Agreed. NC/FL are prob gone, but I think VA will pull through.
-
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
Agreed. NC/FL are prob gone, but I think VA will pull through.
highly correlative
which shows that the national numbers are important
I doubt this will ever happen. The Presidency is the grand prize and the smaller states will never sign on to eliminate any power they have over it.
Right, I didn't mean to imply they didn't matter all. But national polls are useless without the context of state polls for the purpose of determining the winner of the election.
that's very strange.
i want to see some more results out of iowa, particularly early voting. if there could be some more corroboration with the 34-35 point lead in early voting, that would be quite the number.
it'd also be important to know how many surveyed would have voted early.
I know but I was glad he was prepping because of how the first debate ended. Campaigning is good but the news narrative is also important as well. The push Romney got should never have happen. To close to the wire is all I'm saying. Anything can happen. Look at the first debate.
djplaeskool
Member
I know it does...it's just kind of frustrating to know the insatiable red tide will not be stemmed here.
I agree, although I'd make one caveat: aggregates should capture everything within the realm of reason, where reason is defined as following the scientific process. A poll that has obviously and clearly flawed methodologies should be ignored, because they are not reasonable. I would not want Nate Silver to factor in a poll that had a sample size of 1, as a deliberately extreme example to clarify the concept.
You should not ignore outliers because they are outliers, you should ignore outliers if their methodology is flawed or if they don't seem to be following the scientific process rigorously. Being an outlier is not, in itself, a logical reason to ignore a poll or evidence of any kind.
metalslimer
Member
I think Obama is pretty well prepped for a foreign policy debate especially with the topic coming up multiple times in previous debates.
I wonder if there will be any way in the future to just vote electronically from an iPhone or something.
A convincing case can be made that their methodology isn't quite as sound as it used to be, due to response rates being much lower than they used to be and Gallup still not weighing their samples by demographics
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/gallup-poll-changes_n_1955949.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...bama_n_1589937.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008
This is not to say that I recommend dismissing their results either, but their methodology differs from the rest. As far as I know, at least every national pollsters weighs their samples to compensate for the low response rate, leaving Gallup the only odd one out
Yes. That is what I was getting at. I think we are in agreement.
Agree, and as I understand it, both TPM and Silver (the two trackers I use) exclude certain polls that are not judged to be methodologically sound.
GameplayWhore
Member
Say, guys, I'm playing around with auto-fetching the xml data from reginfo.gov. Apparently, regulations receiving a status of "Final Rule", "Interim Final Rule" and
"Direct Final Rule" were over 1200 in count from 1981 to 1993, but after that point they've been all under 500. This chart on politifact shows a similar anomaly. Was there something that happened to how they review the regulations at that point?
Also, the terminology confuses me a bit (even though I read the reginfo.gov FAQ). "Interim" and "Final" seem like conflicting terms. Would they be considered completed regulations? Or is there a better place entirely from which to try to extract the data. I'm running under the assumption that this is a good source to extract regulations approved by the President, as I wanted to see for myself exactly how the landscape has changed in the last few decades with respect to them, especially since this has been treated like a hot-button political issue lately. Better sources would, of course, be welcome.
"Direct Final Rule" were over 1200 in count from 1981 to 1993, but after that point they've been all under 500. This chart on politifact shows a similar anomaly. Was there something that happened to how they review the regulations at that point?
Also, the terminology confuses me a bit (even though I read the reginfo.gov FAQ). "Interim" and "Final" seem like conflicting terms. Would they be considered completed regulations? Or is there a better place entirely from which to try to extract the data. I'm running under the assumption that this is a good source to extract regulations approved by the President, as I wanted to see for myself exactly how the landscape has changed in the last few decades with respect to them, especially since this has been treated like a hot-button political issue lately. Better sources would, of course, be welcome.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
if the post election thread isn't this:
PoliGAF 2012 |OT6| Romney loses in landslide, Obama Doomed
... I won't know what to do with myself.
PoliGAF 2012 |OT6| Romney loses in landslide, Obama Doomed
... I won't know what to do with myself.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I'm slightly worried about the third debate in the sense that Romney got embarrassed so much that he will likely prepare like a mad man for this one; this is basically the end of the line for him. Barring some October surprise, this will be the second to last major news event of the election; the jobs report will be the last, and probably won't have much of an effect.
Romney will try to revive Libya but most of the focus will be on Iran and Syria. But still, Obama needs a repeat performance to seal the deal. Obama tends to play the commander in chief role well but that doesn't mean he shouldn't worry about this debate. I'd imagine Axelrod has complained that if Obama had showed up to the first debate, this election might be over right now
Romney will try to revive Libya but most of the focus will be on Iran and Syria. But still, Obama needs a repeat performance to seal the deal. Obama tends to play the commander in chief role well but that doesn't mean he shouldn't worry about this debate. I'd imagine Axelrod has complained that if Obama had showed up to the first debate, this election might be over right now
|OT6| Bad News Obama, You Won.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Can I make the election thread in the OT forum? I have a good idea for it.
anonymous_abc
Member
This this this.
metalslimer
Member
Wondering, has any data pointed towards Romney actually getting undecided voters after that first debate and stealing away Obama voters, or did his own base just get more excited and the polls just corrected when Obama was at his highest?
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Wow that is soooo good. Like WTF! Obama was on fiyah!
DragonSworne
Banned
CaptainSchwann
Member
Lol yeah this is perfect
|OT6|Sorry Obama, you lost to President-elect Johnson.
"PD, third debates don't matter. Stop trolling!"
Seriously, I hear you though. Maybe he will but a. Both men don't have as much time to prepare, and b. Obama won't let his guard down. Foreign Policy is probably one of his strongest suits, and no doubt he is prepared to deal with any criticisms that Romney will have, from Libya to China to the defense budget.
If he tries to push hard on Libya he's just doing himself a disservice. Obama is prepared to not only take responsibility for any gaps in communication/intelligence blunders/etc. but is well aware of the events surrounding it at this point. What can Romney say to make Obama look bad? It's hard to try and peg him in when he takes responsibility.
I'd have loved to have been able to hear the closed door conversations with Team Obama after the first debate. Hahaha.
In poll aggregation, you add it in and average it out. Individual polls don't matter but trends in the averages of recent polls do...
Seems like it's ONLY women behind him lol
Such a boss. Haha. This is vintage Obama right here.
DataStream
Member
If Romney ends up generating a backlog of talking points and anecdotes there is a good chance he'll veer into the Alpha Male interrupt you mode so he can assure he has the final point. This would play well for Obama as it could easily be pointed out that such a hasty and aggressive demeanor when dealing with international conflict can have catastrophic consequences.
I expect it to be a battle of Obama's nuanced policy versus GOP aggression and cowboy style FP. I don't believe the American public wants another term of warfare and don't see the Neoconservative platform playing very well.
Obama needs to be like this everyday. If he can pull this off in the debate, game over.
Well, that depends.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Come on polls start fucking agreeing with each other
Holy crap I LOST IT at the punchline. That was superb.
Zero-Crescent
Member
"Obama wins, some people allege voting fraud." *cut to stock footage of someone examining a ballot, then to stock footage of Black Panthers standing in front of a polling place*
TacticalFox88
Banned
Which one? There were several :lol :lol
But it has still been tightening a bit too much lately to say it's Safe Dem. It's probably better to say Lean Dem right now.
I really do wonder what the polling would look like right now if he turned in even a half-decent debate.
I don't think they'd still be at Sept. numbers, things definitely would have tightened.
Nice, Nate's latest piece pretty much confirms what we've all been saying. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...-forecast-on-resiliency-in-swing-state-polls/
Also
Also
Hobbestetrician
Member
Damn, PPP, why you gotta do that to me?
"[If you have Romnesia], here's the good news: Obamacare covers preexisting conditions!"
Holy shit.
nervous about wisconsin. i give it the benefit of the doubt, but if that state goes, it probably wins romney the election. obama would need colorado and nevada (or iowa) to win if new hampshire, wisconsin, and virginia all broke for romney.
Then he'll be attacked for being flippant in a FP debate. Nah, leave the jokes for the stump speeches
Well, he has Bill and Michelle stumping for him across WI today and the NBC/Marist poll had him up 6%
Wonderful =)
Aaron Strife
Banned
Mellman: Obama 51 Romney 43 in Nevada
They were the only pollster who had Reid winning in 2010.
Like I said about Iowa yesterday, I don't think the horserace matters so much as the fact that Obama's shoring up the early vote. It's odd that Marist and PPP diverge on their toplines though.
They were the only pollster who had Reid winning in 2010.
Like I said about Iowa yesterday, I don't think the horserace matters so much as the fact that Obama's shoring up the early vote. It's odd that Marist and PPP diverge on their toplines though.
To a point I've made previously, it shouldn't be surprising because voters typically evaluate the economy from a national perspective. And the national trend has been positive for Obama. Thus, even in a state experiencing languid growth, such as NV, Obama's position will reflect the national economy. Mind you, localized effects are not entirely immaterial. But they are overshadowed by national factors.
As I said in my post, commentators are sometimes too quick to focus on the details of states and communities, which can downplay, if only by implication, how much national forces shape elections. In fact, the unique features of states have become less important over time. Andy has shown that states have become more similar in their partisan shifts from election year to election year—that is, the shifts (or “swings”
http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/02/14/swing-state-economies-do-they-even-matter/
They do. Their miniseries, The Fabric of the Cosmos, was incredible. You should watch it.
ryutaro's mama
Member
So Obama lost Iowa, guys?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked