As of right now:
So it's currently within the margin of error, if I'm reading that correctly?
Gallup: R 52-O 45 Time to Worry?
- Thread starter KidOmega
- Start date
- Status
So it's currently within the margin of error, if I'm reading that correctly?
I'd love to see what the South's numbers would be if you removed NC, FL and VA.
-50 for Obama?
lmao.
TheNatural
My Member!
You're supposed to respond to rhetorical questions with answers that are questions themselves.
"Could it be beause he's black" would have been better.
Oh, I just thought you were being PC. And I'm not, so I was just going to say it.
I live in Kentucky, and this state is heavy Romney, except for the two cities of Louisville and Lexington. I imagine this is how it works throughout the south. Heavily rural areas are staggeringly against Obama, and cities with you know, civilization and diversity are slightly Obama.
I would like to see some stats on it, but I bet Obama leads in the city of New Orleans for example, and the rest of that state is very heavy Romney. Notice a pattern?
Fenderputty
Banned
Pretty much. It's amazing how much different the North and South are considering how long it's been since the Civil War.
So many seem to love to talk about how much of an idiot Romney must be to be a Mormon, yet when Obama was a member of a bat-shit insane church in Chicago, many said, "Oh, he's just pretending for political reasons; he's probably an atheist." This same line of thinking should fairly be applied to Romney. I'm doubting he really believes that the lost tribe of Israel resided in North America, among other things. I also doubt that he really is against gay marriage, it wouldn't surprise me at all if he's actually for it. But his base is against it and he knows better than to alienate them. Bottom line, both Romney and Obama are liars. They say whatever will get them votes and rally their base. I know this isn't really an astute observation, but there it is.
Spiritreaver
Member
It really makes me sad that the only states I've gotten to vote in are Arizona and Oklahoma.
Oh, I just thought you were being PC. And I'm not, so I was just going to say it.
I live in Kentucky, and this state is heavy Romney, except for the two cities of Louisville and Lexington. I imagine this is how it works throughout the south. Heavily rural areas are staggeringly against Obama, and cities with you know, civilization and diversity are slightly Obama.
I would like to see some stats on it, but I bet Obama leads in the city of New Orleans for example, and the rest of that state is very heavy Romney. Notice a pattern?
For the most part that's kind of the pattern all around the country, not just the south. Really states aren't red or blue as a whole. It's how blue the cities are and whether they're are big enough to carry the whole state into being blue or not. It's the same here in Wisconsin. For the most part Obama wins Madison and Milwaukee. The rest of the state votes red.
LegendofJoe
Member
Hey we like colored people too. White light is the combination of all colors afterall.
Oh, I just thought you were being PC. And I'm not, so I was just going to say it.
I live in Kentucky, and this state is heavy Romney, except for the two cities of Louisville and Lexington. I imagine this is how it works throughout the south. Heavily rural areas are staggeringly against Obama, and cities with you know, civilization and diversity are slightly Obama.
I would like to see some stats on it, but I bet Obama leads in the city of New Orleans for example, and the rest of that state is very heavy Romney. Notice a pattern?
it's the same in Nebraska (at least in 2008), our 2nd congressional district has the two largest cities in the state and we voted for Obama, the other rural districts voted republican. i expect we'll see similar results this year.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Mormonism = crazier than other religions, confirmed.
Half of the electorate doesn't mind alienating the other half.
Actually it's more that half of the electorate doesn't realize they're the ones being alienated.
Years ago, but thats not the subject of this thread. You can derail and keep bringing up old posts from close to a year ago if it makes you feel better about yourself or your political stance but the fact remains... Obama doesn't get my vote. I dont think he's a bad person, I just disagree with most of his policies.
Thats something people have to deal with, no hard feelings.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
You've got me, man. After he said that whole, "clinging bitter to their guns and religions" comment, I thought he was done for.
Politics, how does it work?
The South universally votes against their best interests every time they vote Republican.
So it's nothing new for them.
False equivalencies, it seems.
It's the same here in Missouri. Kansas City, St. Louis and the suburbs of each will vote heavily Democrat, and the rest of the state will vote heavily Republican. In recent elections, that's meant the state has gone Red, although by the slimmest of margins (in 2008 specifically). This time around, it's not up for contention =/
I'm only going out to vote to keep Todd "shut that whole thing down" Akin out of congress.
TheNatural
My Member!
Maybe there should be a basic competency test on about the third grade level before you're allowed to vote. Hell, here all you have to do is "make your mark" when you vote, if you can't sign a signature because you're illiterate. I wonder how the votes would skew then.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Gallup's polling methodology is outright wrong. None of the other polls are showing that and its likely voters poll is totally out of whack with the registered voters poll.
LegendofJoe
Member
Replace bitter with ignorant and I'd agree with Obama's statement wholeheartedly.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
True, true.
The biggest thing is that Gallup actually has Obama's approval rating higher than other polls, above 50.
And yet they have Romney's lead increasing and increasing.
It makes zero sense in any context.
We'll never know for sure, but I'm willing to bet that the difference wouldn't have been nearly as great as you might think.
