Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   New NYT/Quinnipiac polls numbers are out - Obama +10 in Ohio, Obama +9 in Florida, Obama +12 in Pennsylvania. Looks like the only hope for Mitt Romney this November is NFL replacement refs at the polling stations   (nytimes.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Quinnipiac Poll, Mitt Romney, President Obama, NYT, Pennsylvania, florida, Ohio, NFL  
•       •       •

1503 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Sep 2012 at 10:32 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



357 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-09-26 10:33:11 AM  
lutz
 
2012-09-26 10:33:35 AM  
Time to start harmonizing the statistical quirks!
 
2012-09-26 10:33:35 AM  
DNRTA but the race isn't over. But, I certainly hope these numbers hold 'til the election is over.
 
2012-09-26 10:34:32 AM  
Mitt Romney's campaign is showing us what happens when you roll down your airplane windows.
 
2012-09-26 10:34:35 AM  
Its looking pretty grim for the GoP right now. Expect something desperate in the next month.
 
2012-09-26 10:34:36 AM  
www.lawlz.org
 
2012-09-26 10:35:15 AM  

thenewmissus: I certainly hope these numbers hold 'til the election is over.


You, me and the rest of the world, minus Bibi and Ahmed.
 
2012-09-26 10:35:24 AM  

orclover: Its looking pretty grim for the GoP right now. Expect something desperate in the next month.


I just wish the DNC could flip the Congress. I'm assuming the hold the Senate.
 
2012-09-26 10:35:43 AM  
Seems legitimate.
 
2012-09-26 10:36:30 AM  

thenewmissus: DNRTA but the race isn't over. But, I certainly hope these numbers hold 'til the election is over.


*raise glass* Amen. I also hope to see some positive results in Senate and House races.
 
2012-09-26 10:36:34 AM  

mrshowrules: orclover: Its looking pretty grim for the GoP right now. Expect something desperate in the next month.

I just wish the DNC could flip the Congress. I'm assuming the hold the Senate.


I think they can win Congress back, based on how badly Mitt is tanking the Senate. Keep in mind we don't really have regular Congressional polls.
 
2012-09-26 10:36:44 AM  
I like how Florida and Ohio have 47 electoral votes between them.
 
2012-09-26 10:37:44 AM  
"Those fears are affirmed in the findings of the latest Quinnipiac University/New York Times/CBS News polls of likely voters..."

you mean the latest LIEbral/LIEbral/LIEbral poll of likely LIEbrals?

/I'm being ironic
 
2012-09-26 10:37:50 AM  
FTFA: "Mr. Obama has widened his lead over Mr. Romney and is outperforming him on nearly every major campaign issue, even though about half said they were disappointed in Mr. Obama's presidency."

Well? What did you THINK was going to happen when you picked an awful candidate/person for your nominee? Did you really think that "not being Barack Obama" would be good enough?

That crap might fly in small town mayoral races, but you gotta bring your A game to the big show.
 
2012-09-26 10:38:19 AM  
I hope that the Kock brothers and Adelson kept their receipts. After spending all that money for the results they got Mitt should at least give them a few shares of Stericycle.
 
2012-09-26 10:38:19 AM  
the Rev. Timothy Kenoyer said that even though he believed Mr. Obama was auguring an era of "socialism" - and that an economic malaise had set into his neighborhood - he was pessimistic about Mr. Romney's chances.

It is comical how obvious people like this are dittoheads for right-wing talk radio. The socialism thing is so tired at this point it is obnoxious and the weak effort to tie Obama to friggin' Jimmy Carter with the 'malaise' thing is so pathetically desperate.
 
2012-09-26 10:38:37 AM  
Sounds like Mondale's lead in 84. Or Carter's in 80. Same polling group as well.
 
2012-09-26 10:38:38 AM  
They're working on that.
 
2012-09-26 10:39:32 AM  
Mr. Romney would also need to win Nevada in this eventuality - a state where he has never held the lead in a public poll.

