off may or may not be correct in blaming the previous administration, but those two views are not necessarily contradictory.

 

I wasn't claiming any necessary contradiction.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #148 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Those who feel they are worse off may or may not be correct in blaming the previous administration, but those two views are not necessarily contradictory.

 

I wasn't claiming any necessary contradiction.

 

So just a random observation?

post #149 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

So just a random observation?

 

It's silly season. Just noticing all things that may affect the upcoming election. Not exactly "random."

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #150 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

So just a random observation?

 

It's silly season. Just noticing all things that may affect the upcoming election. Not exactly "random."

 

Then I wonder how that will play out - if they blame Bush does that mean they will vote for Obama, or is Romney insulated from their anti-Bush feelings? A mixture of those, I'm sure, but how will it split?

post #151 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Then I wonder how that will play out - if they blame Bush does that mean they will vote for Obama, or is Romney insulated from their anti-Bush feelings? A mixture of those, I'm sure, but how will it split?

 

Don't really know. Initial guess would suggest a vote for Obama. But this election is about what's next and who people think will do a better job next. But people are strange. Hard to always know how or why they vote for who and what they vote for.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #152 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It's quite clear that Obama wants us to be more like Europe...economically, politically, militarily and in terms of our global role.  Meanwhile, many European nations are going the other way after decades of failed quasi-socialist policies.  

Yeah... I'm actually planning to move my business (either way) next year.

 

Wanting to be like Europe is fine as an ideal, but if that's what you want, you need to be like the Europeans and drop the hammer on special interests.  The states are small, and they are defined by their cultures.  If you don't like it, you can GTFO -- that's the European way.  If you aren't able to cull all the lobbying, there is absolutely no way you can run a social democracy.

 

And that's just not going to happen.  So, Brazil it is.  Brazil sucks (as a fair place to live).  Does anyone deny that?

Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #153 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

OK - I'm tired of repeatedly having to fact check posts that are full of unsubstantiated assertions. Not saying you are wrong, but do you have citations to back up any of those claims, or is this just selective election-lore?

Well, why are the polls so different?  Obviously, not all polls are conducted the same way.  By my observations, Rasmussen is usually a bit conservative biased.  Gallup is usually pretty even.  The thing is, I suspect the vote is going to be conservative biased this year, as far as percentage turn-out is concerned.  I live in San Francisco, a place so bizarre that Pelosi can win here (she's a nut, regardless of politics).  I lived here for the last election as well.  There is no evidence there's an election this year.  In 2008, people were going crazy all over the place.  It was a very fun time to be here, regardless of your personal politics.  Now, no one is even putting bumper stickers on their Priuses.

 

In reality, there aren't that many Priuses here, at least in comparison to Palo Alto.


Edited by Splinemodel - 9/13/12 at 11:11pm
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #154 of 1062

San Francisco is an interesting city to live in. I lived there over 35 years ago and it was really different than today. Many Liberals there and gays also.The polls go and down like a yo yo and the truth will be seen after these debates by the 2 candidates. These and the economy will determine the next president.
 

post #155 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

Yeah... I'm actually planning to move my business (either way) next year.

 

Wanting to be like Europe is fine as an ideal, but if that's what you want, you need to be like the Europeans and drop the hammer on special interests.  The states are small, and they are defined by their cultures.  If you don't like it, you can GTFO -- that's the European way.  If you aren't able to cull all the lobbying, there is absolutely no way you can run a social democracy.

 

And that's just not going to happen.  So, Brazil it is.  Brazil sucks (as a fair place to live).  Does anyone deny that?

 

You've hit the nail on the head....they have different cultures and different traditions.  They are also much smaller states with different needs.  Many haven't needed much of a military or security complex, because we've done it for them along with the Brits.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

Well, why are the polls so different?  Obviously, not all polls are conducted the same way.  By my observations, Rasmussen is usually a bit conservative biased.  Gallup is usually pretty even.  The thing is, I suspect the vote is going to be conservative biased this year, as far as percentage turn-out is concerned.  I live in San Francisco, a place so bizarre that Pelosi can win here (she's a nut, regardless of politics).  I lived here for the last election as well.  There is no evidence there's an election this year.  In 2008, people were going crazy all over the place.  It was a very fun time to be here, regardless of your personal politics.  Now, no one is even putting bumper stickers on their Priuses.

 

In reality, there aren't that many Priuses here, at least in comparison to Palo Alto.

 

I find Gallup to be slightly left and Rasmussen slightly right. CNN is a little more to the left.  You are onto something regarding turnout, though.  One of the most encouraging signs for Romney is that Democratic base is unlikely to vote in the numbers they did in 2008.  In addition, he's losing independents badly.  They, in fact, are the ones who put him in office.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #156 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

San Francisco is an interesting city to live in. I lived there over 35 years ago and it was really different than today. Many Liberals there and gays also.The polls go and down like a yo yo and the truth will be seen after these debates by the 2 candidates. These and the economy will determine the next president.
 

I can hardly wait for the debates! That'll be a hoot watching Ryan and Romney squirm.lol.gif

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #157 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I can hardly wait for the debates! That'll be a hoot watching Ryan and Romney squirm.lol.gif

The icing on the cake!
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #158 of 1062

Romney will be a great debater don't you think so against Obama.
 

post #159 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

San Francisco is an interesting city to live in. I lived there over 35 years ago and it was really different than today. Many Liberals there and gays also.The polls go and down like a yo yo and the truth will be seen after these debates by the 2 candidates. These and the economy will determine the next president.
 

I can hardly wait for the debates! That'll be a hoot watching Ryan and Romney squirm.lol.gif

 

You are delusional. Obama hasn't been challenged by the media about his eternal shirking of any responsibility or his own record in any form or fashion. The media is allowing him to ignore his own record and run against Washington somehow ignoring he is the current president. His convention acceptance speech was a tired retread hitting all the same promises and themes from exactly four years prior.

 

I want to hire cops, teachers, fund green energy and stop greenhouse gases.

 

Being hit with the reality of the fact that he is in fact the president and must confront his own failed record will be like a giant punch in the face.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #160 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

San Francisco is an interesting city to live in. I lived there over 35 years ago and it was really different than today. Many Liberals there and gays also.The polls go and down like a yo yo and the truth will be seen after these debates by the 2 candidates. These and the economy will determine the next president.
 

I can hardly wait for the debates! That'll be a hoot watching Ryan and Romney squirm.lol.gif

 

You are delusional. Obama hasn't been challenged by the media about his eternal shirking of any responsibility or his own record in any form or fashion. The media is allowing him to ignore his own record and run against Washington somehow ignoring he is the current president. His convention acceptance speech was a tired retread hitting all the same promises and themes from exactly four years prior.

 

I want to hire cops, teachers, fund green energy and stop greenhouse gases.

 

Being hit with the reality of the fact that he is in fact the president and must confront his own failed record will be like a giant punch in the face.

Obama and Biden will mop the floor with them. You must know that. Talk about being challenged on their record! Romney ( Mr. I know about the suffering of the common man even though I haven't suffered myself ) can't keep his story straight from one minute to the next and Ryan well......all you have to say there is Medicare. Mop the floor trumpy. Mop the floor. It'll be fun for all ( except Republicans that is ). Don't believe me? Just watch.


Edited by jimmac - 9/15/12 at 2:29pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Mitt Romney is Going to Win