Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: blacken700 on November 01, 2012, 04:48:45 AM
-
Conservative pollster Scott Rasmussen just completed an interview with Sean Hannity on FOX news.
Sean Hannity asked the GOP leaning Rasmussen about the chances that Romney could win PA, MI and/or MN. Rasmussen called such a move quote... "Republican fantasies!"
sorry mchannity. LET THE SPINNING BEGIN :D :D
-
-
"If you had to pick who will be the next president, who will it be?"
Rasmussen: I have absolutely no idea.
Yet, idiots like blacken believe they know.
-
"If you had to pick who will be the next president, who will it be?"
Rasmussen: I have absolutely no idea.
Yet, idiots like blacken believe they know.
Based on all Aggregate Data, Obama has an 80 percent chance of winning and Romney 20 percent. Probability is a pretty good predictor of what will happen. Rasmussen is just a pollster and his polls do favor Obama, but he is not trying to predict probability nor is he gathering ALL Data from his competition (All other Pollsters) and interpreting the data.
Those are the facts.
-
"If you had to pick who will be the next president, who will it be?"
Rasmussen: I have absolutely no idea.
Yet, idiots like blacken believe they know.
this coming from a guy who believes in talking snakes :D :D :D :D
-
Conservative pollster Scott Rasmussen just completed an interview with Sean Hannity on FOX news.
Sean Hannity asked the GOP leaning Rasmussen about the chances that Romney could win PA, MI and/or MN. Rasmussen called such a move quote... "Republican fantasies!"
sorry mchannity. LET THE SPINNING BEGIN :D :D
I don't think there was any doubt that MI, Penn and/or MN were in play for Romney.
Those aren't really the states that are in play.
I don't get what you're trying to prove with your post. This was pretty common knowledge.
-
Based on all Aggregate Data, Obama has an 80 percent chance of winning and Romney 20 percent. Probability is a pretty good predictor of what will happen. Rasmussen is just a pollster and his polls do favor Obama, but he is not trying to predict probability nor is he gathering ALL Data from his competition (All other Pollsters) and interpreting the data.
Those are the facts.
Really....Rasmussen Reports
10/28 - 10/30 1500 LV 3.0 R49 - O47
-
He could pick off Penn but the state has a habit of looking good until the all the welfare cases around the major cities vote. The rest of the state is pretty Red. They're pouring money into them right now to dilute Obama elswhere. Ohio is the prize.
-
I don't think there was any doubt that MI, Penn and/or MN were in play for Romney.
Those aren't really the states that are in play.
I don't get what you're trying to prove with your post. This was pretty common knowledge.
maybe to you,you better let the rest of your party know ;D
-
maybe to you,you better let the rest of your party know ;D
I'm pretty sure everyone knows.
What Scott Rasmussen is saying isn't at all shocking in the least. It's aucune to some other pollster telling Democrats that MO or Texas are Democrat fantasies.
-
And when you get down to it...
With 5 days left until the election it really doesn't matter what the polls are saying for either candidate. People have made up their minds, in large part, and the true undecideds historically go for the challenger.
Unless something really huge happens to either campaign the race is what it is until Nov. 6th.
-
Really....Rasmussen Reports
10/28 - 10/30 1500 LV 3.0 R49 - O47
Again, this is not an aggregate of data. Just one pollster. To get a working probability, you must include ALL data and ALL polls from ALL sources.
-
Again, this is not an aggregate of data. Just one pollster. To get a working probability, you must include ALL data and ALL polls from ALL sources.
It would also help to take a look at poll composition.
A poll that has Obama up by 2 but has a D -37 / R 30 / Ind 25 split is kinda misleading.
-
It would also help to take a look at poll composition.
A poll that has Obama up by 2 but has a D -37 / R 30 / Ind 25 split is kinda misleading.
Which is what Nate Silver certainly takes into account. His model is dead on accurate and contains all data. I feel bad for Republicans who are not aware of all the data out there. I don`t know if they are just unaware, if they willingly keep themselves from the data or if the people they listen to shelter them from it.
Mitt Romney has about a 20 percent chance of winning when all models are run. 20 percent is not that great.
-
Which is what Nate Silver certainly takes into account. His model is dead on accurate and contains all data. I feel bad for Republicans who are not aware of all the data out there. I don`t know if they are just unaware, if they willingly keep themselves from the data or if the people they listen to shelter them from it.
Mitt Romney has about a 20 percent chance of winning when all models are run. 20 percent is not that great.
I feel bad for Democrats, who think these oversampled polls (used by Silver and others), mean Obama has this wrapped up. They keep assuming that they will replicate the turnout from 2008, despite all the signs that say that such ain't happening. In fact, they'd have to EXCEED that turnout for Obama to win by the margin that some of these polls have. GOOD LUCK!!
Fewer voters this year say they are thinking about election, will definitely vote
by Jeffrey M. Jones
PRINCETON, NJ -- Key Gallup indicators of voter turnout, collected prior to superstorm Sandy, suggest voter turnout will fall short of what it was in 2004 and 2008. U.S. registered voters report giving less thought to the election, and are less likely to rate their chance of voting as a "10" on a 10-point scale, than in 2004 and 2008, two higher-turnout elections. However, the 2012 figures are higher than in 1996 and 2000, two lower-turnout elections.
The questions are two of the seven that factor into Gallup's likely voter model. The model assesses individual respondents' likelihood of voting by asking about current voting intentions and past voting behavior. "Election thought" and the 10-point "likelihood of voting scale" are the two questions that focus on current voting intentions and show the most variation from election to election.
As the above chart indicates, in years like 1992, 2004, and 2008 when turnout was greater, more registered voters have tended to say they are giving at least some thought to the election, and to rate their likelihood of voting as high as possible. The percentages on these questions were lower in both 1996 and 2000, when proportionately fewer Americans voted.
Thus, the current data suggest turnout could fall in between the lower levels of 1996 and 2000 and the higher levels of 2004 and 2008.
The current results are based on Gallup Daily election tracking from Oct. 15-28. Voters' thought given to the election and voting intentions often increase closer to Election Day. However, superstorm Sandy has overtaken the election campaign as the dominant news event in recent days, which could in turn affect voters' attention to the campaign and voting intentions.......
http://www.gallup.com/poll/158435/voter-turnout-likely-fall-short-2004-2008.aspx
Romney is beating Obama soundly with independents, with men, and has closed the gap with female voters (last national poll I saw had them about tied with women). And he's up on the president on what's supposed to be the Dems' big weapon: Early Voting.
But, don't take my word for it:
Colorado Republicans lead Democrats in early voting with 1.1 million ballots cast
With less than a week to go before Election Day, about 1.1 million Colorado voters have already turned in ballots, according to state election data released Wednesday.
Registered Republicans in the state were slightly ahead of Democrats in casting mail-in ballots. The statewide tally of 1,150,698 includes 439,269 Republican; 404,870 Democrats; and 295,122 independents.
The total early tab in Denver was 119,419, with 68,204 Democrats having voted, compared to 21,483 Republicans. The unaffiliated count in Denver was 28,099.
Jefferson County residents had tabulated the most early ballots statewide, with a total of 153,072. In Jefferson County, Republican voters have edged out Democrats by a count of 58,151 to 51,991;
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_21897135/colorado-republicans-lead-democrats-early-voting-1-1
And, it ain't looking too hot in Ohio, either
http://washingtonexaminer.com/crucial-early-votes-for-obama-lagging-in-ohio-stronghold/article/2512270#.UJJP0sXA_Ls
Regarding PA, MI, and MN, as usual, ID Crisis Boy is late to the party. I've seen Rasmussen's comments already; so this is hardly news.
The mere fact, that these states are even in play this late, shows the degree of trouble in which Obama finds himself (notwithstanding the fact that Romney doesn't need any of these states to win). Obama should have nailed these states shut MONTHS AGO.
Obama's plunge in the EC maps (even on the uber-left Huffington post, which has him at 259 now, when he was well over 300 just a month ago) pretty much tells the story.
Throw in Gallup that has Romney at 50% or higher, since mid-October (every challenger that has hit that mark has won), and you hardly have a scenario in which Romney as a mere 20% of winning.
-
Which is what Nate Silver certainly takes into account. His model is dead on accurate and contains all data. I feel bad for Republicans who are not aware of all the data out there. I don`t know if they are just unaware, if they willingly keep themselves from the data or if the people they listen to shelter them from it.
Mitt Romney has about a 20 percent chance of winning when all models are run. 20 percent is not that great.
You're doing yourself a disservice by putting all your eggs in Nate Silvers basket.
