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 7

post #241 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Romney is a much better debater than Obama.He communicates with authority and speech power. Obama speaks to low and he is hard to understand sometimes.
 

Oh Jesus! I'm with the others. You can't be for real! ( eyes roll )

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 #242 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald II View Post


Romney's comments pissed off many people , including the PM and mayor of London, because they were diplomatically stupid, coming from a public figure at a time of great national emotion.
 

 

Pissed off which people...the British press?  Your friends?  The PM and mayor of London?  By the way, you called the former a "conservative."  However, a "conservative" in Britain is not equal to a conservative here in the U.S.  

 

 

 

Quote:
If The Leader of the Opposition was in NYC at a 9/11 commemoration and said,

 

The leader of what opposition?  

 

 

 

 

Quote:
 "The US is a bit shit at democracy sometimes, Guantanamo, eh?" that is the mechanism we are talking about (although not the level of insult).

 

No, not that level of insult...not even close. 

 

 

 

Quote:
We are talking about diplomatic norms and good common diplomatic sense, which Romney broke. Criticising an ally is another good example of how diplomatic language works, yes.

 

He wasn't on a diplomatic mission.  He, as a former Olympic head, had concerns about London's preparation.  These concerns were not new.  

 

 

Quote:
The point is: Romney fucked up. Not by telling the truth, but by saying something stupid that insulted a lot of people, who got annoyed. The press reported the screw up, and you reported he was being "excoriated for telling the truth," rather than bringing yourself to admit what any reasonable person would agree was a diplomatic ****-up.

 

So you've admitted it:  You didn't want Romney to tell the truth.  Telling the truth was undiplomatic, and stupid.  Got it.  Thanks.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald II View Post


No, it won't.
That's not why I bring it up, and never was.
I bring it up to point out the pitiful bleating about how the press "Excoriates Romney for telling the truth" is just another weak victim-culture, poor-me meme that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Similarly, the 47% thing. People aren't shocked by his maths or figures, but the fact he considers veterans, the disabled and the elderly as "victims," the same as dole-spongers.

 

Jesus Christ.  The press is the reason why people like you are running around saying Romney considers veterans, the disabled and elderly as victims.  Do you have any real evidence he thinks this way, or are you just running with the narrative, like the...cough...press?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Exactly. He's already alienated ( and insulted ) those voters. I really think Mr. Romney is in trouble and when they get to the debates that won't help him either. Romney just has said too much ( revealing how out of touch he is with not only what the average person has to go through these days but out of touch with the mood of the country as well ).

 

Here's a little video that illustrates what I mean :

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/vp/49138589#49138589

 

There's a little time left and something could change but the big boost from the debates and questioning Mr. Obama on his record just isn't going to have the big effect that the conservatives hope for. Especially when you can bring up the nature of this recession and where it came from.

 

The polls show that the race is tied.  And if Obama is under 50% in the polls much longer, he's toast.  

 

Quote:

The polls show that the race is tied.

Actually they really don't. And the general popularity part of the polls aren't the whole story. However believe what you will.

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

 

Actually they really don't. And the general popularity part of the polls aren't the whole story. However believe what you will.

 

The national polls are tied.  That is a fact.  Other recent polls show Romney ahead in Florida, within the margin of error in PA, and gaining in OH.   You're wrong.  

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 #244 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 

Actually they really don't. And the general popularity part of the polls aren't the whole story. However believe what you will.

 

The national polls are tied.  That is a fact.  Other recent polls show Romney ahead in Florida, within the margin of error in PA, and gaining in OH.   You're wrong.  

Please supply a link to which polls you're talking about. In the mean time : http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

 

Also I've already supplied a link to an analysis of the battleground states situation.

 

And : http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/09/25/political-perceptions-in-new-swing-state-math-obama-retains-an-advantage/

 

Also : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49170138

 

 

Quote:

Four new polls underscore Romney's serious problems in Ohio. Surveys by NBC and Fox News found Obama ahead by 7 percentage points. A poll by a group of Ohio newspapers showed him leading by 5. And a Washington Post poll released Tuesday found the president leading Romney by 8 points. All of Obama's leads were outside the polls' margins of error.


Edited by jimmac - 9/25/12 at 3:46pm
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 #245 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Please supply a link to which polls you're talking about. In the mean time : http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

 

Also I've already supplied an analysis of the battleground states situation.

 

And : http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/09/25/political-perceptions-in-new-swing-state-math-obama-retains-an-advantage/

 

You did that.  Look at your own link.  

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 #246 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Please supply a link to which polls you're talking about. In the mean time : http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

 

Also I've already supplied an analysis of the battleground states situation.

 

And : http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/09/25/political-perceptions-in-new-swing-state-math-obama-retains-an-advantage/

 

You did that.  Look at your own link.  

I did. They don't say tied. And where does it say Romney's gaining in Ohio?

