Thequietone
Member
Or is he political?
-
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.
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
I don't think it's to create a narrative per se, Nobody wants a boring race so any "tightening" gives them more relevance. Also, throwing some crumbs to Romney supporters gives them credibility with the unskewed crowd.
Officerrob
Banned
Regardless, he's boring
Response to this bit of idiocy
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/08/buzz-bissinger-why-i-m-voting-for-mitt-romney.html
The Librarian
Banned
Edit: beaten by Cloudy for AniHawk.
That is still implying Gallup would tweak the numbers. Gallup is above this sort of nonsense. They have been around long before the days of cable news and daily news cycles nonsense. Again, they aren't Rasmussen.
Trying to claim Gallup would mess with their numbers is on the level of insanity of the unskewedpolls.com crazies.
Great thread title there, ami. Had a nice chuckle. 
Nah, most everyone in POliGAF predicted Dems to lose the House, and barely hold onto the Senate. I think it was only Aaron who thought Dems would hold the House, and might even increase their majority.
That was pretty much the consensus.
Nah, most everyone in POliGAF predicted Dems to lose the House, and barely hold onto the Senate. I think it was only Aaron who thought Dems would hold the House, and might even increase their majority.
That was pretty much the consensus.
Thequietone
Member
Aww you ruined the rhyming scheme we had going. lol
Why are we still on this doom and gloom kick? If anyone thinks Obama has lost the presidency they either haven't looked at the map or are trolling. Romney still has a huge gap to narrow and to borrow a quote from Gaborn, it's too little too late.
Souldriver
Member
Talking about Gallup specifically, I don't tend to give them that much attention as the daily numbers fluctuate a lot, and often. Probably because, well, they're daily numbers.
I just look at them to see a general trend. Is Obama ahead of Romney? Is Obama above 50% consistently? Is his approval rating higher than his disproval one? ...
/captain obvious
I just look at them to see a general trend. Is Obama ahead of Romney? Is Obama above 50% consistently? Is his approval rating higher than his disproval one? ...
/captain obvious
Any new polls dropping today?
They wouldn't have posted the 47/47 poll right next to Obama being >50 on the daily tracking if they didn't think it was important.
oh, okay.
My mom could've wrote Buzz's column, though it would fail as a piece of literature. First impressions matter! He's throwing his support behind the character Mitt Romney - not the politician - that lasted all of one debate.
He's a wordsmith for several high profile dramas. Yadontsay.
He's a wordsmith for several high profile dramas. Yadontsay.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Never thought they'd increase it, but yeah, I remember being firmly in the minority on that one.
I'm not implying they tweaked the numbers at all. I'm saying that it seems odd to post an article early Monday morning about 47-47 based on 3 days when their own update later in the day seems to show Obama regaining ground with an additional day.
Why not post that same article with data for the Oct. 7th added since they have it. Maybe it wouldn't play into the current Romney "comeback" narrative and wouldn't get picked up by every political reporter
National daily tracking numbers are worthless outside of the things you just listed. It's state polls that matter, and the electoral college math does not add up for Mitt Romney. There's no reason to get worked up over Gallup's numbers. National numbers keep the horse race going, so I guess that's all that matters.
They didn't tweak the numbers, they didn't lie, they just committed the sin of omission. There is no reason why an article titled "Romney Narrows Vote Gap After Historic Debate Win" shouldn't include, at least at the very end, a mention that in gallup's 7-day tracker Obama leads by 5 points with likely voters.
But it's not a big deal. They'll probably have an article out soon detailing that friday's jobs numbers have yielded some strong support for Obama, blunting much of Romney's debate gains. And all will be well.
They posted it hours before today's update which seems unusual
I might post some toplines from my algorithm later
Souldriver
Member
Que? Is Gallup running with a 47/47 and 50/45 poll simultaneously or something?
I remember getting laughed out of the thread time and time again for saying the House is a lost cause, but okay.
Hey, where'd this guy come from?
And you should.
Yep. If anything I'd think the Romney "historic" win article is trying to hint at the polling coming later this week we've all been so anxious to see.
I would be embarrassed to even think about writing this dreck. Honestly one of the worst reasoned articles I have ever seen.
No, they're both registered. It's not mathematically that impossible -- probably the most likely explanation is a big Thursday/Friday dip that's returning to status quo, which would match up with other reported data. Those two days would dominate the Oct 4-6 data, but themselves be crowded out by the other data in the 7-day tracking poll.
Well, of course you would. Again, the actual data shows that Obama gained Sunday relative to LAST Sunday -- well before the debates happened. So he's doing better now than he was even before all this excitement.
Thing is, Obama's numbers went up pretty significantly with an additional day of post-debate data. It could be a statistical fluke though. We'll have to wait and see..
iamshadowlark
Banned
The majority would be post debate though. His lead wasn't that big pre-debate to skew it like this.