So one sign that Mr. Romney's team is preparing a "Plan B" to win the election without Ohio would be if they begin to place more emphasis on Iowa and Nevada. They would then have to hope that a shift in the national environment would carry states like Virginia and Florida back into their column.

It isn't a great plan. But when you're the Republican candidate and are down outside the margin of error in Ohio with six weeks to go, you don't have any great plans.


- FiveThirtyEight, Sept. 25th
 
2012-09-26 10:39:32 AM  
Today:

Florida: Obama 53%, Romney 44% (NYT/CBS/Quinnipiac)
Florida: Obama 49%, Romney 46% (InsiderAdvantage)
Ohio: Obama 53%, Romney 43% (NYT/CBS/Quinnipiac)
Pennsylvania: Obama 54%, Romney 42% (NYT/CBS/Quinnipiac)
Pennsylvania: Obama 52%, Romney 43% (Franklin & Marshall)

Yesterday:

Florida: Obama 51%, Romney 47% (Washington Post)
Nevada: Obama 52%, Romney 43% (PPP/LCV)
Nevada: Obama 46%, Romney 46% (Bolger)
Ohio: Obama 52%, Romney 44% (Washington Post)
Ohio: Obama 45%, Romney 44% (Gravis)
Pennsylvania: Obama 48%, Romney 40% (Mercyhurst University)

Monday

Colorado: Obama 51%, Romney 45% (Public Policy Polling)
Florida: Obama 50%, Romney 45% (American Research Group)
Iowa: Obama 51%, Romney 44% (American Research Group)
Michigan: Obama 54%, Romney 42% (Rasmussen)
North Carolina: Obama 49%, Romney 45% (Civitas)
Nevada: Obama 51%, Romney 44% (American Research Group)
Wisconsin: Obama 53%, Romney 41% (We Ask America)
 
2012-09-26 10:39:36 AM  

bdub77: mrshowrules: orclover: Its looking pretty grim for the GoP right now. Expect something desperate in the next month.

I just wish the DNC could flip the Congress. I'm assuming the hold the Senate.

I think they can win Congress back, based on how badly Mitt is tanking the Senate. Keep in mind we don't really have regular Congressional polls.


538 is currently predicting 52 seats and rising, but I'm not sure how many "real" (sigh) Democrats that includes. I know people tend to include a couple blue dog democrats, and independents. Not sure how many of those are in the Senate, or whether Nate put them in a different category.
 
2012-09-26 10:39:36 AM  
"Romney needs a PR person," Natalie McGee, a law student at Ohio State University who supports Mr. Romney, lamented during an interview on campus

Jeez, thanks Captain Obvious. I'm sure now that you have revealed this secret campaign technology, the Romney campaign will waste no time in researching just what a PR person is, how they function, and how important they are to a campaign. They would like to thank you for introducing the term "PR Person" to the world, BTW, you're going down as a major player in history, Nat.
 
2012-09-26 10:40:08 AM  
Or replacement polling...[unskewedpolls.com]

// don't worry, he's every bit as potato as the "refs"
// not gonna link it - let's just say he's the bizarro Nate Silver
Revlis Etan //
 
2012-09-26 10:40:47 AM  

Carn: I like how Florida and Ohio have 47 electoral votes between them.


Based on Sheldon Adelson's spending, that's only two million per electoral vote. He's willing to go higher.
 
2012-09-26 10:41:02 AM  
Once the polls are unscewed, you'll notice that Romney holds a commanding lead with people that are allowed to vote
 
2012-09-26 10:41:25 AM  
Romney is going down faster in the polls than Limbaugh on a Dominican boy.
 
2012-09-26 10:41:48 AM  

bdub77: mrshowrules: orclover: Its looking pretty grim for the GoP right now. Expect something desperate in the next month.

I just wish the DNC could flip the Congress. I'm assuming the hold the Senate.

I think they can win Congress back, based on how badly Mitt is tanking the Senate. Keep in mind we don't really have regular Congressional polls.