The two parties talk a little different, and they occasionally do something significantly different, but overall, the policies of this country tend to swerve only slightly when we change parties. If you want radical change (which is what we need) neither one of these guys is going to give it to you. We'll either swerve slightly left or slightly right, with very little substantial difference. Obama governed like a moderate dem, Romney will govern like a moderate republican. The real-world difference between those two is small.
One issue that might be an exception is the supreme court, and even there, you see that presidents often have less power than you would expect. For example, Roberts voting in favor of Obama's health care program, and wasn't Kennedy appointed by the first Bush?
The Judges have to be confirmed by the senate, and it's hard to get through that process if you're a total moron. The judges aren't beholden to anybody once they get into power. After that it's all about their view of the law, which is always hard to be sure of.
On foreign policy, there could be substantial difference, since Presidents have so much power in that area, but everybody always tends towards the middle in practice. Did Obama really change US foreign policy drastically? No. He basically continued Bush's gradual scale-down in Iraq, and kept pushing in Afghanistan. He even kept Bush's secretary of defense for most of his term to keep from rocking the boat too much.
Politicians in this country are very worried about rocking the boat. They don't want to do it because the results are too unpredictable.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Show me a poll with Romney winning Ohio and I'll start piling on the Romney bandwagon
Maybe there should be a basic competency test on about the third grade level before you're allowed to vote. Hell, here all you have to do is "make your mark" when you vote, if you can't sign a signature because you're illiterate. I wonder how the votes would skew then.
You do realize the history behind this idea, right?
Something Wicked
Member
Gallup's LV model is the outlier. Chill. Swing states are all that matter.
Well, in a basic statistical sense, just from looking at the numbers of "likely voters," the Gallup is nearly two times more accurate than any of the other polls. The ABC poll could be considered the least accurate. Now, I understand different polls can have different methods of determining whether a voter is "likely' or not and that swing-state polls matter much more than overall national polls, but people using the term "outlier" for the most extensive of national polls demonstrates some mathematical ineptitude.
Fair enough, but I'd say both provide more "intelligent" commentary than John Stewart.
TheNatural
My Member!
Nope. There's certainly some dumb people on both sides of the coin, but in the south it sure seems like a whole other level.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Quoted for giving the answer
I'm pretty sure Gore would not have started a war with Iraq, or installed Supreme Court justices that gave us the Citizens United decision.
Excuse me... he was appointed by Ronald Reagan.
Or is your LOL based on some other perceived inaccuracy?
The individual polls are mostly within the MOE, yes. I don't remember much from my statistics classes, but I'm pretty sure that weighting several different polls reduces the MOE quite a bit, hence the large disparity in the odds for each candidate to win the state.
Just a quick note on Gallup's likely voter screen.
Here are the questions on it:
The top X% of respondents, where X is Gallup's projected turnout, are considered "likely voters." (Tiebreaking is done using your answer on question 7.)
http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/10/likely_voters_i_1.html
This system will always overrepresent extremely stable and enthusiastic voters -- like old people and racists -- and underrepresent newer voters and those more likely to be disenfranchised -- like college students and people of color. In fairness, the first group is more likely to vote than the second group, but not necessarily by that much. If one campaign turns a bunch of 5s into 6s, and another campaign turns twice as many 2s into 5s, the Gallup likely voter screen will show the first campaign gaining. But are they really more likely to win on Election Day?
That said...go volunteer or we will all die.
Here are the questions on it:
mystery pollster said:
The top X% of respondents, where X is Gallup's projected turnout, are considered "likely voters." (Tiebreaking is done using your answer on question 7.)
http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/10/likely_voters_i_1.html
This system will always overrepresent extremely stable and enthusiastic voters -- like old people and racists -- and underrepresent newer voters and those more likely to be disenfranchised -- like college students and people of color. In fairness, the first group is more likely to vote than the second group, but not necessarily by that much. If one campaign turns a bunch of 5s into 6s, and another campaign turns twice as many 2s into 5s, the Gallup likely voter screen will show the first campaign gaining. But are they really more likely to win on Election Day?
That said...go volunteer or we will all die.
That's what kerry said.
Go on.
So Kerry is Obama, and Mitt is Bush?
dave is ok
aztek is ok
Fun Fact: If Romney ever polls above 53%, it means a percentage of the people voting for him are people he does not give a shit about.
Jack Scofield
Member
Yeah, I don't know why people think Obama is a sure thing.
It means that anyway. A lot of that 47% is the GOP base.
I like Jesse Ventura's take better. He said something like "One's coke and the other's pepsi. One is a little sweeter but they're both bad for you".
Something Wicked
Member
It's because many on GAF love to live in their little bubbles... ... and also have awful statistics backgrounds.
They treat that lefty hack Silver guy as a true Nostradamus.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
He's not a sure thing, but he is heavily favored. National polls don't really mean anything
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Because there isn't any data supporting that Romney can win Ohio.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
I remember when I used to say dumb sit like this, then I actually started reading and learning....
LOL, Call of Duty...
but it's funny!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked