It's really painful to watch that fool take a poll of x number of registered voters and directly translated into popular voting outcomes.

That chart is pretty damn interesting.

I just want to see right-leaning farkers argue about the importance of popular votes and how the electoral college is biased.

Until we know which way Diebold is voting, it's just speculation.
Oh wait, we do know which way Diebold is voting...

'try'

Here, submitter, you dropped this

Stoj: It's really painful to watch that fool take a poll of x number of registered voters and directly translated into popular voting outcomes.

And it's painful to watch you miss the point entirely.

crossthread: And it's painful to watch you miss the point entirely.

Enlighten me, oh chosen one.

I dispute the Kennedy popular vote margin. Not that it matters much at this point.

Procedural Texture: Until we know which way Diebold is voting, it's just speculation.
Oh wait, we do know which way Diebold is voting...

Diebold doesn't supply voting machines to all the states. IIRC they don't even have them in OH and FL anymore.

A lot of political pundits talking about this election sound to me like sports announcers calling a football game in which one team is up by about 21 points heading towards halftime, and they're talking about how the other team can still come back. Maybe they can, but it's not looking good, and you get the suspicion they're only saying that so you'll keep watching.

Watchman: I dispute the Kennedy popular vote margin. Not that it matters much at this point.

Looks right.

Stoj: It's really painful to watch that fool take a poll of x number of registered voters and directly translated into popular voting outcomes.

ummmmmmm
polls are incredibly accurate within the margin of error
your lack of understanding of math and stats does not change reality

namatad: your lack of understanding of math and stats does not change reality

I took a stats class once in college. I figured that qualified me as a Fark expert.

Seriously though, it is my understanding that a poll of "likely voters" is more accurate, and the other day McCain was leading Obama in that poll.

I was not aware that polls of registered voters translated so well into election results, especially this far out.

Stoj: Looks right.

Oh, I don't dispute the fact that it matches the story we've been told. I just removed my tinfoil hat long enough to claim that Nixon actually won the popular vote. Again, not that his presidency at that point would have been a good thing.

bulldg4life: ...how the electoral college is biased.

The math behind it prevents that. Or so this guy says:

"Math against tyranny - mathematics underlying electoral college ensures the future of US democracy"

Stoj: I was not aware that polls of registered voters translated so well into election results, especially this far out.

What the poll tells you is what the electorate would do if the election were held today. 95% confidence that the poll is correct within the margin of error.

bulldg4life: I just want to see right-leaning farkers argue about the importance of popular votes and how the electoral college is biased.

Given the outcome in 2000, I'd like to see them try this as well....

gilgamesh23: What the poll tells you is what the electorate would do if the election were held today. 95% confidence that the poll is correct within the margin of error.

I wonder why the article didn't cite the Rasmussen polls. I thought those were supposed to be the most accurate this go-round?

Where did you find that stat about polls of registered voters?

Stoj: I wonder why the article didn't cite the Rasmussen polls. I thought those were supposed to be the most accurate this go-round?

Where did you find that stat about polls of registered voters?

Well, different polls use different methodologies, and probably the most difficult thing to do is to define the demographics of the people who will actually cast a vote in the fall. Pollsters try to select their samples to reflect the electorate, and to the extent they do they will be fairly accurate.

The 95% thing is just mathematics. A poll that is taken of, say, 1000 likely voters might have a margin of error of 3% (that's pretty close to right). This is to account for random noise that might show up in the sample, skewing it.

A very simple example: say that there are an even number of men and women in the United States. You pick 1000 people at random. It's not particularly likely that you'll get exactly 500 men and 500 women. However, 95% of the time you'll end up with between 470 and 530 individuals of each gender. This is the 3% margin of error. The margin of error is defined by this 95% confidence threshold.

gilgamesh23: This is the 3% margin of error. The margin of error is defined by this 95% confidence threshold.

Yeah, I was wondering more about the registered voters vs. likely voters stats.