It's hard to really use any of this, I remember back in 08 Nate Silver had an article about how Obama gets a lot better numbers on weekends in tracking polls than weekdays. Who knows. I am not going to miss the daily freakouts over tracking polls though that is for sure.
elephantsonparade
Neo Member
I don't get the Gallup numbers. They have a 50-45 Obama advantage on their 7 day tracker. But they said they were running even oct 4-7 at 47-47...
Approximate daily tracking figures:
Oct 1-3 O 51- R 45 (each day, guessing based off of their polling trend)
Oct 4-6 O 47- R 47 (based off of what Gallup said this morning in their release)
Oct 7 O 56 - R 39 (if I apply the averages to get 50-45)
Is this possible math-gaf? Or am I messing this up? Seems too good to be true.
Approximate daily tracking figures:
Oct 1-3 O 51- R 45 (each day, guessing based off of their polling trend)
Oct 4-6 O 47- R 47 (based off of what Gallup said this morning in their release)
Oct 7 O 56 - R 39 (if I apply the averages to get 50-45)
Is this possible math-gaf? Or am I messing this up? Seems too good to be true.
It was +3 yesterday.
Oct 8 must have been a good day for obama, but you have 8 days in your sample I think.
At this point I'm just thinking every single thing Romney said in that debate was wrong.
It's kind of crazy how many more fact checks come out against what he's said. From the pre-existing conditions being covered thing that was fact checked by his own campaign to the 90 billion on green energy number to the 50% have failed lie to his complete mischaracterization of the IPAB board and onto this weird denial of the $5 trillion tax cut. It's just astounding...
It's kind of crazy how many more fact checks come out against what he's said. From the pre-existing conditions being covered thing that was fact checked by his own campaign to the 90 billion on green energy number to the 50% have failed lie to his complete mischaracterization of the IPAB board and onto this weird denial of the $5 trillion tax cut. It's just astounding...
Aaron Strife
Banned
Might depend on when you posted it I guess. Early on the House looked like Dems would lose seats but still hold the majority, it was only in summer of 2010 that it was clear things were breaking the Republicans.
I think Romney just blew his campaign with this warmongering talk. Americans are very opposed to getting involved in another war in the Middle East. They really don't give a shit if Arabs butcher each other. Also the fact that none of his 5 sons are in uniform makes him look like an asshole.
Obama needs to push this during the foreign policy debate. Flat out say "If you like what Bush did, vote for Romney, because that's what he's going to do. He's got the same advisors."
That's what it looked like to me but who knows?
Seriously. More action in Syria? War with Iran? Has Romney completely lost his mind. We can't afford Obamacare, but we can afford blowing more shit up in the middle east?
Byakuya769
Member
If you take a three day average before an event and a three day average after an event then compare that to a 7-day rolling average, wonky stuff is going to happen. Wednesday's numbers will let us know for sure, but looking at the 7-day tracker's trend, it looks like the debate pulled Romney up marginally and pulled Obama down marginally for a short time. For Romney to gain one more "post-debate" day and still drop back down to 45%, I'm not really worried about this post debate bump at all anymore.
The problem we're running into, I think, is rounding -- that's why backprojecting tracking polls is not traditionally done. Assume that Obama was doing more like 51 1/2 to the 3rd and 47 1/2 to the 6th (on average, so that just requires a good day or two) and Obama's poll today can be as low as 51 or so.
I was under the impression that gallup had started introducing likely voter days into its 7-day tracker last week, which would explain the discrepancy between the 47-47 RV number and the 50-45 average.
I have no direct evidence for the likely voter claim because gallup's site doesn't have clear information one way or the other. But the likely voter vs. registered voter comparison makes a lot more sense than Obama polling 56-39 over Romney on sunday at least.
I have no direct evidence for the likely voter claim because gallup's site doesn't have clear information one way or the other. But the likely voter vs. registered voter comparison makes a lot more sense than Obama polling 56-39 over Romney on sunday at least.
To make sure his base knows that he's still on their side unlike his debate performance so they keep writing the checks. News of Obama's $1B war chest must have spooked him.
NullPointer
Member
Sorry, multi-tasking at work, but what conference?
Because he won the first debate so he is the awesome
Have you not been following the campaign? If there is something he can do be either inappropriate or out of touch he certainly will dive in head first
I am amazed how much he felates his base, he already has them in his pocket. Seriously when Obama wins there will be movies and books written about this disaster of a campaign
ErasureAcer
Banned
And then list of the advisors' names. This is something Barack didn't do well in the first debate...the details. It's adds a certain weight to "Hey, I'm not making this shit up."
Black Republican
Member
ras also had obama at 51% approval today, with only a month left.
I honestly don't see why Romney should feel the need to pander to his base at all. It couldn't be clearer that as long as Romney appears "strong" they don't give a crap what he says (as long as he doesn't call for unlimited, unrestricted abortion or something). They were enthused for the first time in this whole election purely based on the fact that the media was saying "Romney won, Obama lost." They didn't care even one bit that Romney won the debate tacking to the center, away from every single thing he has said to establish his conservative bonafides throughout this election. Do not expect critical thinking or honest reflection from this base.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked