TacticalFox88
Banned
Semantics, lol.
-
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
Semantics, lol.
no prob
The Librarian
Banned
"Oh, you PoliGAF plebeians!"
How can they be undecided voters if they have made up their minds?
That's true for poling in general.
We're all going to find out around the same time who won, unless you're working on a campaign, this is mindless entertainment and little else.
That's the one part of the piece that made me laugh and shake my head.
I find comparing PEC to 538 very interesting. Silver is very invested in the concept of "momentum" -- most of his modelling seems to be based on a) an almost Platonic idea of a fundamentally national race which all individual states derive from and b) an immense focus on identifying and projecting velocities (which, in some ways, is a natural fit with a model that does "on-the-fly" reweighting of every variable -- if you didn't watch velocity and it was present it would probably throw your whole system out of whack). Wang basically throws out both those assumptions completely and starts with a completely state-based race and the most pessimistic, nearly random-walk, theories of momentum. Given their pretty variable approaches, it's interesting that they both agree that "Obama +2" is basically the state of the race, even if Silver is more pragmatic about the possibility of change than Wang is. (In fairness, Wang is careful to note that he's always assuming the election is today.)
metalslimer
Member
Is it theoretically possible for obama to actually be down that much and just win the swing states he needs to win. Of course if the vote actually went that way there would be riots in the streets around the country.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2012-general-election-romney-vs-obama (not yet updated with today's Gallup or IBD)
They track 524 national polls. Don't let individual polls blindside you. Instead, follow them as an aggregate. (Or, don't follow them at all. Swing state polls are far more important.)
littleworm
Member
Of course it's theoretically possible, its theoretically possible to win the election with less than 20 votes.
It is pretty telling that both of their approaches get the same result though, Obama +2. It lends a bit of credence to both I think.
How do we explain the 49-45 approval though in the 3-day though. You'd think it'd be more in line with the RV H2H
Definitely possible, especially if Romney runs-up the score in the South (remember: foaming-at-the-mouth Obama haters) and Bible Belt. The swing states are much more hardened than the non-swings, so their margins aren't going to move as much as a result of campaign events, while the non-swings' numbers could still migrate over time.
Possible, but not very common. This might be a fun year for it to happen, though.
The Librarian
Banned
Fuck, this place just isn't the same.
Hitokage for moderator.
Hitokage for moderator.
That would be funny if the only reason the popular vote is close is that the South came out in droves.
It would be hi-larious. And Thanksgiving/Christmas would be epic for me. I'd be tempted to buy a camera, hide it, and film family commentary.
Me: "I didn't just vote for him - I sent money to his campaign."
Family: ... {steam is seen rising from the tops of their heads}
Me: "Hmm. I wonder who his next Supreme Court appointee will be." {walking off, humming The Smurfs theme}
Aaron Strife
Banned
If the disparity between the Southern numbers and everywhere else hold, I have to imagine talk of secession will ramp up pretty hard. It'll fizzle out though.
Unless they want to insinuate that Democrats "stole" the 2010 election too by cutting the GOP's margin in half.
They're not going to have much going for them if Gallup is the only poll that shows that, though. Every other outfit is showing a tie to a small Obama lead which is probably what we'll see on election day (his strength will be concentrated heavily in the swing states).
Unless they want to insinuate that Democrats "stole" the 2010 election too by cutting the GOP's margin in half.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Given the hate and potential for violence, there will be nothing "fun" about it
Okay, for future reference, all of my statements on this topic will have an invisible asterisk for this topic ("violence and hate = not actually part of the fun I speak of")
If Obama wins w/o the popular vote which is doubtful, at least there's the recent precedent of Bush. It's not like the GOP can try to delegitimize him any worse than they've already done...
Secession will never happen. Ignoring everything obvious, Texas is so important to the nation as a whole that it would never be considered.
And this would be a "clean" split, unlike Bush's circumstance.
Romney and the Republicans damn well know the rules of the game, and in that situation, Obama will have out-gamed them, fair and square.
Ah, you mean the type of fun that gave us 2010. ;-)
So you still think you can control them, HylianTom?
Okay, I've seen this before, and now I have the urge to watch some Phil Collins music videos..
ahh..
Here it is! Land of Confusion
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Looks like intrade has stabilized at 61% Obama for the past few days.
Thank you for being objective and keeping PoliGAF honest.
I'm not worried about negotiations. Barring unilateral concessions from the U.S., negotiations are likely to fail. However, if the U.S. initiates military action, or authorizes Israeli action, which seems unlikely, it would disintegrate the international regime against Iran. One of the successes of Obama's Iran policy has been nearly universal condemnation of Iran. A few states occasionally shirk their obligations, but the world has been rather coherent in coordinating disapproval and sanctions. If we initiate military action, that unravels instantaneously. We only endanger our interests with belligerence.
Pretty solid position for Obama given Intrade's previously especially pessimistic take on the race.
cartoon_soldier
Member
A lot of people in here need to read the thread title.
Ignoring 47% of the posts won't hurt you...just like Romney.
Is there a cost to changing your mind in Intrade? If there is, wouldn't Obama's position be a bit stickier than it should be?
Unless Mitt has some miracle showing in Monday's debate, he is pretty much toast.
Yep.
All the freak out on this board is amazing. Romney is NOT going to win...
cartoon_soldier
Member
I think people said that about Bush 2 elections in a row.
I remember being hopeful going into November in 2004, but wasn't Kerry actually down and not up? Was clear on election day he would lose.
People were freaking out that McCain was going to win in 2008 because of the "Bradley effect".
Just a bit higher than it was pre-convention. I'm convinced it'd have stayed in that range if Mitt didn't have a disastrous September
PhoenixDark
Banned
To be fair, the EC favored Bush in 2004; Kerry had one path to victory. And in 2000, both candidates had one path to victory: Florida. Obama is better off electorally.
Dunno why you guys are freaking out. Stand up for what you believe
Aaron Strife
Banned
Yeah the polls showed a clear lead for Bush in 2004. The liberals pushed the idea of undecided votes breaking for the challenger, which conservatives have been doing this election. Sam Wang's model estimated that Kerry would win 311 electoral votes based only on this (Ohio and Florida going for Kerry) - his model that only looked at the polls and assumed an even split in undecideds was right on the money.
The funny thing is, if Gore had won New Hampshire he wouldn't have even needed Florida.PhoenixDark said:
Kerry was narrowly down (with occasional state polls here and there showing him either tied or with a very slight edge) and many were hoping that undecideds would break in favor of the challenger.
edit: and beaten by Aaron
The election is so big that individually we are impotent to change the outcome (I would never say that to person hesitant about voting, but it's true), and at the same time each of us feel strongly invested in the outcome. When you combine those two facts, perhaps freaking out a bit isn't too surprising.
jamesinclair
Banned
Whats the website that best shows the national poll averages?
IE, if I wanted to find out what the polls were on oct 1, oct 12 etc
IE, if I wanted to find out what the polls were on oct 1, oct 12 etc
cartoon_soldier
Member
Real Clear Politics? Pollster?
PhoenixDark
Banned
Some Ohio GOTV info. The first point focuses on early voter margins from polls, which we've discussed already. #2 and #3 are more interesting
All voters who would never show up on a LV model
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...from-Obama-campaign-We-re-winning-Ohio-Period
All voters who would never show up on a LV model
These people you talk about must prescribe to the ignorance is bliss line of thinking.
Princeton
RCP
It was clear that Kerry had little chance of winning.
PD's transformation into a reasonable poster in the face of Diablos/Cheebs/cartoon is a microcosm of how the GOP's lurch rightward is turning moderate conservatives into disgusted center-left Obama voters. PoliGAF continues to represent society.
Aaron Strife
Banned
One thing about LV models is that many of them rule out people who haven't voted in previous campaigns. If OFA is registering a ton of new voters they're not going to pick up on that.
These guys are still predicting 332-206 Obama
http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-electoral-college-map-101812.html
http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-electoral-college-map-101812.html
The Librarian
Banned
Please keep posting like this. I might start liking you.
What was Obama's job approval number?
jamesinclair
Banned
Folks, the regressions have been run, and I was right.
Its statistically significant.
There is no greater correlation in this election than the shift in CA gas prices and the national poll numbers.
If you think you can find a more significant coefficient, then go ahead, run the regressions. You won't find one.
Behold the gas prices plotted against the Obama/Romney average national polls, courtesy of RCP
I hate to say it but....
I was right, again.
Its statistically significant.
There is no greater correlation in this election than the shift in CA gas prices and the national poll numbers.
If you think you can find a more significant coefficient, then go ahead, run the regressions. You won't find one.
Behold the gas prices plotted against the Obama/Romney average national polls, courtesy of RCP
I hate to say it but....
I was right, again.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked