• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2012 |OT4|: Your job is not to worry about 47% of these posts.

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Black Mamba

Member
empty vessel said:
The only "blanket statement" I made was that blanket statements (or beliefs) about government deficits (net government spending) being bad are wrong and anti-progressive. Reread what I wrote.
Click to expand...

" "Obama has not increased the deficit, and we are worse off because of it. "

I would say this is incorrect. You can increase the deficit without helping the economy. Ie, raising salary for the President. Or tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas. Or tax breaks for people living abroad.

You're right that the gov't deficit doubling isn't necessarily bad, but the quote was to what I was really referring. That blanket statement isn't correct. We're worse off because he didn't increase government spending in pro-growth manners.
 
I

ISOM

Member
Incognito said:
for real.

i'm hesitant to say too much since my algorithm is proprietary, but suffice to say it includes all relevant statistical data encompassing national and state polls in addition to important economic metrics. where my model diverges, however, is that instead of relying solely on empirical data points i also factor in considerations such as twitter mentions, fb posts, and fundraising numbers, among other things, to conclude within a 3.5% margin of error who will win.
Click to expand...

that doesn't make any sense, if you are including twitter mentions and fb posts. Are you seperating the ones that mention him positively from the ones that mention him negatively?
 
T

teiresias

Member
RDreamer said:
I think Romney'll get a tiny bounce from a few undecideds from the debate, but not much more. The crosstabs from some of the debate polls showed he mostly made his base confident.
Click to expand...

This is also extremely ironic since they're obviously responding to the optics rather than the policy since Romney lied his butt off in order to go more centrist than his base would ever accept him going in actuality. It's like they imagined Newts head superimposed over Romney's during the debate and lived out their primary fantasies of what they wanted to see Newt do in a debate against Obama.
 
I

Incognito

Troll
IGSaint said:
that doesn't make any sense, if you are including twitter mentions and fb posts. Are you seperating the ones that mention him positively from the ones that mention him negatively?
Click to expand...

of course, what kind of statistician would i be if i didn't? not accurate nor relevant.
 
H

Half and half

Member
empty vessel said:
I don't agree, but, regardless, progressives have to stop reinforcing conservative economic myths. When somebody says--wrongly or rightly--that Obama has doubled the deficit, a progressive ought not, as the author of that post describes, run to the internet to tweet "Obama did NOT Double the Deficit - it's actually come *Down* since Bush left Office #Debate2012."

While there is nothing wrong with correcting a misstatement of fact, there is a shared (false) understanding going on here between the misstater and the correcter that doubling the deficit would have been a bad thing (hence the felt need for the correction in the first place). An actually progressive response to the misstatement would have been: "Obama has not increased the deficit, and we are worse off because of it. #Debate2012."
Click to expand...

Fwiw, my edited link straight to the CBO's website was made so people could skip the author's opinion. I certainly don't agree with being told to tweet things.

Anyways, thanks for the responses.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Snake said:
edit: "Debates don't really matter" is backed up by some decent data, but there's always the chance that every election can have different dynamics at play.
Click to expand...

I mean, this is true, but it's a short step from saying "polling doesn't matter because every election is different." They are, but they also aren't. To go beyond the safe assumption that Romney will gain slightly from the debate but not enough to really make a difference, you need some reason why this year should be different and result in a bigger swing -- keeping in mind that, so far, everything that usually moves the numbers has had a SMALLER swing than you would expect from previous elections.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
AlteredBeast said:
pssshhhh. Have you not seen the slate of College Football games on tonight?
Click to expand...

Never got into college football. I watch NBA, NFL, and some college basketball (NCAA Tournament), but never college football. If Wisconsin's in a bowl game I'll turn it on, but other than that meh.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
@ppppolls said:
Barack Obama leads our new Wisconsin poll by only 2 points, 49-47. He led by 7 at 52-45 two weeks ago.
Not going to get in habit of providing full day by day breakouts, but our Friday interviews were worse for Obama in WI and VA than Thursday
@jmartin4s not much impact on [Baldwin]. More of an Obama problem than a Dems problem
Click to expand...

I'm not going to lie and say I'm pleased about this, but there you go. Hopefully this won't represent a permanent shift.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
pigeon said:
I'm not going to lie and say I'm pleased about this, but there you go. Hopefully this won't represent a permanent shift.
Click to expand...

Bit more than I expected. Good news is Obama dropped more than Romney went up. He still can't clear the 47 number.

Seems to be on the edge of the MoE, so it probably is a legit tightening but could also be less than that.

The other problem for Romney is how much better can it get if that debate doesn't put him above Obama? Unless Obama has another terrible performance, it seems a bit much to ask for this to continue.

edit: Fact that it's not a Dems problem just seems to show some people are contemplating on voting Obama or not voting, not going Romney.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
Black Mamba said:
"Obama has not increased the deficit, and we are worse off because of it. "

I would say this is incorrect. You can increase the deficit without helping the economy. Ie, raising salary for the President. Or tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas. Or tax breaks for people living abroad.

You're right that the gov't deficit doubling isn't necessarily bad, but the quote was to what I was really referring. That blanket statement isn't correct. We're worse off because he didn't increase government spending in pro-growth manners.
Click to expand...

That is not a blanket statement. It is a statement about what is necessary in the current economic climate. Positing absurd examples of net government spending does not detract from the statement. The statement necessarily implies net government spending in a manner that increases aggregate demand. (Incidentally, raising the president's salary is an example of such spending, albeit not of the most effective or equitable variety.) It would be pretty damn difficult to double the deficit while directing all net spending--or even anything more than a negligible amount--directly into demand leakages. This is nit-picky, whereas my beef is with people who adopt (usually implicitly) an attitudinal stance that it is always a good thing when annual net government spending (the deficit) is shrinking and a bad thing when it is growing.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
empty vessel said:
That is not a blanket statement. It is a statement about what is necessary in the current economic climate. Positing absurd examples of net government spending does not detract from the statement. The statement necessarily implies net government spending in a manner that increases aggregate demand. (Incidentally, raising the president's salary is an example of such spending, albeit not of the most effective or equitable variety.) It would be pretty damn difficult to double the deficit while directing all net spending--or even anything more than a negligible amount--directly into demand leakages. This is nit-picky, whereas my beef is with people who adopt (usually implicitly) an attitudinal stance that it is always a good thing when annual net government spending (the deficit) is shrinking and a bad thing when it is growing.
Click to expand...

i used extreme examples to illustrate a point. But could very well be tax cuts for wealthy which could be countered by pressure on the dollar as result. etc etc.

Point being, the problem is spending.

Silver lining
Click to expand...

Saturday numbers not in the polls, I'm assuming?
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Black Mamba said:
Bit more than I expected. Good news is Obama dropped more than Romney went up. He still can't clear the 47 number.

Seems to be on the edge of the MoE, so it probably is a legit tightening but could also be less than that.

The other problem for Romney is how much better can it get if that debate doesn't put him above Obama? Unless Obama has another terrible performance, it seems a bit much to ask for this to continue.

edit: Fact that it's not a Dems problem just seems to show some people are contemplating on voting Obama or not voting, not going Romney.
Click to expand...
Well, this is also just Wisconsin. If Romney got a 5 point bounce in Virginia, they're tied. And that's problematic.

Hopefully this bounce will fade, otherwise my map's not gonna be looking too good on election night...
 
S

Souldriver

Member
Black Mamba said:
Bit more than I expected. Good news is Obama dropped more than Romney went up. He still can't clear the 47 number.

Seems to be on the edge of the MoE, so it probably is a legit tightening but could also be less than that.

The other problem for Romney is how much better can it get if that debate doesn't put him above Obama? Unless Obama has another terrible performance, it seems a bit much to ask for this to continue.

edit: Fact that it's not a Dems problem just seems to show some people are contemplating on voting Obama or not voting, not going Romney.
Click to expand...
Which could be a problem in and of itself. I've heard multiple rationalizations to recent polls, going from "Romney only got his own based finally locked but it didnt affect Obama", to the opposite "Obama lost points but Romney still can't get any decent gain out of it".

I don't care which way you put it, if other polls confirm this trend, it's getting to thight for my likings. I hope that this is just a temporary kneejerk reaction from people that got polled, and that in the coming weeks things even out again.
 
D

Diablos

Member
Aaron Strife said:
Well, this is also just Wisconsin. If Romney got a 5 point bounce in Virginia, they're tied. And that's problematic.

Hopefully this bounce will fade, otherwise my map's not gonna be looking too good on election night...
Click to expand...
Haha, you starting to get worried a bit Aaron?

For some reason it makes me feel good when people say they are "Diablosing". It's like I paved the way for it being okay to freak out about Obama's chances in the face of Poligaffers who laugh at you as though you were crazy.

Love me, hate me, as long as you don't think I'm a troll.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Souldriver said:
Which could be a problem in and of itself. I've heard multiple rationalizations to recent polls, going from "Romney only got his own based finally locked but it didnt affect Obama", to the opposite "Obama lost points but Romney still can't get any decent gain out of it".

I don't care which way you put it, if other polls confirm this trend, it's getting to thight for my likings. I hope that this is just a temporary kneejerk reaction from people that got polled, and that in the coming weeks things even out again.
Click to expand...

Of course it's tightening, but 49-47 will still put Obama over 50% if those guys sit out.

We have to see how much they tighten. I still think we'll no more on Tuesday/Wednesday when everything settles a bit.

Well, this is also just Wisconsin. If Romney got a 5 point bounce in Virginia, they're tied. And that's problematic.

Hopefully this bounce will fade, otherwise my map's not gonna be looking too good on election night..
Click to expand...

Right. I think it's much more important that Romney hits 48 than anything else, though. As long as his ceiling is 47, he can't win. Obama's floor is like 48, probably.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
Black Mamba said:
i used extreme examples to illustrate a point. But could very well be tax cuts for wealthy which could be countered by pressure on the dollar as result. etc etc.
Click to expand...

A tax cut for the wealthy, i.e., giving rich people money, is an extremely inefficient way to increase aggregate demand, but it almost certainly does increase it regardless. I agree with you--very strongly, in fact--that how the government net spends money matters very much (Bush net spent a lot of money by giving it to rich people, lord knows), but I don't consider that to take away from the point I was making.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
teiresias said:
This is also extremely ironic since they're obviously responding to the optics rather than the policy since Romney lied his butt off in order to go more centrist than his base would ever accept him going in actuality. It's like they imagined Newts head superimposed over Romney's during the debate and lived out their primary fantasies of what they wanted to see Newt do in a debate against Obama.
Click to expand...

Just saw this from PPP:

72% of Wisconsin Republicans say they're 'very excited' to vote now, up from 63% on our pre-debate poll
Click to expand...

Yep, lol
 
R

RustyNails

Member
WI might seem close, but I'm still pretty confident it's in Obama column. I also think VP debates will matter a bit more in WI because of the cheese boy.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Diablos said:
Aaron never worries though! Eveerrrr. Obama could snort coke on stage during the next debate and he'd be all like "lol who cares."
Click to expand...
Ultimately, I think I'd be happy if Obama won with just 270 electoral votes. That doesn't mean I wouldn't care if I was wrong. Still pretty confident in Obama's ability to win.
 
D

Diablos

Member
Exactly what polls are we getting tomorrow?

Aaron Strife said:
Ultimately, I think I'd be happy if Obama won with just 270 electoral votes. That doesn't mean I wouldn't care if I was wrong. Still pretty confident in Obama's ability to win.
Click to expand...
Pretty confident? For you that's a change. Not ripping you to shreds or anything here, as it's always nice to see your optimism when things look like they're going south, but you typically never falter -- at all -- when you speak of the fact that you will think he's going to win.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Diablos said:
Exactly what polls are we getting tomorrow?
Click to expand...
Virginia, probably Wisconsin Senate. PPP is polling like 6 states this week, of which WI and VA were the first.

Wondering if their Virginia poll will include today, since they said their samples today looked more like pre-debate numbers.
 
E

Effect

Member
Worry adverted I think. I was watching Rachael Maddow last night and she had a segment about even though the judge had ruled in Pennsylvania that the ID won't be required for this election some county websites still had information saying it was required. Even the VotesPA.com had that information on the site and in the message you get when you call up until the show called the state asking about it another county changed their information when contacted as well. Had me wondering so I took a look at my county's website and it was same damn thing.

So I sent a message from an email I account I have but rarely use that doesn't list my name (being a bit paranoid I didn't want my name attached in case I find myself not listed come time to vote). I also contacted the state democratic party and one of the news tip emails for the local news station. The last two might have been a mistake because I got a email this evening from the county elections director. Was sent to me, my second email was listed, someone at the news station and a few others. So I at least assume one of the two when they contacted the county used my email as a forward since I had the link to the site where the information was listed and tried to explain my concern. I honestly didn't expect to hear back and if I did at least not until Monday.

Good news is that the county pulled the voter id information and will be updating it later. Perhaps I was worried for nothing about having my name attached. You never know today and it sucks that I should even have that worry for speaking up. However I don't think it would have been changed unless I had emailed those other two groups as well and have them, I believe, contact the county as well.
 
D

Diablos

Member
Aaron Strife said:
Virginia, probably Wisconsin Senate. PPP is polling like 6 states this week, of which WI and VA were the first.
Click to expand...
Now the question is if it will show as much as Romney stands to gain in post-debate polling or if that won't be fully felt until next week's polls.

Blah.
 
D

Diablos

Member
Effect said:
Worry adverted I think. I was watching Rachael Maddow last night and she had a segment about even though the judge had ruled in Pennsylvania that the ID won't be required for this election some county websites still had information saying it was required. Even the VotesPA.com had that information on the site and in the message you get when you call up until the show called the state asking about it another county changed their information when contacted as well. Had me wondering so I took a look at my county's website and it was same damn thing.

So I sent a message from an email I account I have but rarely use that doesn't list my name (being a bit paranoid I didn't want my name attached in case I find myself not listed come time to vote). I also contacted the state democratic party and one of the news tip emails for the local news station. The last two might have been a mistake because I got a email this evening from the county elections director. Was sent to me, my second email was listed, someone at the news station and a few others. So I at least assume one of the two when they contacted the county used my email as a forward since I had the link to the site where the information was listed and tried to explain my concern. I honestly didn't expect to hear back and if I did at least not until Monday.

Good news is that the county pulled the voter id information and will be updating it later. Perhaps I was worried for nothing about having my name attached. You never know today and it sucks that I should even have that worry for speaking up. However I don't think it would have been changed unless I had emailed those other two groups as well and have them, I believe, contact the county as well.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the state is being really lame. "Bring your ID to vote... but you don't HAVE to show it, lolol." Then don't ask people to bring something THEY DON'T FUCKING NEED. Talk about trolling the electorate.

If Dems/PA state people were smart they'd target the heavy blue counties and make damn sure you have people at those polling places holding up sings saying, in the most simplistic but clear terms, that ID is not required. Period.

But, dude, as a fellow PA gaffer I am extremely proud of your efforts there. I tip my hat. *salute*
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Officerrob said:
Silver lining
Click to expand...

This is good news.

Without the crosstabs it's hard to know exactly what happened in Wisconsin. It's probably a safe bet to assume that some of the undecideds in the pre-bate 52-45 poll were latent Romney supporters, temporarily "undecided" because of Romney's bad press at the time -- and it's quite possible that some of the undecideds in the 49-47 poll were latent Obama supporters for the same reason. This might help explain why the biggest effect was seen not after the debate but after people had had a day to talk to coworkers about the debate. But if that's so, then Obama's very safe at 49, and will probably recover over 50 again with or without the jobs report. Don't forget, it's just as reasonable to assume that the debate had a very brief bounce and the jobs report did nothing as to assume that the debate had a big move and the jobs report had the same move the other way -- and it would probably fit more with the current dataset.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
@ppppolls said:
Big Bird's favorability is 58/11 for Democrats, 37/12 for Republicans. Wish there were pre-debate number to compare it to
Click to expand...

Yet another appearance of the majority of Republicans having "no opinion" on a touchy subject.

Apparently. I didn't actually know Big Bird was a touchy subject until just now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I feel like everything about my body is denying my current job at this point
19
2K
sono replied
Show us your gaming setup: 2025 Edition
2 3
106
10K
Mr Hyde replied
Post your backlog list!
2
82
4K
TheDrunkenMerchant replied
[Wired] AI Is Already Taking Jobs in the Video Game Industry
2 3 4 5
224
12K
kevboard replied
How about a Pic and a Story? Preface: Feeling Grateful, Hopeful, Loved & Motivated
0
219
Oner replied
Top Bottom