 

Let me quote again for you :

 

Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49170138   Four new polls underscore Romney's serious problems in Ohio. Surveys by NBC and Fox News found Obama ahead by 7 percentage points. A poll by a group of Ohio newspapers showed him leading by 5. And a Washington Post poll released Tuesday found the president leading Romney by 8 points. All of Obama's leads were outside the polls' margins of error.
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 #247 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I did. They don't say tied. And where does it say Romney's gaining in Ohio?

 

Let me quote again for you :

 

 

I can't help if you can't understand what "tied" means.  Look at the more than just the RCP average.  Even that is within the margin of error.  We won't even get into the turnout model and sampling problems, which are severe for nearly ALL polls.  

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 #248 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

I can't help if you can't understand what "tied" means.  Look at the more than just the RCP average.  Even that is within the margin of error.  We won't even get into the turnout model and sampling problems, which are severe for nearly ALL polls.  

 

I guess I don't know what "tied" means either, then, because I look at those links and see pretty much every poll showing a widening lead for Obama.  Except Rasumussen, which I think can legitimately be called an "outlier" given how out of step they are with everyone else.

 

I know we're supposed to pivot at this point from "the polls actually show Romney winning" to "the polls are a liberal conspiracy" but that doesn't actually make any sense, outside of right wing la la land.  

 

As I said before, Obama is going to win, not necessarily because he's in a strong position or has been an excellent president, but because Romney's a horrible candidate with an unintelligible message.  And he's the candidate because he ran against a bunch of buffoons and weirdos, the more credible candidates having decided to sit it out. And they sat it out because the party has become the plaything of Tea Party and libertarian extremists with a message way out of step with most of America, a fact that Romney's efforts to conceal account for his weirdly erratic trajectory.  And instead of taking stock of this problem, the right just gets louder about "socialism" and how "our freedoms are being taken away" which is foolish and stupid.   Maybe if Republicans worried about that more than liberal conspiracies your party would be getting stronger instead of weaker.  

post #249 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

 

I guess I don't know what "tied" means either, then, because I look at those links and see pretty much every poll showing a widening lead for Obama.  Except Rasumussen, which I think can legitimately be called an "outlier" given how out of step they are with everyone else.

 

I know we're supposed to pivot at this point from "the polls actually show Romney winning" to "the polls are a liberal conspiracy" but that doesn't actually make any sense, outside of right wing la la land.  

 

As I said before, Obama is going to win, not necessarily because he's in a strong position or has been an excellent president, but because Romney's a horrible candidate with an unintelligible message.  And he's the candidate because he ran against a bunch of buffoons and weirdos, the more credible candidates having decided to sit it out. And they sat it out because the party has become the plaything of Tea Party and libertarian extremists with a message way out of step with most of America, a fact that Romney's efforts to conceal account for his weirdly erratic trajectory.  And instead of taking stock of this problem, the right just gets louder about "socialism" and how "our freedoms are being taken away" which is foolish and stupid.   Maybe if Republicans worried about that more than liberal conspiracies your party would be getting stronger instead of weaker.  

 

I never said it was a liberal conspiracy.  I'm saying the polls showing a widening lead for Obama are inaccurate because of their sampling and turnout assumptions.  This is about as close to a fact as one can get.  Some of these polls are oversampling Dems by nearly 10%, and under-sampling Republicans and Independents.   This stands in contrast with any reasonable assessment of what turnout will look like.  

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 #250 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

I can't help if you can't understand what "tied" means.  Look at the more than just the RCP average.  Even that is within the margin of error.  We won't even get into the turnout model and sampling problems, which are severe for nearly ALL polls.  

 

I guess I don't know what "tied" means either, then, because I look at those links and see pretty much every poll showing a widening lead for Obama.  Except Rasumussen, which I think can legitimately be called an "outlier" given how out of step they are with everyone else.

 

I know we're supposed to pivot at this point from "the polls actually show Romney winning" to "the polls are a liberal conspiracy" but that doesn't actually make any sense, outside of right wing la la land.  

 

As I said before, Obama is going to win, not necessarily because he's in a strong position or has been an excellent president, but because Romney's a horrible candidate with an unintelligible message.  And he's the candidate because he ran against a bunch of buffoons and weirdos, the more credible candidates having decided to sit it out. And they sat it out because the party has become the plaything of Tea Party and libertarian extremists with a message way out of step with most of America, a fact that Romney's efforts to conceal account for his weirdly erratic trajectory.  And instead of taking stock of this problem, the right just gets louder about "socialism" and how "our freedoms are being taken away" which is foolish and stupid.   Maybe if Republicans worried about that more than liberal conspiracies your party would be getting stronger instead of weaker.  

 

Clearly you have not looked at the polling samples and their affiliation. Rasmussen is only an outlier in the respect that it does not assume that record numbers of Democrats will turn out to the polls, numbers even larger than 2008 and that record numbers of Republicans will stay away from the polls.

