Decision 2012
November 4th, 2012 at 8:46:54 PM
permalink
Quote: 24BingoThey were booing him, weren't they?
So what?
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
November 4th, 2012 at 8:56:12 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potusWe just need to find the point that results in the maximum government revenues.
I am confused by this statement. Why is maximizing government revenue the goal of a democratic taxation policy?
November 4th, 2012 at 8:59:49 PM
permalink
Because it looks like the maximum's still in the negative region.
The trick to poker is learning not to beat yourself up for your mistakes too much, and certainly not too little, but just the right amount.
November 4th, 2012 at 9:20:21 PM
permalink
The "negative region" has nothing to do with the intent to maximize government revenue. If government tax revenue maximization is the appropriate goal, it wouldn't matter whether we were in a deficit or surplus situation.
The statement on its face makes no sense under a democratic form of government. Why would self governed people want to maximize the amount of their wealth that they give to the government via taxation?
The statement on its face makes no sense under a democratic form of government. Why would self governed people want to maximize the amount of their wealth that they give to the government via taxation?
November 4th, 2012 at 11:28:37 PM
permalink
The Redskins Rule Favors Romney...
"In the 18 presidential elections that have taken place since the Redskins moved to Washington in 1937, 17 have been predicted by the team's performance in its final home game prior to the election."
"If the Redskins win at home, the incumbent party usually wins the presidential election. If the Redskins lose at home, the challenger usually prevails."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2012/11/04/nfl-redskins-rule-romney/1681023/
Since the pollsters are all over the place, maybe we should move on to some of the other indicators out there...
I'm still convinced of only one thing--the race is too close for anyone to really know how it will end. Sure, it could go the President's way because his path seems easier based on polling, but he is not nearly as popular now as he was in 2008 and his record is just not impressive when placed alongside his promises before being elected. Romney was just about dead in the water until the President failed to show up for the first debate and gave Romney a huge lift that has abated some but is still there.
Polls are polls--we'll see what happens when people actually vote. Do you answer the phone when strangers call? I don't...ever. I will listen to messages they leave, but I am so tired of robocalls and pollsters of all sorts that I never take calls if I don't recognize the number. How many people are like that? How good are the samples in any poll? This election comes down to the number of folks each person gets to the voting booth.
"In the 18 presidential elections that have taken place since the Redskins moved to Washington in 1937, 17 have been predicted by the team's performance in its final home game prior to the election."
"If the Redskins win at home, the incumbent party usually wins the presidential election. If the Redskins lose at home, the challenger usually prevails."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2012/11/04/nfl-redskins-rule-romney/1681023/
Since the pollsters are all over the place, maybe we should move on to some of the other indicators out there...
I'm still convinced of only one thing--the race is too close for anyone to really know how it will end. Sure, it could go the President's way because his path seems easier based on polling, but he is not nearly as popular now as he was in 2008 and his record is just not impressive when placed alongside his promises before being elected. Romney was just about dead in the water until the President failed to show up for the first debate and gave Romney a huge lift that has abated some but is still there.
Polls are polls--we'll see what happens when people actually vote. Do you answer the phone when strangers call? I don't...ever. I will listen to messages they leave, but I am so tired of robocalls and pollsters of all sorts that I never take calls if I don't recognize the number. How many people are like that? How good are the samples in any poll? This election comes down to the number of folks each person gets to the voting booth.
November 5th, 2012 at 4:28:01 AM
permalink
"It appears that CBS News decided not to air politically damaging video clips which show that President Barack Obama had knowledge the Libya attacks were a planned and coordinated action by terrorist groups, and not the result of spontaneous protests stemming from an anti-Muslim video on YouTube."
Quoting President Obama...
"You're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt, and my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start."
http://www.examiner.com/article/unreleased-video-shows-obama-admitting-benghazi-attack-was-planned
I don't get it. Why did the President's UN Ambassador and others work so hard to make it sound like the video caused the whole problem when it is apparent that they knew other forces were at work?
Why did CBS not air this information when they had it on 9/12 and could have used it at any point to refute the administration's position on the matter?
Quoting President Obama...
"You're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt, and my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start."
http://www.examiner.com/article/unreleased-video-shows-obama-admitting-benghazi-attack-was-planned
I don't get it. Why did the President's UN Ambassador and others work so hard to make it sound like the video caused the whole problem when it is apparent that they knew other forces were at work?
Why did CBS not air this information when they had it on 9/12 and could have used it at any point to refute the administration's position on the matter?
November 5th, 2012 at 5:49:53 AM
permalink
Quote: ParadigmI am confused by this statement. Why is maximizing government revenue the goal of a democratic taxation policy?
Ummm...because it facilitates the fastest possible repayment of our incredibly tall mountain of debt?
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
November 5th, 2012 at 7:33:37 AM
permalink
Ummmmm.........so doesn't eliminating all government expenditures immediately, your goal is just as ridiculous as that one.
November 5th, 2012 at 7:42:59 AM
permalink
Quote: ParadigmUmmmmm.........so doesn't eliminating all government expenditures immediately, your goal is just as ridiculous as that one.
So you don't think the laffer curve is valid?
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
November 5th, 2012 at 11:25:08 AM
permalink
Final polls:
Rasmussen: R 49% O 48%
Gallup: R 49% O 48%
Gallup Swing States: R 48% O 48%
RCP even has it 49-49, which I don't
endorse, but it has to be devastating
to the Obama camp.
Undecideds will fall a min of 75% to
Romney. Even CNN is scratching
their pointy heads and reporting that
Republicans are on fire in places like
OH and PA to vote for Romney. Not
against Obama, but actually for Romney.
They can give 10 reasons for this, and
the average Obama voter will say they're
voting against Romney, rather than voting
for Obama.
This is never a good sign for an incumbent.
Rasmussen: R 49% O 48%
Gallup: R 49% O 48%
Gallup Swing States: R 48% O 48%
RCP even has it 49-49, which I don't
endorse, but it has to be devastating
to the Obama camp.
Undecideds will fall a min of 75% to
Romney. Even CNN is scratching
their pointy heads and reporting that
Republicans are on fire in places like
OH and PA to vote for Romney. Not
against Obama, but actually for Romney.
They can give 10 reasons for this, and
the average Obama voter will say they're
voting against Romney, rather than voting
for Obama.
This is never a good sign for an incumbent.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
November 5th, 2012 at 11:29:03 AM
permalink
" This is never a good sign for an incumbent. " With the economy in the shitter, it is amazing Mitt can not do any better than this.
And if Obama wins, the Republican party leaders will blame the salesman and not the product !
And if Obama wins, the Republican party leaders will blame the salesman and not the product !
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
November 5th, 2012 at 11:54:14 AM
permalink
Quote: BuzzardWith the economy in the shitter, it is amazing Mitt can not do any better than this.
!
Not really. In the final Gallup poll in 1980, they
had Carter 44 and Reagan 41. The outcome
was Reagan 51 and Carter 41.
People were saying the same thing before the
election as you're saying. The economy is so
bad, Carter is so lousy, how come Reagan isn't
way ahead? An incumbent has a huge advantage
in every election that every challenger has to
overcome. He really has to stink to lose.
Bush Sr would have been re-elected if Perot hadn't
stolen most of his edge. Many final polls had Perot
winning.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
November 5th, 2012 at 11:55:37 AM
permalink
Romney will win with 320 electoral votes or more.
The weakness of most polls is psychology. Tea Party voters are still angry and will turnout in numbers close to 2010. Consequently more Republicans will turnout than they did in 2008.. The partisan turnout looks like it will be +2 to +4 for republicans. Many statisticians are averaging the turnouts of 2004 with 2008 in order to estimate the expected partisan turnout. However, simply averaging the voter turnout for 2004 and 2008 only skews the data. You can't create an average in order to estimate voter turnout. The correct method is to estimate the MOST LIKELY voter turnout by looking more closely at voter psychology. Another method that would be more effective would be to follow the trend of voting over the last ten years. The trend is upward towards more republicans turning out if you were to plot the line. Averaging simply prevents a poll from looking like an outlier when compared to other polls in the end.
I also suspect that many statisticians are not using the correct job numbers in order to predict the election. The actual unemployment numbers are far higher than what's being reported, since many have fallen out of the system. Blacks in particular have a much higher unemployment rate, which will likely lead to a much lower voter turnout among democrats.
-Keyser
The weakness of most polls is psychology. Tea Party voters are still angry and will turnout in numbers close to 2010. Consequently more Republicans will turnout than they did in 2008.. The partisan turnout looks like it will be +2 to +4 for republicans. Many statisticians are averaging the turnouts of 2004 with 2008 in order to estimate the expected partisan turnout. However, simply averaging the voter turnout for 2004 and 2008 only skews the data. You can't create an average in order to estimate voter turnout. The correct method is to estimate the MOST LIKELY voter turnout by looking more closely at voter psychology. Another method that would be more effective would be to follow the trend of voting over the last ten years. The trend is upward towards more republicans turning out if you were to plot the line. Averaging simply prevents a poll from looking like an outlier when compared to other polls in the end.
I also suspect that many statisticians are not using the correct job numbers in order to predict the election. The actual unemployment numbers are far higher than what's being reported, since many have fallen out of the system. Blacks in particular have a much higher unemployment rate, which will likely lead to a much lower voter turnout among democrats.
-Keyser
November 5th, 2012 at 11:59:20 AM
permalink
Quote: KeyserBlacks in particular have a much higher unemployment rate, which will likely lead to a much lower voter turnout among democrats.
-Keyser
Well, if they're unemployed, they don't have to take off from work to vote...
Each of us is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.
Preparing for a fight about your bad decision is not as smart as making a good decision.
November 5th, 2012 at 12:03:23 PM
permalink
Correct. You can also convince them to vote by telling them JayZ or Beyounce is going to be at the voting station. If you did that then you'd have many of them voting off and on all day.
November 5th, 2012 at 12:06:15 PM
permalink
Quote: KeyserCorrect. You can also convince them to vote by telling them JayZ or Beyounce is going to be at the voting station. If you did that then you'd have many of them voting off and on all day.
And if Beyonce was at the polling station, that wouldn't make you go? Christ, I'd go and then forget what I went for...:-)
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
November 5th, 2012 at 12:09:17 PM
permalink
Quote: KeyserCorrect. You can also convince them to vote by telling them JayZ or Beyounce is going to be at the voting station. If you did that then you'd have many of them voting off and on all day.
Gee--maybe you need to have Toby Keith and a keg of PBR at every polling station to get the trailer parks to vote, as long as we're being stereotypical.
Each of us is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.
Preparing for a fight about your bad decision is not as smart as making a good decision.
November 5th, 2012 at 12:14:55 PM
permalink
Quote: FarFromVegasGee--maybe you need to have Toby Keith and a keg of PBR
Do they even make PBR anymore? Its Coors Lite at the
trailer parks anyway..
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
November 5th, 2012 at 12:18:07 PM
permalink
I think many of them are feeling a bit disillusioned, since Obama didn't give them enough of "his stash" and since he didn't buy them that mansion or new car that they thought they would be getting if he was elected the first time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
A correction, I believe that he did give them all phones. Maybe the phone will lead them to believe that they will get more of "his stash" if they vote for him again. Remember this clip? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio&feature=player_embedded
A correction, I believe that he did give them all phones. Maybe the phone will lead them to believe that they will get more of "his stash" if they vote for him again. Remember this clip? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio&feature=player_embedded
November 5th, 2012 at 12:24:25 PM
permalink
Quote: Keyser
A correction, I believe that he did give them all phones.
He didn't even do that. The free phone program
was started under Bush. It was one of Obama's
czar's that started calling them 'Obama phones',
giving the impression it was Obama that thought
up the program.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
November 5th, 2012 at 12:27:28 PM
permalink
I don't recall mentioning the validity of the Laffer Curve.
You said that "we" need to find the point that maximizes government revenue. I simply questioned that "goal" as appropriate.
Then you brought up "paying down massive debt" as your support for this revenue maximization goal but there are many ways to pay down debt. Why is maximizing government revenue the stated goal?
You said that "we" need to find the point that maximizes government revenue. I simply questioned that "goal" as appropriate.
Then you brought up "paying down massive debt" as your support for this revenue maximization goal but there are many ways to pay down debt. Why is maximizing government revenue the stated goal?
November 5th, 2012 at 12:29:56 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobFinal polls:
RCP even has it 49-49, which I don't
endorse, but it has to be devastating
to the Obama camp.
Currently at Pinnacle:
Obama -361
Romney +314
I think the Obama camp is going to be all right, Bob. But thanks for your concern.
Oscar
November 5th, 2012 at 12:34:29 PM
permalink
Psychology is what's missing.
November 5th, 2012 at 12:36:16 PM
permalink
RCP "even"? RCP is an openly biased source, so most of the Obama camp will be thrilled by them reporting a tie. Regardless, despite your magical thinking, popular vote is only an indicator - even you yourself have admitted a one-percent gap can be overcome.
The trick to poker is learning not to beat yourself up for your mistakes too much, and certainly not too little, but just the right amount.
November 5th, 2012 at 12:48:03 PM
permalink
@Evenbob,
Have you noticed that nobody is proudly defending and stating why we should be voting for Obama here? Most people are ashamed to admit that they voted for him the first time.
Now, where are all of the proud democrats?
Have you noticed that nobody is proudly defending and stating why we should be voting for Obama here? Most people are ashamed to admit that they voted for him the first time.
Now, where are all of the proud democrats?
November 5th, 2012 at 12:54:05 PM
permalink
Evenbob " The outcome
was Reagan 51 and Carter 41."
Well, let's see what this final result is . Just if Obama wins, the Republican party would be better off questioning the product, rather
than Mitt the salesman.
was Reagan 51 and Carter 41."
Well, let's see what this final result is . Just if Obama wins, the Republican party would be better off questioning the product, rather
than Mitt the salesman.
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
November 5th, 2012 at 12:59:22 PM
permalink
Quote: Keyser@Evenbob,
Have you noticed that nobody is proudly defending and stating why we should be voting for Obama here?
I've been trying to get somebody to give me
just one reason to re-elect Obama for months
here and it still hasn't happened. Just one. Just
one lousy reason, and I got bupkis.
So that means nobody is voting for Obama, they're
all voting against Romney. This happened in 1980,
exactly the same thing. Traditionally, this almost
never bodes well for the incumbent, when nobody
is voting for him, but against his opponent. It makes
for a very unenthusiastic elecorate on the the incumbents
side.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
November 5th, 2012 at 1:01:45 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobHe didn't even do that. The free phone program
was started under Bush Reagan. It was one of Obama's
czar's that started calling them 'Obama phones',
giving the impression it was Obama that thought
up the program.
FTFY
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
November 5th, 2012 at 1:02:21 PM
permalink
There is no such thing as a good President. It is absurd that one office should hold so much influence on so many people over so much area. Anyone who votes "for" their candidate is deluded.
The trick to poker is learning not to beat yourself up for your mistakes too much, and certainly not too little, but just the right amount.
November 5th, 2012 at 1:05:53 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobI've been trying to get somebody to give me
just one reason to re-elect Obama for months
here and it still hasn't happened. Just one. Just
one lousy reason, and I got bupkis.
So that means nobody is voting for Obama, they're
all voting against Romney. This happened in 1980,
exactly the same thing. Traditionally, this almost
never bodes well for the incumbent, when nobody
is voting for him, but against his opponent. It makes
for a very unenthusiastic elecorate on the the incumbents
side.
Here's one. Because my one vote in Colorado might cause Mitt to lose. Yes, I hated the Olympics too. What a waste of taxpayer
money. And Mitt will close loopholes . Yeah, like that will happen. Only good thing would be once a Republican is President, the deficit won't matter anymore. Just like with Bush.
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
November 5th, 2012 at 1:12:11 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobI've been trying to get somebody to give me
just one reason to re-elect Obama for months
here and it still hasn't happened. Just one. Just
one lousy reason, and I got bupkis.
So that means nobody is voting for Obama, they're
all voting against Romney. This happened in 1980,
exactly the same thing. Traditionally, this almost
never bodes well for the incumbent, when nobody
is voting for him, but against his opponent. It makes
for a very unenthusiastic elecorate on the the incumbents
side.
After what Romney did to Massachussetts I can imagine people voting against him. But he did sign a permanent assault weapons ban, which makes those NRA ads so head-scratchingly bizarre. Just how is Obama chipping away at 2nd Amendment rights, anyway? Gun sales are up and he's loosened some regulations rather than tightening any. It's pretty hilarious when preconceived notions clash with reality.
Each of us is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.
Preparing for a fight about your bad decision is not as smart as making a good decision.
November 5th, 2012 at 1:13:03 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potusQuote: EvenBobHe didn't even do that. The free phone program
was started under Bush Reagan. It was one of Obama's
czar's that started calling them 'Obama phones',
giving the impression it was Obama that thought
up the program.
FTFY
Reagan didn't give away phones, he gave away
discounts on landline service. Bush was the one
who started giving away phones. Tracfone was
the first company involved.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
November 5th, 2012 at 1:15:12 PM
permalink
I wonder what cabinet position Obama is going to offer Romney?
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
November 5th, 2012 at 1:16:25 PM
permalink
Quote: FarFromVegasGun sales are up and he's loosened some regulations rather than tightening any.
In his lame duck term, the gloves would come off.
Obama is no gun lover. He comes from IL, which
has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
November 5th, 2012 at 1:18:29 PM
permalink
Quote: Keyser@Evenbob,
Have you noticed that nobody is proudly defending and stating why we should be voting for Obama here? Most people are ashamed to admit that they voted for him the first time.
Now, where are all of the proud democrats?
I am absolutely a proud Democrat.
I'm a social issues voter though. I feel like neither party's economic policies will have much of an effect on my wallet. The economy is going to continue to cycle pretty much as it always has. However, I'm not a fan of the bigotry and small-mindedness of the Republican party. I also find Republicans' obsession with vaginas to be disturbing. And a party that associates itself with nutbags like Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum will never get my vote.
Ding Dong the Witch is Dead
November 5th, 2012 at 1:24:53 PM
permalink
Quote: ams288I feel like neither party's economic policies will have much of an effect on my wallet. .
Thats because you don't live in an area where
the EPA reg's that Obama is signing is putting
a stranglehold on the coal industry, among
others. Obama has been regulating us into a
3rd world country for almost 4 years. How
many jobs did he kill with no Keystone Pipeline?
Look at this: http://washingtonexaminer.com/november-surprise-epa-planning-major-post-election-anti-coal-regulation/article/2512538#.UJgud3I_Ep5
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
November 5th, 2012 at 1:26:35 PM
permalink
Quote: ams288I'm not a fan of the bigotry and small-mindedness of the Republican party. I also find Republicans' obsession with vaginas to be disturbing. And a party that associates itself with nutbags like Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum will never get my vote.
To what obsession with vaginas are you referring? What small mindedness?
Just an FYI, on average the republican voter tends to be better educated and well informed than the average
democrat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio&feature=player_embedded
November 5th, 2012 at 1:28:51 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobUndecideds will fall a min of 75% to
Romney.
You just continue to repeat the same non-sense over and over. You are relying on an outdated model from the 80's. Pre-24/7 news cycles. Pre-internet. A time, and I would argue a better time, when presidential campaigns where not 2 years or in the case of Mr Romney 4 years in the making. It's a different era. A presidential challenger is no longer an unknown. The electorate knows just as much about Mr Romney as they do about Mr Obama and if they are still undecided at this point, there are things they don't like about Mr Romney just as well as things they don't like about the president. The split will be much more even. I am not sure why you are so resistant to realizing that times and models are/have changed. You either adapt or you are left behind. Are you still using a rotary phone Bob? Still using your VCR? Listening to your 8 track player? lol
One other thing that I find interesting is that not one single poll mentions Gary Johnson. Mr Johnson is polling 2-3% nationally and even 4-5% in Colorado. So those polls that are tie 48-48, really don't have 4% undecided. They have 1% undecided and 3% that are voting for Johnson or Virgil Goode in Virginia or some other 3rd party candidate. there are no undecides at this point, Bob. :)
And finally, you keep talking about the popular vote as if it means something. If it will soften your blow, and make your loss seem more tolerable, you and the repubs can have the popular vote, Bob, but you are not getting the electoral vote, and that's how we elect a president. :)
November 5th, 2012 at 1:31:16 PM
permalink
Quote: kewljYou just continue to repeat the same non-sense over and over.