-
You're doing yourself a disservice by putting all your eggs in Nate Silvers basket.
Its not HIS basket. Its the aggregate data. Other sites who run the same data are reaching the exact same numbers as well. Romney has a statistical chance of 20 percent of winning. Those are not the greatest odds at all.
-
Its not HIS basket. Its the aggregate data. Other sites who run the same data are reaching the exact same numbers as well. Romney has a statistical chance of 20 percent of winning. Those are not the greatest odds at all.
VIRGINIA EARLY VOTE: New numbers even more troubling for Obama (Cook Political Report)
Twitter ^ | 11/01/12 | Dave Wasserman
Posted on Thursday, November 01, 2012 9:55:46 AM by TonyInOhio
I've been following Dave Wasserman of Cook Political Report on Twitter. He has been updating the tallies of the early vote in Virginia, and what he is finding is more and more bad news for Obama:
VIRGINIA EARLY VOTE: Today's new 10/31 numbers even more troubling for Obama. His best counties way off '08 pace
VIRGINIA EARLY VOTE: Turnout down 13.6% in Obama '08 localities, vs. just 1.1% in McCain '08 (statewide down 9.2%)
VIRGINIA EARLY VOTE 10/31: 185,489 ballots cast in Obama localities (214,783 by this pt. in '08), 115,908 in McCain (117,224 in '08)
VIRGINIA EARLY VOTE: Even more worrisome for O...in Kerry '04 localities (hardcore D places), turnout -18.1% vs. '08 (only -1.7% in Bush)
VIRGINIA EARLY VOTE: Obama strongholds Arlington -20.0%, Fairfax - 20.9%, Richmond -13.7% (vs. just -9.2% statewide). Hmm..
-
Anybody who disagrees with Karl Rove is obviously in on some sort of conspiracy.
-
VIRGINIA EARLY VOTE: New numbers even more troubling for Obama (Cook Political Report)
Twitter ^ | 11/01/12 | Dave Wasserman
Posted on Thursday, November 01, 2012 9:55:46 AM by TonyInOhio
I've been following Dave Wasserman of Cook Political Report on Twitter. He has been updating the tallies of the early vote in Virginia, and what he is finding is more and more bad news for Obama:
VIRGINIA EARLY VOTE: Today's new 10/31 numbers even more troubling for Obama. His best counties way off '08 pace
VIRGINIA EARLY VOTE: Turnout down 13.6% in Obama '08 localities, vs. just 1.1% in McCain '08 (statewide down 9.2%)
VIRGINIA EARLY VOTE 10/31: 185,489 ballots cast in Obama localities (214,783 by this pt. in '08), 115,908 in McCain (117,224 in '08)
VIRGINIA EARLY VOTE: Even more worrisome for O...in Kerry '04 localities (hardcore D places), turnout -18.1% vs. '08 (only -1.7% in Bush)
VIRGINIA EARLY VOTE: Obama strongholds Arlington -20.0%, Fairfax - 20.9%, Richmond -13.7% (vs. just -9.2% statewide). Hmm.
So, in what's supposed to be the Dems' biggest strength (or among them), the liberals are losing the early vote in:
- Virginia
- Colorado
- Ohio
- Florida
Add to that, three blue states (that shouldn't even be in the conversation at this point) are in play. If this keeps up, Axelrod better get the clippers (and the Kleenex) ready.
-
Anybody who disagrees with Karl Rove is obviously in on some sort of conspiracy.
-
Anybody who disagrees with Karl Rove is obviously in on some sort of conspiracy.
Oh, you!
-
Its not HIS basket. Its the aggregate data. Other sites who run the same data are reaching the exact same numbers as well. Romney has a statistical chance of 20 percent of winning. Those are not the greatest odds at all.
Much of that data is questionable/bogus, because (again) it's assuming 2008 turnout. That's not happening this time around.
As mentioned earlier, many of the factors that lead to Obama's win in 2008 are gone.
Early voting edge - GONE
Lead with indies - GONE
Lead with men - GONE
BIG Lead with women - GONE (it's either tied or Obama is barely up)
Two other demographics will likely have smaller numbers: Young voters and black voters, both due to economic woes. For the latter, you can tack on Obama's pandering to homosexuals and endorsing gay "marriage", as a factor for lower turnout (Some black preachers are flat-out telling their congregations NOT to vote for Obama, based on this).