 

The polls are suffering from classic GIGO. Most of them are D+ 8-12 points in their weights. How can those be considered credible?

"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 #251 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

Clearly you have not looked at the polling samples and their affiliation. Rasmussen is only an outlier in the respect that it does not assume that record numbers of Democrats will turn out to the polls, numbers even larger than 2008 and that record numbers of Republicans will stay away from the polls.

 

The polls are suffering from classic GIGO. Most of them are D+ 8-12 points in their weights. How can those be considered credible?

 

Correct!  Some of the most recent polls are assuming Democratic turnout that is frankly beyond belief.  This is the first time I can recall where the majority of polls are literally meaningless.  

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 #252 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I did. They don't say tied. And where does it say Romney's gaining in Ohio?

 

Let me quote again for you :

 

 

I can't help if you can't understand what "tied" means.  Look at the more than just the RCP average.  Even that is within the margin of error.  We won't even get into the turnout model and sampling problems, which are severe for nearly ALL polls.  

lol.gif Ok what ever you say.

 

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/26/14110895-first-thoughts-the-impact-of-47-percent?lite


Edited by jimmac - 9/26/12 at 1:35pm
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 #253 of 1062

So can anyone explain to me why all these polling outfits other than Rasmussen are using these deeply flawed models? Don't they kind of have an interest in being proven accurate and demonstrating the quality of their product?  And if not's a liberal conspiracy, what is it?  

post #254 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

So can anyone explain to me why all these polling outfits other than Rasmussen are using these deeply flawed models? Don't they kind of have an interest in being proven accurate and demonstrating the quality of their product?  And if not's a liberal conspiracy, what is it?  

It's called denial.

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 #255 of 1062

Interesting take from Nate Silver on Rasmussen's poor performance in the '10 election, and the problems with their methodology in general.  They don't call cell phones (which at this point is almost laughable) and use a predetermined model of affiliation and voting likelihood, instead of going forth and asking people like the other guys.

 

If folks are feeling the other polls have a biased affiliation and likely voter model, they should consider that those numbers come from just that-- asking what party do you belong to and how likely are you to vote.  Sorry.

post #256 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

So can anyone explain to me why all these polling outfits other than Rasmussen are using these deeply flawed models? Don't they kind of have an interest in being proven accurate and demonstrating the quality of their product?  And if not's a liberal conspiracy, what is it?  

 

Sure, there have been numerous posts about it in the media bias thread. Go have a look. The posts have links, are sourced, and also get into the pollsters and their methodology a bit.

 

Also remember that before Nate got bought by the Times that Rausmussen was top or top 3 minimum on his list and they began falling when he added the "weight" of his tranparency requirement.

"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 #257 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

So can anyone explain to me why all these polling outfits other than Rasmussen are using these deeply flawed models? Don't they kind of have an interest in being proven accurate and demonstrating the quality of their product?  And if not's a liberal conspiracy, what is it?  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It's called denial.

 

Even Rasmussen has used flawed turnout models at times.  And no jimmac, this is far from denial.  I'm telling you that the numbers they are using are absolutely, objectively insane.  Many are using Dem samples that are 20% above 2008's record Dem turnout.  The same applies for demographics.  Rasmussen had this very issue, predicting black turnout at 14% of the vote.  The problem?  It's been 11% for every year except 2008 (including 2010, the most recent national election).   How, jimmac, do you expect PA to go from +7 to +9 Democrat?  Are you honestly suggesting that these are reasonable predictions? 

 

Edit:  By the way, you should read this Dick Morris article. 


Edited by SDW2001 - 9/26/12 at 4:43pm
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 #258 of 1062

If the polls have the guy up, they are absolutely correct.  If they have him down, well, they are completely flawed.

 

Love it.

 

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 #259 of 1062

A pretty lucid takedown of biased poll talk from Nate Cohn.  I think anyone disagreeing needs to explain why, exactly, instead of just assuming that "pollsters want to throw the election" is just a common sense assertion of the obvious.  I'm guessing that at least some of the people claiming bias know full well they're blowing smoke, and plan to use this idea to delegitimize Obama's inevitable reelection.

 

But again this absolute insistence on forging a separate reality wherein America is far more right wing than it is does not help the conservative cause.  You guys really, really need to start taking the measure of the electorate, instead of yelling about socialism and loss of freedoms and non-existent tax hikes.  People aren't stupid, at least people who aren't blinded by ideological rage, and there aren't enough of those to win national elections.  

 

The entire Republican Convention was built around a willful, obvious and flagrant misreading of Obama's perfectly commonsensical remark that nobody in America makes it without our shared infrastructure, and no matter how self sufficient you are you didn't build the highways or the public schools or power grid.  Did you think no one would notice?  Romney is running around talking about Obama's mania for "redistribution" as if he had been caught waving the Communist Manifesto, when the kind of redistribution he was talking about Romney, and pretty much ever American, supports and has supported for years.  Did you think no one would figure that out?