We can hope. The polls are outdated but it looks like if the DNC takes every toss-up district possible, they steal don't take back Congress. If many Conservatives stay home and pray on election day (as they should), who knows.
 
2012-09-26 10:42:57 AM  

MyRandomName: Sounds like Mondale's lead in 84. Or Carter's in 80. Same polling group as well.


redriverpak.files.wordpress.com

"Don't stop... Believin'!!"
 
2012-09-26 10:43:23 AM  

natazha: Carn: I like how Florida and Ohio have 47 electoral votes between them.

Based on Sheldon Adelson's spending, that's only two million per electoral vote. He's willing to go higher.


I very much hope he finds that he's spent millions for nothing, and still ends up indicted for whatever the hell it is he's supposed to be indicted for. I don't remember what it was. Being a corpuscular gollum impersonator maybe?
 
2012-09-26 10:43:58 AM  
For anyone screaming bias, the Washington Post poll had similar results.

The post-47% comment data is starting to come in, and it's not pretty for Romney.
 
2012-09-26 10:44:18 AM  
skewed polls are skewed!

/derp
 
2012-09-26 10:44:18 AM  
Wednesday Republican quotes:

"We are watching, FIRST HAND, the beginning of the end to our great country. The 2012 prediction will have meaning for future generations. Who knew the end would be caused by an inept Congress and President."

"Main stream media needs a dose of Sgt. Joe Friday---just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."

"Why does everyone say you can't win the presidency without winning Ohio? Do you mean there aren't enough voters outside Ohio to win an election? Please stop sounding ridiculous."
 
2012-09-26 10:44:26 AM  
It can only get worse for Romney after the debates.

/gleefully awaiting the parody "response strips", like they did for Biden and Palin
 
2012-09-26 10:44:44 AM  

Whiskey Pete: Romney is going down faster in the polls than Limbaugh on a Dominican boy.


Romney is going down faster than a Republican Congressman in a public bathroom.
 
2012-09-26 10:44:51 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-26 10:45:34 AM  
There's a reason the Republicans didn't go with Mitt Romney the first time around.
 
2012-09-26 10:45:35 AM  

Huggermugger: It can only get worse for Romney after the debates.

/gleefully awaiting the parody "response strips", like they did for Biden and Palin


Hell. I'd better just call in sick the day after the debates. Not because of any drinking, but because I'm saving all the awesome response strips from Fark threads. :P
 
2012-09-26 10:45:48 AM  

mrshowrules: The polls are outdated but it looks like if the DNC takes every toss-up district possible, they steal don't take back Congress.


Do you have anything concrete to support this? What constitutes a "toss-up district"?
 
2012-09-26 10:45:58 AM  
No need to vote.  As Mr. Obama has said.
 
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-09-26 10:46:00 AM  
This is bad news...for the Koch-suckers.

/they'll have to work twice as hard, and spend twice as much to disenfranchise even more voters, now.
 
2012-09-26 10:46:43 AM  
Romney is the 1%

of electoral votes.
 
2012-09-26 10:46:49 AM  
Eh, they'll just send a bunch of staffers to bang on the county clerk's door for a while, whine about "chads" for a couple days, call Obama a "sore loser", then pay off Scalia with the traditional bag of human hearts and it will be all over for another 8 years like the last time.
 
2012-09-26 10:46:49 AM  
Photo of Romney campaign taken this morning"

www.strangecosmos.com
 
2012-09-26 10:47:01 AM  

mrshowrules: orclover: Its looking pretty grim for the GoP right now. Expect something desperate in the next month.

I just wish the DNC could flip the Congress. I'm assuming the hold the Senate.


I am not holding my breath. Gerrymandering will keep the House in GOP hands. If the Dems can pick up some seats in the House then they can declare a victory.
 
2012-09-26 10:47:11 AM  
I still want Obama to try an take Texas. For the lulz.
 