-
Much of that data is questionable/bogus, because (again) it's assuming 2008 turnout. That's not happening this time around.
As mentioned earlier, many of the factors that lead to Obama's win in 2008 are gone.
Early voting edge - GONE
Lead with indies - GONE
Lead with men - GONE
BIG Lead with women - GONE (it's either tied or Obama is barely up)
Two other demographics will likely have smaller numbers: Young voters and black voters, both due to economic woes. For the latter, you can tack on Obama's pandering to homosexuals and endorsing gay "marriage", as a factor for lower turnout (Some black preachers are flat-out telling their congregations NOT to vote for Obama, based on this).
Its not assuming anything from 2008. Hope this helps.
-
Its not assuming anything from 2008. Hope this helps.
Sure it is. It's in the polls themselves, shown repeatedly.
-
Sure it is. It's in the polls themselves, shown repeatedly.
It would help if you actually went to the site and read it.
-
No way in hell Willard wins Pennsylvania.
MI & MN? I can't see it...sounds like GOP wishful thinking.
-
It would help if you actually went to the site and read it.
I've been to his site. And, I've seen the polls he used and the way he weighs them.
It would help if you actually saw the internals of the polls and their HUGE Democrat oversampling.
An 80% chance of winning, with Obama bleeding independents, male voters, and losing the early vote? PLEASE!!!
-
I've been to his site. And, I've seen the polls he used and the way he weighs them.
It would help if you actually saw the internals of the polls and their HUGE Democrat oversampling.
An 80% chance of winning, with Obama bleeding independents, male voters, and losing the early vote? PLEASE!!!
You live in an alternate reality. Its clear you don`t even read the data he presents.
-
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/11/01/us/politics/fivethirtyeight-1031-1/fivethirtyeight-1031-1-blog480.png)
-
His chances of holding onto his Electoral College lead and converting it into another term are equivalent to the chances of an N.F.L. team winning when it leads by a field goal with three minutes left to play in the fourth quarter. There are plenty of things that could go wrong, and sometimes they will.
But it turns out that an N.F.L. team that leads by a field goal with three minutes left to go winds up winning the game 79 percent of the time. Those were Mr. Obama’s chances in the FiveThirtyEight forecast as of Wednesday: 79 percent.
Not coincidentally, these are also about Mr. Obama’s chances of winning Ohio, according to the forecast.
-
I see Obama losing this election unfortunately..I just don't trust the polls.....and as I have said, I really believe that many people who say he /will vote for Obama, ultimately wont...not to mention Obama is not going to get the young vote black vote, female vote or Hispanic vote that he got in 2008 when everyone was excited because he was a fresh face on the scene
-
I see Obama losing this election unfortunately..I just don't trust the polls.....and as I have said, I really believe that many people who say he /will vote for Obama, ultimately wont...not to mention Obama is not going to get the young vote black vote, female vote or Hispanic vote that he got in 2008 when everyone was excited because he was a fresh face on the scene
Obama is going to lose massive # out of NY, CT, NJ w the floods etc. Even if he squeeked out an EC win and lost the popular vote by a few million , his presidency would be mired in stalmate, scandal, lame duck status, and have little or no legitimacy.
-
Obama is going to lose massive # out of NY, CT, NJ w the floods etc. Even if he squeeked out an EC win and lost the popular vote by a few million , his presidency would be mired in stalmate, scandal, lame duck status, and have little or no legitimacy.
simply not true.......the president of the United States ALWAYS has legitimacy no matter how he gets elected or gets into office.....witness President Ford becoming president simply because Nixon stepped down.....Kennedy becoming president even though he had no experience and was beat out in the popular vote by Nixon.....Bush becoming president due to technicalities in Florida, Clinton becoming president due to the vote being split three ways...Johnson becoming president due to Kennedy's assassination....no one ever questions the credentials of the President
except for the right wing loonies like yourself and the rest of your conservative idiot buddies on here who tried to claim that Obama was not a citizen simply because he was black....
wishful fantasies on your part yet again ::) ::) ::)
-
simply not true.......the president of the United States ALWAYS has legitimacy no matter how he gets elected or gets into office.....witness President Ford becoming president simply because Nixon stepped down.....Kennedy becoming president even though he had no experience and was beat out in the popular vote by Nixon.....Bush becoming president due to technicalities in Florida, Clinton becoming president due to the vote being split three ways...Johnson becoming president due to Kennedy's assassination....no one ever questions the credentials of the President
except for the right wing loonies like yourself and the rest of your conservative idiot buddies on here who tried to claim that Obama was not a citizen simply because he was black....
wishful fantasies on your part yet again ::) ::) ::)
Right - remember - "Selected not elected" ?