 

Stop lying, all the time, about everything.  It's hurting your party.  This isn't an Ayn Rand fantasy world, and Obama is to the right of Nixon.  You're starting to come off as lunatics, and it's only going to get worse if you don't find a way to bring it back to earth, and base your message on something at least resembling the reality that, yes, most Americans can discern for themselves.

post #260 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

A pretty lucid takedown of biased poll talk from Nate Cohn.  I think anyone disagreeing needs to explain why, exactly, instead of just assuming that "pollsters want to throw the election" is just a common sense assertion of the obvious.  I'm guessing that at least some of the people claiming bias know full well they're blowing smoke, and plan to use this idea to delegitimize Obama's inevitable reelection.

 

But again this absolute insistence on forging a separate reality wherein America is far more right wing than it is does not help the conservative cause.  You guys really, really need to start taking the measure of the electorate, instead of yelling about socialism and loss of freedoms and non-existent tax hikes.  People aren't stupid, at least people who aren't blinded by ideological rage, and there aren't enough of those to win national elections.  

 

The entire Republican Convention was built around a willful, obvious and flagrant misreading of Obama's perfectly commonsensical remark that nobody in America makes it without our shared infrastructure, and no matter how self sufficient you are you didn't build the highways or the public schools or power grid.  Did you think no one would notice?  Romney is running around talking about Obama's mania for "redistribution" as if he had been caught waving the Communist Manifesto, when the kind of redistribution he was talking about Romney, and pretty much ever American, supports and has supported for years.  Did you think no one would figure that out?

 

Stop lying, all the time, about everything.  It's hurting your party.  This isn't an Ayn Rand fantasy world, and Obama is to the right of Nixon.  You're starting to come off as lunatics, and it's only going to get worse if you don't find a way to bring it back to earth, and base your message on something at least resembling the reality that, yes, most Americans can discern for themselves.

Which party are you posting about?

post #261 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Which party are you posting about?

 

Yeah, that reflexive "I know you are but what am I" is part of the problem.  Obama is not a socialist (he's barely a Democrat), science is not a liberal conspiracy, insurance industry controlled health care reform isn't a government takeover of anything, your rights aren't being taken away by jackbooted thugs, historically low tax rates are not somehow a new, intolerable burden that throttles growth, Obama is a citizen, popular, long standing federal programs are not the leading vanguard of a sinister plan to topple the US, black people aren't stealing elections by showing up at the polls and voting as someone else, brown people aren't stealing elections by showing up at the polls and voting as someone else, gay marriage is not an existential threat to the Republic (and hey, remember how repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell was going to bring the military to its knees?  Go figure), and mild observations like "You didn't build the highway that brings the trucks that stock your inventory" or "the kind of redistribution that is reflected in our very tax code is not the devil" are not declarations of allegiance to Marx (and are things that any honest Republican, were they to explicitly disavow in plain English that extended beyond smirking contempt, would get them immediately voted out of office).

 

The whole thing is a tissue of lies and distortions.  The whole thing.  The Ryan budget is a sham.  The math doesn't work, at all.  Romney makes the "flip-flopping" of Kerry look like fundamental truths etched in granite.

 

There's no there there, outside of an implacable animus against the federal government and a need to conceal what that actual entails, since those things are hugely unpopular.

 

But go on, play little games.  The Republican party is just hastening the day that demographics will inevitably deliver.  They are the party of aging white men, increasingly, who hate America as it is actually constituted.  And I completely hate that, because a shitty Republican Party makes for a shitty Democratic Party.  We need real debate, but all we get are insane fantasies of some kind of apocalypse because America was seduced by a slick, empty, cunning, foreign, socialist, fascist, lazy, feckless, relentless monster.  That's baby talk.  Stop being defensive about what's become of the party and work with reform minded people who still care about making things better instead of punishing the people they resent.

post #262 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

 

Yeah, that reflexive "I know you are but what am I" is part of the problem.  Obama is not a socialist (he's barely a Democrat), science is not a liberal conspiracy, insurance industry controlled health care reform isn't a government takeover of anything, your rights aren't being taken away by jackbooted thugs, historically low tax rates are not somehow a new, intolerable burden that throttles growth, Obama is a citizen, popular, long standing federal programs are not the leading vanguard of a sinister plan to topple the US, black people aren't stealing elections by showing up at the polls and voting as someone else, brown people aren't stealing elections by showing up at the polls and voting as someone else, gay marriage is not an existential threat to the Republic (and hey, remember how repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell was going to bring the military to its knees?  Go figure), and mild observations like "You didn't build the highway that brings the trucks that stock your inventory" or "the kind of redistribution that is reflected in our very tax code is not the devil" are not declarations of allegiance to Marx (and are things that any honest Republican, were they to explicitly disavow in plain English that extended beyond smirking contempt, would get them immediately voted out of office).

 

The whole thing is a tissue of lies and distortions.  The whole thing.  The Ryan budget is a sham.  The math doesn't work, at all.  Romney makes the "flip-flopping" of Kerry look like fundamental truths etched in granite.

 

There's no there there, outside of an implacable animus against the federal government and a need to conceal what that actual entails, since those things are hugely unpopular.

 

But go on, play little games.  The Republican party is just hastening the day that demographics will inevitably deliver.  They are the party of aging white men, increasingly, who hate America as it is actually constituted.  And I completely hate that, because a shitty Republican Party makes for a shitty Democratic Party.  We need real debate, but all we get are insane fantasies of some kind of apocalypse because America was seduced by a slick, empty, cunning, foreign, socialist, fascist, lazy, feckless, relentless monster.  That's baby talk.  Stop being defensive about what's become of the party and work with reform minded people who still care about making things better instead of punishing the people they resent.

Really? Rather I think your inability to see your side for what it is is the biggest part of the problem. You're blinded by partisanship. It's political tribalism, "The worst of us is better than the best of yours." 

post #263 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

Edit:  By the way, you should read this Dick Morris article. 

I remember we Democrats thinking the same kinds of things in 2004. "Undecided voters break for the challenger!" "They're oversampling Republicans!" It was all BS, and the polls were dead-on accurate, and Democrats who believed the BS took the loss that much harder. 

post #264 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

If the polls have the guy up, they are absolutely correct.  If they have him down, well, they are completely flawed.

 

Love it.

 

No, the polls are flawed when they are flawed.  I've shown (as has trump) specifically what the problems are.  Care to discuss that? 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I remember we Democrats thinking the same kinds of things in 2004. "Undecided voters break for the challenger!" "They're oversampling Republicans!" It was all BS, and the polls were dead-on accurate, and Democrats who believed the BS took the loss that much harder. 

 

Actually, 2004 was the one year where the votes didn't break as hard for the challenger.  They were closer to 50-50.  In every other election it's been closer to 80-20.  

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 #265 of 1062
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 #266 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

Actually, 2004 was the one year where the votes didn't break as hard for the challenger.  They were closer to 50-50.  In every other election it's been closer to 80-20.  

I'd like to see the evidence for that. Here's a complete analysis by Nate Silver from a few months ago. He shows definitively that it's not true.

 

Looking at his numbers, in 1980, voters went for Reagan in a lot higher numbers than the polls predicted, which is consistent with the "break for challengers" idea. But when Clinton beat Bush in 1992, it was a lot closer than the polls predicted (i.e., the votes broke for the incumbent). The votes also broke for the incumbent, in Clinton's favor this time, in 1996. In 1984, the polls were about right. There is no clear pattern of going for the challenger. And Silver has a bunch of data from smaller state-wide races that also show no challenger effect.

post #267 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

If the polls have the guy up, they are absolutely correct.  If they have him down, well, they are completely flawed.

 

Love it.

Ain't that the truth! If the polls show the Republican in the lead they're valid. If they don't well they're biased!lol.gif

 

Gotta love it.

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 #268 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Ain't that the truth! If the polls show the Republican in the lead they're valid. If they don't well they're biased!lol.gif

 

Gotta love it.

 

 

Wasn't Obama criticized for having attending elite liberal schools such as Harvard?  You know, the same school that Mittens attended but there are no calls of elitist liberal ism isms??

 

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 #269 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I'd like to see the evidence for that. Here's a complete analysis by Nate Silver from a few months ago. He shows definitively that it's not true.

 

Looking at his numbers, in 1980, voters went for Reagan in a lot higher numbers than the polls predicted, which is consistent with the "break for challengers" idea. But when Clinton beat Bush in 1992, it was a lot closer than the polls predicted (i.e., the votes broke for the incumbent). The votes also broke for the incumbent, in Clinton's favor this time, in 1996. In 1984, the polls were about right. There is no clear pattern of going for the challenger. And Silver has a bunch of data from smaller state-wide races that also show no challenger effect.

 

But Dick Morris said all the undecided would break to Romney, and Dick Morris is NEVER EVER WRONG EVER.

A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #270 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

Interesting take from Nate Silver on Rasmussen's poor performance in the '10 election, and the problems with their methodology in general.  They don't call cell phones (which at this point is almost laughable) and use a predetermined model of affiliation and voting likelihood, instead of going forth and asking people like the other guys.

 

If folks are feeling the other polls have a biased affiliation and likely voter model, they should consider that those numbers come from just that-- asking what party do you belong to and how likely are you to vote.  Sorry.

 

The whole problem with that piece is that having a bad cycle or even a less than average cycle does not prove bias. Silver claims bias but in no form or fashion proves it. An outcome doesn't prove bias. It might prove a problem with the methodology but that isn't the same as bias. Rasmussen does what it does as cost saving measures because it polls much more frequently than most other pollsters. Saying you have a problem with aspects of the methodology that are used to save costs doesn't prove BIAS. Even saying they broke towards Republicans in one cycle doesn't prove bias. Most telling is that throughout his "analysis" any pollster who had a results that over-estimated Republican performance had a "Republican-bias" and any poll that over-estimated Democratic performance "missed by ___ points."

 

That right there shows HIS bias.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

A pretty lucid takedown of biased poll talk from Nate Cohn.  I think anyone disagreeing needs to explain why, exactly, instead of just assuming that "pollsters want to throw the election" is just a common sense assertion of the obvious.  I'm guessing that at least some of the people claiming bias know full well they're blowing smoke, and plan to use this idea to delegitimize Obama's inevitable reelection.

 

But again this absolute insistence on forging a separate reality wherein America is far more right wing than it is does not help the conservative cause.  You guys really, really need to start taking the measure of the electorate, instead of yelling about socialism and loss of freedoms and non-existent tax hikes.  People aren't stupid, at least people who aren't blinded by ideological rage, and there aren't enough of those to win national elections.  

 

The entire Republican Convention was built around a willful, obvious and flagrant misreading of Obama's perfectly commonsensical remark that nobody in America makes it without our shared infrastructure, and no matter how self sufficient you are you didn't build the highways or the public schools or power grid.  Did you think no one would notice?  Romney is running around talking about Obama's mania for "redistribution" as if he had been caught waving the Communist Manifesto, when the kind of redistribution he was talking about Romney, and pretty much ever American, supports and has supported for years.  Did you think no one would figure that out?

 

Stop lying, all the time, about everything.  It's hurting your party.  This isn't an Ayn Rand fantasy world, and Obama is to the right of Nixon.  You're starting to come off as lunatics, and it's only going to get worse if you don't find a way to bring it back to earth, and base your message on something at least resembling the reality that, yes, most Americans can discern for themselves.

 

Really? You call that a lucid takedown? You must be delusional. Multiple articles have dug into the polls and have shown that they are being weighed more heavily Democratic. It isn't forging a separate reality. Exit polling for the major networks has been decidedly off. As Brussell mentioned, most Democrats thought Kerry would win the election based off the polling and also the network exit polls. They were the party who spent countless elections talking of hanging chads and rigged voting machines. The fed almost financing all U.S. Federal Debt purchases isn't a fantasy world either. The federal government spending one out of every four dollars in the economy, that isn't a fantasy either.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

Yeah, that reflexive "I know you are but what am I" is part of the problem.  Obama is not a socialist (he's barely a Democrat), science is not a liberal conspiracy, insurance industry controlled health care reform isn't a government takeover of anything, your rights aren't being taken away by jackbooted thugs, historically low tax rates are not somehow a new, intolerable burden that throttles growth, Obama is a citizen, popular, long standing federal programs are not the leading vanguard of a sinister plan to topple the US, black people aren't stealing elections by showing up at the polls and voting as someone else, brown people aren't stealing elections by showing up at the polls and voting as someone else, gay marriage is not an existential threat to the Republic (and hey, remember how repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell was going to bring the military to its knees?  Go figure), and mild observations like "You didn't build the highway that brings the trucks that stock your inventory" or "the kind of redistribution that is reflected in our very tax code is not the devil" are not declarations of allegiance to Marx (and are things that any honest Republican, were they to explicitly disavow in plain English that extended beyond smirking contempt, would get them immediately voted out of office).

 

The whole thing is a tissue of lies and distortions.  The whole thing.  The Ryan budget is a sham.  The math doesn't work, at all.  Romney makes the "flip-flopping" of Kerry look like fundamental truths etched in granite.

 

There's no there there, outside of an implacable animus against the federal government and a need to conceal what that actual entails, since those things are hugely unpopular.

 

But go on, play little games.  The Republican party is just hastening the day that demographics will inevitably deliver.  They are the party of aging white men, increasingly, who hate America as it is actually constituted.  And I completely hate that, because a shitty Republican Party makes for a shitty Democratic Party.  We need real debate, but all we get are insane fantasies of some kind of apocalypse because America was seduced by a slick, empty, cunning, foreign, socialist, fascist, lazy, feckless, relentless monster.  That's baby talk.  Stop being defensive about what's become of the party and work with reform minded people who still care about making things better instead of punishing the people they resent.

 

Perhaps you could add something besides calling everyone who disagrees with you a big liar.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I remember we Democrats thinking the same kinds of things in 2004. "Undecided voters break for the challenger!" "They're oversampling Republicans!" It was all BS, and the polls were dead-on accurate, and Democrats who believed the BS took the loss that much harder. 

 

Obviously we all won't know until November but the polls were all over the place from what I recall in 2010 and it seemed like everyone was trying to adjust and factor in what was clearly the tea party wave of support.

"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 #271 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

Interesting take from Nate Silver on Rasmussen's poor performance in the '10 election, and the problems with their methodology in general.  They don't call cell phones (which at this point is almost laughable) and use a predetermined model of affiliation and voting likelihood, instead of going forth and asking people like the other guys.

 

If folks are feeling the other polls have a biased affiliation and likely voter model, they should consider that those numbers come from just that-- asking what party do you belong to and how likely are you to vote.  Sorry.

 

The whole problem with that piece is that having a bad cycle or even a less than average cycle does not prove bias. Silver claims bias but in no form or fashion proves it. An outcome doesn't prove bias. It might prove a problem with the methodology but that isn't the same as bias. Rasmussen does what it does as cost saving measures because it polls much more frequently than most other pollsters. Saying you have a problem with aspects of the methodology that are used to save costs doesn't prove BIAS. Even saying they broke towards Republicans in one cycle doesn't prove bias. Most telling is that throughout his "analysis" any pollster who had a results that over-estimated Republican performance had a "Republican-bias" and any poll that over-estimated Democratic performance "missed by ___ points."

 

That right there shows HIS bias.

 

You guys may perhaps be talking about different kinds of bias. Any measurement methodology that produces as systematic (as opposed to random) error is biased by definition. But that does not necessarily imply intent on the part of the measurer - the other kind of bias that you are referring to if I am not mistaken.

post #272 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The whole problem with that piece is that having a bad cycle or even a less than average cycle does not prove bias. Silver claims bias but in no form or fashion proves it. An outcome doesn't prove bias. It might prove a problem with the methodology but that isn't the same as bias. Rasmussen does what it does as cost saving measures because it polls much more frequently than most other pollsters. Saying you have a problem with aspects of the methodology that are used to save costs doesn't prove BIAS. Even saying they broke towards Republicans in one cycle doesn't prove bias. Most telling is that throughout his "analysis" any pollster who had a results that over-estimated Republican performance had a "Republican-bias" and any poll that over-estimated Democratic performance "missed by ___ points."

 

That right there shows HIS bias.

 

You guys may perhaps be talking about different kinds of bias. Any measurement methodology that produces as systematic (as opposed to random) error is biased by definition. But that does not necessarily imply intent on the part of the measurer - the other kind of bias that you are referring to if I am not mistaken.

 

With reference to Mr. Silver being discussed there, he was quite decent for a short period of time. He was indeed trying to only point out bias associated with methodology for a bit and he termed such items "house effects" aka bias due to methodology. However something changed. At first he was merely ranking pollsters for accuracy and acting as a polling aggregator. First he started slipping his own political views into his posts and they were decidedly liberal.

 

The second issue was his transparency initiative and his own hypocrisy for which he has a giant blindspot in part because of his political views.

 

 

Quote:

Smoothing the poll results

At base Silver's method is similar to other analysts' approaches to taking advantage of the multiple polls that are conducted within each state: he averaged the polling results. But especially in the early months of the election season polling in many states is sparse and episodic. The "average" of polls over an extended period (perhaps several weeks) would not reveal the true state of voter preferences at the present time, nor provide an accurate forecast of the future. One approach to this problem was followed by Pollster.com: if enough polls were available, it computed a locally weighted moving average or LOESS.

 

However, while adopting such an approach in his own analysis, Silver reasoned that there was additional information available in polls from "similar" states that might help to fill the gaps in information about the trends in a given state. Accordingly, he adapted an approach that he had previously used in his baseball forecasting: using nearest neighbor analysis he first identified "most similar states" and then factored into his electoral projections for a given state the polling information from "similar states". He carried this approach one step further by also factoring national polling trends into the estimates for a given state. Thus, his projections were not simply based on the polling trends in a given state.

 

Furthermore, a basic intuition that Silver drew from his analysis of the 2008 Democratic party primary elections was that the voting history of a state or Congressional district provided clues to current voting. This is what allowed him to beat all the pollsters in his forecasts in the Democratic primaries in North Carolina and Indiana, for example.[24] Using such information allowed Silver to come up with estimates of the vote preferences even in states for which there were few if any polls. For his general election projections for each state, in addition to relying in the available polls in a given state and "similar states," Silver estimated a "538 regression" using historical voting information along with demographic characteristics of the states to create an estimate that he treated as a separate poll (equivalent to the actually available polls from that state). This approach helped to stabilize his projections, because if there were few if any polls in a given state, the state forecast was largely determined by the 538 regression estimate.

 

Additional aspects of the methodology are described in a detailed FAQ on the FiveThirtyEight.com website.[25]

 

 

Now notice what I just quoted above there. Signal earlier in this thread posted a link to a Silver criticism of Rasmussen. Let's see what one of his complaints was in that column.