2012-09-26 10:47:13 AM  

Whiskey Pete: I hope that the Kock brothers and Adelson kept their receipts. After spending all that money for the results they got Mitt should at least give them a few shares of Stericycle.


the larger the margin Obama wins by, the greater he is going to be able to sick it to them. Those guys might even end up paying the same amount in taxes as their employees. Can you imagine the horror of that.
 
2012-09-26 10:47:14 AM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: natazha: Carn: I like how Florida and Ohio have 47 electoral votes between them.

Based on Sheldon Adelson's spending, that's only two million per electoral vote. He's willing to go higher.

I very much hope he finds that he's spent millions for nothing, and still ends up indicted for whatever the hell it is he's supposed to be indicted for. I don't remember what it was. Being a corpuscular gollum impersonator maybe?


Human trafficking. Sex slaves from Thailand and Cambodia, specifically
 
2012-09-26 10:47:14 AM  
 
2012-09-26 10:47:35 AM  
These polls were conducted before Madonna threatened to get naked on stage if Obama wins.
 
2012-09-26 10:47:51 AM  

I_C_Weener: No need to vote.


telling people not to vote and passing laws that make it so they can't is about the only thing that might save them in this election.
 
2012-09-26 10:48:37 AM  

cc_rider: This is bad news...for the Koch-suckers.

/they'll have to work twice as hard, and spend twice as much to disenfranchise even more voters, now.


This is just one battle in the war that they're winning.

Their money helped the GOP take over the House in 2010 as well as many state legislatures and Governorships.
 
2012-09-26 10:49:03 AM  

Superjew: Eh, they'll just send a bunch of staffers to bang on the county clerk's door for a while, whine about "chads" for a couple days, call Obama a "sore loser", then pay off Scalia with the traditional bag of human hearts and it will be all over for another 8 years like the last time.


Just like in 2008, eh?
 
2012-09-26 10:49:06 AM  
I'm tempted to venture on over to Freeperville and read all of the "Librul biased polling/media" DERP but my laptop won't withstand another trip through the dishwasher.
 
2012-09-26 10:49:19 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: FTFA: "Mr. Obama has widened his lead over Mr. Romney and is outperforming him on nearly every major campaign issue, even though about half said they were disappointed in Mr. Obama's presidency."

Well? What did you THINK was going to happen when you picked an awful candidate/person for your nominee? Did you really think that "not being Barack Obama" would be good enough?

That crap might fly in small town mayoral races, but you gotta bring your A game to the big show.


The democratic party learned that lesson the hard way with Kerry. Now the GOP gets to learn that lesson. Somehow though, I think they're going to take away the completely wrong lesson and in 2016 the nominee will be Alan West.
 
2012-09-26 10:50:02 AM  

Bocasio: Wednesday Republican quotes:

"We are watching, FIRST HAND, the beginning of the end to our great country. The 2012 prediction will have meaning for future generations. Who knew the end would be caused by an inept Congress and President."

"Main stream media needs a dose of Sgt. Joe Friday---just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."

"Why does everyone say you can't win the presidency without winning Ohio? Do you mean there aren't enough voters outside Ohio to win an election? Please stop sounding ridiculous."


Did a Republican really say this? They are aware that NO Republican EVER has won the Presidency without Ohio, right? So as Nate Silver already pointed out, if you're a Republican losing Ohio, your options are very limited.
 
2012-09-26 10:50:07 AM  
This just makes Romney's inevitable victory that much more impressive.
 
2012-09-26 10:51:03 AM  

MyRandomName: Sounds like Mondale's lead in 84. Or Carter's in 80. Same polling group as well.


It could also remind us of Obama's lead in '08, since Mitt Romney isn't even a shadow of Reagan, and has too many skeletons in his closet, unlike Reagan, and comparisons to the 80 and 84 elections is just wishful thinking by retards with nothing else to cling to.
 
2012-09-26 10:51:05 AM  

Lost Thought 00: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: natazha: Carn: I like how Florida and Ohio have 47 electoral votes between them.

Based on Sheldon Adelson's spending, that's only two million per electoral vote. He's willing to go higher.

I very much hope he finds that he's spent millions for nothing, and still ends up indicted for whatever the hell it is he's supposed to be indicted for. I don't remember what it was. Being a corpuscular gollum impersonator maybe?

Human trafficking. Sex slaves from Thailand and Cambodia, specifically


Seriously? Wow. Then I guess he gets to be out millions AND go to jail. Fun!
 
2012-09-26 10:51:42 AM  

Cletus C.: These polls were conducted before Madonna threatened to get naked on stage if Obama wins.


Surprisingly, that is a very good point.
 
2012-09-26 10:51:55 AM  

natazha: Carn: I like how Florida and Ohio have 47 electoral votes between them.

Based on Sheldon Adelson's spending, that's only two million per electoral vote. He's willing to go higher.


That's just disgusting isn't it?
 
2012-09-26 10:52:37 AM  

Moosecakes: HMS_Blinkin: FTFA: "Mr. Obama has widened his lead over Mr. Romney and is outperforming him on nearly every major campaign issue, even though about half said they were disappointed in Mr. Obama's presidency."

Well? What did you THINK was going to happen when you picked an awful candidate/person for your nominee? Did you really think that "not being Barack Obama" would be good enough?

That crap might fly in small town mayoral races, but you gotta bring your A game to the big show.

The democratic party learned that lesson the hard way with Kerry. Now the GOP gets to learn that lesson. Somehow though, I think they're going to take away the completely wrong lesson and in 2016 the nominee will be Alan West.


That's exactly what they'll do! They'll say that Romney wasn't a true Conservative, and derp even harder for 2016. The only question is when the positive-feedback cycle ends. Sooner or later, they've got to realize that they're losing relevance, and there will be a pull back toward the middle. I personally think that it'll take one more election cycle for that to happen, unless Obama somehow manages to win 48 or 49 states. Since that won't likely happen, Republicans will fall back on the "not Conservative enough" derp and it'll be 2009 all over again, but derpier.
 
2012-09-26 10:52:56 AM  

sprawl15: This just makes Romney's inevitable victory that much more impressive.


He just needs David Tyree to catch a vote on his helmet
 
2012-09-26 10:52:59 AM  

Whiskey Pete: I'm tempted to venture on over to Freeperville and read all of the "Librul biased polling/media" DERP but my laptop won't withstand another trip through the dishwasher.


The field of statistics in general is a socialist conspiracy, and polling agencies are skewing results for federal grant money.
 
2012-09-26 10:53:07 AM  
First thing that came to mind: Link
 
2012-09-26 10:53:26 AM  

Mikey1969: "Romney needs a PR person," Natalie McGee, a law student at Ohio State University who supports Mr. Romney, lamented during an interview on campus

Jeez, thanks Captain Obvious. I'm sure now that you have revealed this secret campaign technology, the Romney campaign will waste no time in researching just what a PR person is, how they function, and how important they are to a campaign. They would like to thank you for introducing the term "PR Person" to the world, BTW, you're going down as a major player in history, Nat.


This has me trying not to bust up laughing in my cube.
 
2012-09-26 10:53:33 AM  
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-09-26 10:54:08 AM  
The political director, Rich Beeson, told reporters aboard Mr. Romney's plane that the campaign's internal data showed a closer race, saying, "The public polls are what they are."

I wonder how much the campaign shelled out for a polling yes man.

"These public polls are liberal, get us some numbers that say we're winning."
 
2012-09-26 10:54:14 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: The only question is when the positive-feedback cycle ends


Hopefully it will end with one of them exploding like the fat guy in that one monty python sketch...you know the one I mean. WIth the fat dude..and he explodes...
 
2012-09-26 10:54:19 AM  

Hack Patooey: Photo of Romney campaign taken this morning"

[www.strangecosmos.com image 600x409]


I was thinking of something like this:

i28.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-26 10:54:19 AM  

Aidan: bdub77: mrshowrules: orclover: Its looking pretty grim for the GoP right now. Expect something desperate in the next month.

I just wish the DNC could flip the Congress. I'm assuming the hold the Senate.

I think they can win Congress back, based on how badly Mitt is tanking the Senate. Keep in mind we don't really have regular Congressional polls.

538 is currently predicting 52 seats and rising, but I'm not sure how many "real" (sigh) Democrats that includes. I know people tend to include a couple blue dog democrats, and independents. Not sure how many of those are in the Senate, or whether Nate put them in a different category.


I believe the 538 consensus is that King (the independent in Maine) will likely caucus with the democrats, so I believe he is included in the 52 as well as Bernie Sanders. Which means they are projecting 50 true democrats. And there's quite a few democrats in races that are tacking right (McCaskill in Missouri, for example) so I'm guessing 3-4 that are projected to win will be fairly conservative. Who knows what this will mean policy-wise, since a vast majority of stalled legislation has been consistent with a voting record that any center-right politician could be proud of.
 
2012-09-26 10:55:06 AM  
The NYT is a biased paper. I wouldn't believe anything coming out of there. The polling sources they are citing are questionable at best. One should use a more credible polling source, such as the Rasmussen Reports.
 
2012-09-26 10:56:13 AM  
At the Maranatha Baptist Church, which sits in the middle of an industrial area on the outskirts of town, the Rev. Timothy Kenoyer said that even though he believed Mr. Obama was auguring an era of "socialism"

Says Ol' Tim here who runs an indoctrination camp for children on Saturday mornings, and survives off of free money checks from his followers.

Do you like that characterization, Timbo?
 
2012-09-26 10:57:21 AM  
Sure the pointy heads are saying this with their statistical analysis and regressions, but none of this feels right. The lamestream media is creating a narrative to dissuade conservative, patriotic Americans from going to the polls. For the straight dope, you might want to check some truth.
TakeOutTheSkew
 
2012-09-26 10:57:44 AM  

Semi-Sane: The NYT is a biased paper. I wouldn't believe anything coming out of there. The polling sources they are citing are questionable at best. One should use a more credible polling source, such as the Rasmussen Reports.


IIRC Nate Silver has said that NYT/Quinnipiac have been the most accurate.
 
2012-09-26 10:58:14 AM  

ghall3: HMS_Blinkin: The only question is when the positive-feedback cycle ends

Hopefully it will end with one of them exploding like the fat guy in that one monty python sketch...you know the one I mean. WIth the fat dude..and he explodes...


Hopefully it'll be Limbaugh, and the moment will be captured from multiple angles by HD cameras.
 
2012-09-26 10:58:24 AM  

Bocasio: "Main stream media needs a dose of Sgt. Joe Friday---just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."


And none-a them goddamn Libfacts™ neither!
 
2012-09-26 10:58:48 AM  

Semi-Sane: One should use a more credible polling source, such as the Rasmussen Reports.


Thinking every poll but Rasmussen is skewed is literally as delusional as believing that 9/11 was a conspiracy.

- Nate Silver (@fivethirtyeight) September 25, 2012
 
2012-09-26 10:58:53 AM  

ps69: Sure the pointy heads are saying this with their statistical analysis and regressions, but none of this feels right. The lamestream media is creating a narrative to dissuade conservative, patriotic Americans from going to the polls. For the straight dope, you might want to check some truth.
TakeOutTheSkew


hahahahaha
 
2012-09-26 10:59:05 AM  

Hack Patooey: Photo of Romney campaign taken this morning"

[www.strangecosmos.com image 600x409]


Is that after he rolled down the windows on that B-17 ??
 
2012-09-26 10:59:11 AM  

Whiskey Pete: Semi-Sane: The NYT is a biased paper. I wouldn't believe anything coming out of there. The polling sources they are citing are questionable at best. One should use a more credible polling source, such as the Rasmussen Reports.

IIRC Nate Silver has said that NYT/Quinnipiac have been the most accurate.


I just spoke to Nate and he told me that 94% of respondents think Semi-Sane was going for the obvious troll is obvious
 
2012-09-26 10:59:33 AM  

Semi-Sane: The NYT is a biased paper. I wouldn't believe anything coming out of there. The polling sources they are citing are questionable at best. One should use a more credible polling source, such as the Rasmussen Reports.


Ok...

Pennsylvania - "The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Pennsylvania shows Obama with 51% of the vote to Romney's 39%. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate in the race, and seven percent (7%) remain undecided." (Sept 25th)

Ohio - "The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Ohio Voters shows the president earning 47% support to Romney's 46%. Three percent (3%) like some other candidate, and another three percent (3%) are undecided." (Sept 13th)

Florida - "The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Florida Voters finds Obama with 48% support to Mitt Romney's 46%. Three percent (3%) like some other candidate in the race, and another three percent (3%) are undecided." (Sept 13th)
 
2012-09-26 11:00:22 AM  

Whiskey Pete: Semi-Sane: The NYT is a biased paper. I wouldn't believe anything coming out of there. The polling sources they are citing are questionable at best. One should use a more credible polling source, such as the Rasmussen Reports.

IIRC Nate Silver has said that NYT/Quinnipiac have been the most accurate.


[that'sthejoke.jpg]
 
2012-09-26 11:01:33 AM  

skullkrusher: Whiskey Pete: Semi-Sane: The NYT is a biased paper. I wouldn't believe anything coming out of there. The polling sources they are citing are questionable at best. One should use a more credible polling source, such as the Rasmussen Reports.

IIRC Nate Silver has said that NYT/Quinnipiac have been the most accurate.

I just spoke to Nate and he told me that 94% of respondents think Semi-Sane was going for the obvious troll is obvious


Seriously, people are biting right and left around here. C'mon guys, it wasn't even subtle.
 
2012-09-26 11:01:40 AM  

Terlis: Pennsylvania - "The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Pennsylvania shows Obama with 51% of the vote to Romney's 39%. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate in the race, and seven percent (7%) remain undecided." (Sept 25th)

Ohio - "The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Ohio Voters shows the president earning 47% support to Romney's 46%. Three percent (3%) like some other candidate, and another three percent (3%) are undecided." (Sept 13th)

Florida - "The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Florida Voters finds Obama with 48% support to Mitt Romney's 46%. Three percent (3%) like some other candidate in the race, and another three percent (3%) are undecided." (Sept 13th)


Et tu, Rasmussen?

It's going to take a lot of electoral fraud to overcome numbers like that.
 
2012-09-26 11:01:42 AM  

skullkrusher: Whiskey Pete: Semi-Sane: The NYT is a biased paper. I wouldn't believe anything coming out of there. The polling sources they are citing are questionable at best. One should use a more credible polling source, such as the Rasmussen Reports.

IIRC Nate Silver has said that NYT/Quinnipiac have been the most accurate.

I just spoke to Nate and he told me that 94 % of respondents think Semi-Sane was going for the obvious troll is obvious


judging by the posts here, maybe Nate is full of shiat after all
 
2012-09-26 11:01:43 AM  

I_C_Weener: No need to vote.  As Mr. Obama has said.
 
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 374x271]


wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2012-09-26 11:01:50 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Semi-Sane: One should use a more credible polling source, such as the Rasmussen Reports.

Thinking every poll but Rasmussen is skewed is literally as delusional as believing that 9/11 was a conspiracy.- Nate Silver (@fivethirtyeight) September 25, 2012


It was a conspiracy. There was more than one person involved.
 
2012-09-26 11:02:07 AM  
In a way, the loooooooong nature of the US campaign season is annoying, but maybe it serves a function. Narcissists can only pretend to be intelligent, thoughtful, and public service-minded for so long without breaking character. The long nature of the campaign actually has served to reveal how damaging and inept a Romney presidency would be.
 