-
I see Obama losing this election unfortunately..I just don't trust the polls.....and as I have said, I really believe that many people who say he /will vote for Obama, ultimately wont...not to mention Obama is not going to get the young vote black vote, female vote or Hispanic vote that he got in 2008 when everyone was excited because he was a fresh face on the scene
The problem with your assessment though is that its just based on your opinion and not consistent with the data or based on any at all.
Obama has a 20 percent chance that he will lose the election and an 80 percent chance that he will win at this point. Those are the odds. I`d put my money on the 80 percent before I would the 20.
-
You live in an alternate reality. Its clear you don`t even read the data he presents.
Wrong again, Adonis. What's clear is that you don't read what's happening, regarding the internals of the polls.
The key points that lead to Obama's win in 2008 are crumbling, one after the other.
Again, he's bleeding independents, male voters, nearly tied with Romney with female voters.
Early voting...NOT going his way. Turnout....LOWER.
And many of those polls you listed are loaded with oversampling of Dems, which has been pointed out REPEATEDLY FOR MONTHS, on this forum. For example:
Desperate Democrats are now hanging their hopes on a new Quinnipiac University/New York Times/CBS News poll showing the president with a five-point Ohio lead. But that survey gives Democrats a +8 advantage in turnout, the same advantage Democrats had in 2008. That assumption is, to put it gently, absurd.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204846304578090820229096046.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Not to mention, Obama's under 50% in many of those polls, often mired in the mid-40s. Incumbent presidents, stuck in the mid-40s (especially with less than a week to go) TEND TO GET BEATEN.....often badly.
-
The problem with your assessment though is that its just based on your opinion and not consistent with the data or based on any at all.
Obama has a 20 percent chance that he will lose the election and an 80 percent chance that he will win at this point. Those are the odds. I`d put my money on the 80 percent before I would the 20.
I agree with you....my assessment IS FLAWED because as you pointed out, it is simply my opinion......just a gut feeling I have.....I never presented my theory as anything other than that....I hope to God Obama wins....but again...I just do not trust the polls on this one
-
yeah, 'confidence' seems to be going obama's way. You can see it on the networks.... Morning joe are smirking again, and FOX n friends are jittery and talking excuses and internals and reasons why all the polls are wrong.
On the message boards, you just kinda know the direction it's going... more and more of the national polling orgs with great success rates in 2008 and 2010 are starting to call it for obama.
On the campaigns, you're seeing obama coasting and avoiding gaffes on the campaign trail. Romney is speaking 3x a day in FL and making a huge huge Republican club meeting in Ohio, picking up canned goods to be shipping in a rental truck across the country... that may have been his applesauce moment, in retrospect.
-
yeah, 'confidence' seems to be going obama's way. You can see it on the networks.... Morning joe are smirking again, and FOX n friends are jittery and talking excuses and internals and reasons why all the polls are wrong.
On the message boards, you just kinda know the direction it's going... more and more of the national polling orgs with great success rates in 2008 and 2010 are starting to call it for obama.
On the campaigns, you're seeing obama coasting and avoiding gaffes on the campaign trail. Romney is speaking 3x a day in FL and making a huge huge Republican club meeting in Ohio, picking up canned goods to be shipping in a rental truck across the country... that may have been his applesauce moment, in retrospect.
In what alternate world are you living?
The analysis of the polls being wrong has been happening FOR MONTHS on Fox. It certainly didn't start this week. Let Morning Joke smirk all he wants.
Let's see: Obama is losing independents, losing his early voting efforts. The male voters? FORGET IT!
The female voters? Romney just about caught him there.
The Obama campaign is regurgitating the Bain stuff in their ads. You have MoveOn.org and Michael Moore, releasing some of the dumbest ads ever seen. That hardly sounds like confidence going Obama's way.
-
I'm pretty sure everyone knows.
What Scott Rasmussen is saying isn't at all shocking in the least. It's aucune to some other pollster telling Democrats that MO or Texas are Democrat fantasies.
did you tell mchannity,he didn't know :D :D :D :D