Either way, I'm out. I hope Obama wins even though I think he will suck as a president. The Republican party has fallen too far behind today's actual republicans, if you ask me, and I'm sick of it.

Overconfidence. It creeps me out.

I like graphs

DarnoKonrad: Overconfidence. It creeps me out.

I don't think this article is particularly overconfident, per se, but it does make a good point that historically, a 5 or 6 point lead in popular vote polls isn't really as close as people make it out to be.

Standard disclaimer, polls represent a snapshot of public opinion at a particular moment in time and aren't intended to predict the outcome of a future event, yaddayaddayadda...things aren't over yet but McCain has a lot of work to do if he wants to catch up, yaddayaddayadda...

It's not over 'til it's over.

Everyone on Fark was so damn sure that Kerry was going to decimate Bush in 2004.

Gah, there's a "Dewey Defeats Truman" joke around here, but I just can't seem to find it.

It seems the Mccant campaign got a clue and decided to stfu about all the tabloid crap they've been pushing. Good on him. It won't make a difference, but good job.

Procedural Texture: Until we know which way Diebold is voting, it's just speculation.
Oh wait, we do know which way Diebold is voting...

Indeed, they already leaked the results.

I don't know about the popular vote, but even Karl Rove has McCain losing in the electoral votes.



/ data from Turdblossom inc.

I've been saying this for months. McCain camp are going to realize too late, just like the Clinton did with the famous 'i wished we knew how important the Caucus states were', but it'll be 'i wished we knew about the electoral votes'.

GhostFish: It's not over 'til it's over.

Everyone on Fark was so damn sure that Kerry was going to decimate Bush in 2004.

True. I didn't say so then, and I'm not going to say so now. Things look alright so far, but we'll just have to see what happens like every time.

submitter: It's really painful to watch these fools who don't bother to pay attention to history (try) to understand how a five-point popular vote victory almost always translates to an Electoral College landslide

No shiat subby. Seeing as Mr. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and still beat Mr. Gore in the electoral vote 271 to 267 a five percent swing could easily be a landslide.

/creeps out DarnoKonrad
//this election is soooooooo over (new window)

Procedural Texture: Until we know which way Diebold is voting, it's just speculation.
Oh wait, we do know which way Diebold is voting...

This. At this point, I think Obama is going to NEED a blowout. Anything less than that is going to get spun and obfuscated into Al Gore 2000.

Chariset: 'try'

Here, submitter, you dropped this

Thanks. It was really painful to try to understand that headline without it.

It's also painful to try to explain to people how a President can lose the popular vote, win the electoral vote, and not cheat; and that it's happened before in American history; regardless of one's opinion on Pres. Bush.

jake_lex: Maybe they can, but it's not looking good, and you get the suspicion they're only saying that so you'll keep watching.

Maybe they are. I've had that feeling for a while now.

GhostFish: Everyone on Fark was so damn sure that Kerry was going to decimate Bush in 2004.

I wasn't around then. Care to give some examples?

Right wingers don't want a popular vote.

They believe that every one in New York and LA all vote exactly the same way and the have a higher popluation than the rest of the US.

That whole "one person one vote" thing just blows their mind. Too much math I guess.

Hiro Nakamura: I wasn't around then. Care to give some examples?

I'd say that most farkers where pretty gobsmacked at Bush's win. Knowing now how Bush operates, not so much.

Year...Winner...EV Margin...Pop Vote Margin
2000...Bush.....4...........-0.5

/sigh

GoRedSoxGo: I don't think this article is particularly overconfident, per se, but it does make a good point that historically, a 5 or 6 point lead in popular vote polls isn't really as close as people make it out to be.

The key word here being popular vote polls. We won't know those polls for another three months.

Svedish Meatballs: GoRedSoxGo: I don't think this article is particularly overconfident, per se, but it does make a good point that historically, a 5 or 6 point lead in popular vote polls isn't really as close as people make it out to be.

The key word here being popular vote polls. We won't know those polls for another three months.

Well, yeah. I should have said national polls as opposed to state polls. That would've made more sense.

It's really painful to read run-on sentence headlines with either missing words or misused prepositions.

One problem I had with the article was the way it assumed, like so many of these election articles do, that only votes for one of the two major parties count.

From TFA: 1992: Clinton won the popular vote by 5.6 points, winning the Electoral College by a 370 to 168 margin (a difference of 202)

Clinton got 5.6 percent more than Bush, but was well short of half the popular vote.

Wasn't Dukakis polling a double-digit lead over Bush at this same point in the 1988 election?

lexnaturalis: Wasn't Dukakis polling a double-digit lead over Bush at this same point in the 1988 election?

That was what I was going to post, something along the lines of "It's really painful to watch these fools who don't remember that Dukakis had a 17 point lead going into August of 88". Or Hillary's inevitability (she was leading by double digits in the Dem race at one point) or McCain's campaign being done and overwith a year ago. Elections turn on a dime. It is amazing the number of people, including Obama himself, who think this is in the bag. Further for him to declare that a five point lead is somehow insurmountable is ludicrous. Wait till after the GOP convention to watch the polls. Both candidates will get a bounce coming out but it will be a matter of how big.

lexnaturalis: Wasn't Dukakis polling a double-digit lead over Bush at this same point in the 1988 election?

He had a much larger lead, but I believe this is what sunk him:

guilt by association:

He had a much larger lead, but I believe this is what sunk him:

It didn't help but it didn't sink him. Bush gave a great convention speech and got a huge bounce. Dukakis just floundered and was way over confident and felt the need to placate the far left of the party (something Clinton never did in 92) giving Jesse Jackson a large convention spot, seriously considering him for VP etc. Supposedly Dukakis told one of his aides "I can handle this guy (Bush) you just worry about the first 100 days"

Hang On Voltaire: guilt by association:

He had a much larger lead, but I believe this is what sunk him:

It didn't help but it didn't sink him. Bush gave a great convention speech and got a huge bounce. Dukakis just floundered and was way over confident and felt the need to placate the far left of the party (something Clinton never did in 92) giving Jesse Jackson a large convention spot, seriously considering him for VP etc. Supposedly Dukakis told one of his aides "I can handle this guy (Bush) you just worry about the first 100 days"


Interesting. I was only four at the time, I need to read up some more on that election.

Hang On Voltaire: Bush gave a great convention speech and got a huge bounce. Dukakis just floundered and was way over confident and felt the need to placate the far left of the party (something Clinton never did in 92) giving Jesse Jackson a large convention spot, seriously considering him for VP etc.

That's very interesting.

Luckily, I can't see Obama giving anything but a dynamite convention speech, and certainly he's not going to pander to the far left or pick some wildly impractical VP.

GhostFish: It's not over 'til it's over.

Everyone on Fark was so damn sure that Kerry was going to decimate Bush in 2004.

Yep. Never underestimate the stupidity of the American public.

hillbillypharmacist:
That's very interesting.

Luckily, I can't see Obama giving anything but a dynamite convention speech, and certainly he's not going to pander to the far left or pick some wildly impractical VP.

Well Dukakis did eventually go with a conventional pick for VP. I agree on both points I think Obama will give a great speech and pick a safe VP. I will be very curious to see what his bounce will be. I am predicting somewhere around 15 points

Hang On Voltaire: lexnaturalis: Wasn't Dukakis polling a double-digit lead over Bush at this same point in the 1988 election?

That was what I was going to post, something along the lines of "It's really painful to watch these fools who don't remember that Dukakis had a 17 point lead going into August of 88". Or Hillary's inevitability (she was leading by double digits in the Dem race at one point) or McCain's campaign being done and overwith a year ago. Elections turn on a dime. It is amazing the number of people, including Obama himself, who think this is in the bag. Further for him to declare that a five point lead is somehow insurmountable is ludicrous. Wait till after the GOP convention to watch the polls. Both candidates will get a bounce coming out but it will be a matter of how big.

Obama has declared that his lead is insurmountable? News to me.