We'll see if its nonsense in about 36 hours.
Be patient.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
November 5th, 2012 at 1:34:58 PM
permalink
Quote: BuzzardWell, let's see what this final result is . Just if Obama wins, the Republican party would be better off questioning the product, rather than Mitt the salesman.
I think Romney ran a good campaign, all things considered, and if he loses, it's where the country is at right now: so I agree with you.
Lack of prior planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on my part.
November 5th, 2012 at 1:36:40 PM
permalink
The polls show Romney winning the independents by 22% . Maybe more.
November 5th, 2012 at 1:38:49 PM
permalink
What we need to address now is how are we going to deal with the riots, that will surely happen, if Romney wins.
Look out Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, and LA.
Look out Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, and LA.
November 5th, 2012 at 1:44:40 PM
permalink
Quote: rxwineI wonder what cabinet position Obama is going to offer Romney?
Secretary of Business? :-)
He'd be really smart to offer one to Christie, too.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
November 5th, 2012 at 1:44:49 PM
permalink
Quote: KeyserWhat we need to address now is how are we going to deal with the riots, that will surely happen, if Romney wins.
.
I'm not seeing that. The enthusiasm is really down
in minority communities. Obama has done nothing
that he said he was going to do for minorities, and
they resent it.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
November 5th, 2012 at 1:47:48 PM
permalink
Evenbob,
You're right about the motivation. But you have to recognize that this president has divided the country like no other. If Romney wins, then the blacks will likely riot. I'm sure you've seen the videos and have read the twitter quotes.
You're right about the motivation. But you have to recognize that this president has divided the country like no other. If Romney wins, then the blacks will likely riot. I'm sure you've seen the videos and have read the twitter quotes.
November 5th, 2012 at 1:48:06 PM
permalink
Quote: KeyserThe polls show Romney winning the independents by 22% . Maybe more.
And yet still trailing in total. Math is amazing.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
November 5th, 2012 at 1:49:08 PM
permalink
Is anyone else disturbed by today's gallup release. For the last 3 weeks, their polls have consistently shown Mr Romney ahead by 5 to as many as 7 points. They were so far out of line from other reputable organizations, that they began to take on the image of an outlier. (a poll out of touch with all the others). Now after taking a week break, due to Hurricane Sandy, they come out the day before the election releasing not 1 but 2 polls, which completely contradict their position of only a week ago and are now in line with everyone else that this is a close election.
What is really troubling to me, is the 2 polls released. Likely voters: Romney 49-48. Registered voters Obama 49-46. Why do I get the feeling that no matter who wins they will point to their final poll and claim to have gotten it right. lol I think this organization has lost credibility of late.
What is really troubling to me, is the 2 polls released. Likely voters: Romney 49-48. Registered voters Obama 49-46. Why do I get the feeling that no matter who wins they will point to their final poll and claim to have gotten it right. lol I think this organization has lost credibility of late.
November 5th, 2012 at 1:50:20 PM
permalink
In the business of polling you have account for what your competitors polling may show because nobody wants to be the outlier. All polls will tighten come election time. Even Gallup.
November 5th, 2012 at 1:56:48 PM
permalink
Quote: KeyserWhat we need to address now is how are we going to deal with the riots, that will surely happen, if Romney wins.
Look out Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, and LA.
Hopefully, this is satire, not stupidity ?
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
November 5th, 2012 at 1:58:35 PM
permalink
Numerous indicators show that it's a very real possibility.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio&feature=player_embedded