 

Quote:
Rasmussen also weights their surveys based on preordained assumptions about the party identification of voters in each state, a relatively unusual practice that many polling firms consider dubious since party identification (unlike characteristics like age and gender) is often quite fluid.

 

Rasmussen using state demographics to try to improve poll outcomes is dubious and proof of bias. Silver does the same thing to try to improve his own reliability. In fact he doesn't even use the state demographics on polls to try to weigh them, he will borrow polls from other states and apply them in completely different states with similar demographics to try to improve his outcome.

 

Understand I don't have a problem with what Silver does there. It actually makes sense from the perspective of trying to be predictive. But the reality is that it isn't proof of bias in one instance and completely sound and professional in the other.

 

Then there is the Controversy in Pollster Rankings. Silver no longer ranked pollster based just on their performance. He added a requirements and made those requirements part of their rating for error.

 

The problem, Silver doesn't open his own database or hold himself to the standards he requires of the posters.

 

I think I've given two pretty clear examples above of my problem with Nate Silver. I have no doubt he will be accurate because it isn't hard to be so when you are given the latitude of adjusting your predictions all the way up until the day before the elections.

"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 #273 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 #274 of 1062

Please tell me we aren't going to end up with another religious nut in the White House!!! The most powerful nation (just) on earth shouldn't have anyone who thinks god talks to them in charge. If anything that should actually be a massive no no for standing in the first place! 

post #275 of 1062

Well, even Fox News polls show Obama in the lead.  Being pretty common knowledge that most of Fox' viewership represents the spectrum of anything between the "regular" right and the rabidly radical right, that says something about Obama.

 

Taking historical policy into consideration, Obama, a "democrat" is further to the right that both Reagan and Nixon. However, Conservatives need not worry  - they've got both parties. Some are just a bit antsy about the fact that the guy they want to portray as an enemy hangs the "democrat" label around his neck, which doesn't map onto what they have been taught: that "democrats" are "liberal" and the "opposition". Today, the democratic party as a whole (with a handful of exceptions) occupies an ideological space further to the right than the Republican Party of the 1970s, and relative to political positions throughout the rest of the world, the democrats are a 'center-right' party.

 

Perhaps the race card still applies: he's a black guy - and anti-black racism is still well entrenched in the US establishment, although anti-dark-Middle-Easterner racism - which got a kick start in the late 1940s is now the flavor  du jour, not only in DC but in "Middle America" as a whole.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #276 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Taking historical policy into consideration, Obama, a "democrat" is further to the right that both Reagan and Nixon. However, Conservatives need not worry  - they've got both parties. Some are just a bit antsy about the fact that the guy they want to portray as an enemy hangs the "democrat" label around his neck, which doesn't map onto what they have been taught: that "democrats" are "liberal" and the "opposition". Today, the democratic party as a whole (with a handful of exceptions) occupies an ideological space further to the right than the Republican Party of the 1970s, and relative to political positions throughout the rest of the world, the democrats are a 'center-right' party.

 

While I agree that there is scant difference between the parties in actual fact (all public rhetoric aside). I'm curious about what definitions of "right," "left," "conservative" and "liberal" you're using.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Perhaps the race card still applies: he's a black guy - and anti-black racism is still well entrenched in the US establishment...

 

Which "US establishment" are you speaking of?

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 #277 of 1062

So just generally how does Fox's polling fit into the biased poll narrative?  Are they in on it too?  Is Fox going to have to be denounced as part of the liberal media?  

post #278 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Ain't that the truth! If the polls show the Republican in the lead they're valid. If they don't well they're biased!lol.gif

 

Gotta love it.

 

 

Wasn't Obama criticized for having attending elite liberal schools such as Harvard?  You know, the same school that Mittens attended but there are no calls of elitist liberal ism isms??

Yeah but that's all different!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 #279 of 1062

Mitt Romney has about a 0% chance of winning.  First, he's a Mormon.  Second, he's a 'Wall Street' kind of guy.  Third, he's a Mormon.  Fourth, he has no charisma - at all.  Fifth, he's a Mormon. 

 

Mitt Romney isn't particularly likeable, he's hard to relate to for the average American, and the average beer swigging Joe is going to have a hard time voting for someone who belongs to an alternative religion (and won't swig beer with them). 

 

Obama likes beer, claims to be a normal Christian (whether or not he's a crypto-muslim), is likeable and has charisma.  Did I mention he likes beer? 
 

Edit - this is also key to Clinton's success.  People like him because he's approachable, likes good food and drink, and the average American can understand him cheating on his ugly wife... 

post #280 of 1062

Ann s worried about Mittens' mental health if he becomes president.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/29/us-usa-campaign-annromney-idUSBRE88S00820120929

 

 

Ann is worried about Mittens' mental health!

 

 

Ouch.

 

 

BTW way, good picture of Mitt watching people playing soccer.  He cannot connect because the ball doesn't make money (at this level),

 

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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Mitt Romney is Going to Win