2012-09-26 11:02:12 AM  
take nothing for granted. make sure you can vote. make sure you have the proper i.d.,make sure you're registered. and vote early. election day will be chaos. the GOP will make sure of it.
 
2012-09-26 11:02:30 AM  

bdub77: mrshowrules: orclover: Its looking pretty grim for the GoP right now. Expect something desperate in the next month.

I just wish the DNC could flip the Congress. I'm assuming the hold the Senate.

I think they can win Congress back, based on how badly Mitt is tanking the Senate. Keep in mind we don't really have regular Congressional polls.


Sam Wang at PEC is currently estimating a 74% chance of a Democratic takeover of the house.

Republicans at risk of losing the House
 
2012-09-26 11:02:40 AM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: It's going to take a lot of electoral fraud to overcome numbers like that.


But if anyone can pull it off it'd be them....
 
2012-09-26 11:02:54 AM  
Polls are for liberals and barbers. There are plenty of people who FEEL like Romney is going to win and they have a list of reasons why. Do these polls have a list? No they do not. Good day to you sir.

/I said good day
 
2012-09-26 11:02:56 AM  

sprawl15: It was a conspiracy. There was more than one person involved.


duhn duhn duhnnnnnnnnnn
 
2012-09-26 11:03:47 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Semi-Sane: One should use a more credible polling source, such as the Rasmussen Reports.

Thinking every poll but Rasmussen is skewed is literally as delusional as believing that 9/11 was a conspiracy.- Nate Silver (@fivethirtyeight) September 25, 2012


Link

The reason I think Rasmussen is skewed with about a 2% Conservative bias is because of Silver's article above. Please tell me what to believe God of Polls!
 
2012-09-26 11:04:08 AM  
farking hilarious. Just read the sampling. +11 in Penn, +9 in Ohio for democrats. These margins are higher than 2008 which was historic turnout for democrats. This poll is assuming even more of an historic turnout? Even nate silver projects a decline from 2008, but not these polls. What a shiatty polling group. Gop goes from 33% of the electorate 2008 to 26%? Lulz

It is nice how fark does green light every shiat pro Obama poll even when so flawed.
 
2012-09-26 11:04:10 AM  

Hobodeluxe: take nothing for granted. make sure you can vote. make sure you have the proper i.d.,make sure you're registered. and vote early. election day will be chaos. the GOP will make sure of it.


Nonsense.  I've seen the polls.  Obama has been leading from the start.  No way he can lose now.  No way New England can't go 18-0.
 
2012-09-26 11:04:11 AM  
Hobodeluxe: take nothing for granted. make sure you can vote. make sure you have the proper i.d.,make sure you're registered. and vote early. election day will be chaos. the GOP will make sure of it.

QFT
 
2012-09-26 11:04:21 AM  

Mikey1969: "Romney needs a PR person," Natalie McGee, a law student at Ohio State University who supports Mr. Romney, lamented during an interview on campus

Jeez, thanks Captain Obvious. I'm sure now that you have revealed this secret campaign technology, the Romney campaign will waste no time in researching just what a PR person is, how they function, and how important they are to a campaign. They would like to thank you for introducing the term "PR Person" to the world, BTW, you're going down as a major player in history, Nat.


Hiring a Puerto Rican person would help with the latino vote.
 
2012-09-26 11:04:26 AM  
*Dusts off 2004 GOP voter fraud playbook*
 
2012-09-26 11:04:26 AM  

jcb274: Aidan: bdub77: mrshowrules: orclover: Its looking pretty grim for the GoP right now. Expect something desperate in the next month.

I just wish the DNC could flip the Congress. I'm assuming the hold the Senate.

I think they can win Congress back, based on how badly Mitt is tanking the Senate. Keep in mind we don't really have regular Congressional polls.

538 is currently predicting 52 seats and rising, but I'm not sure how many "real" (sigh) Democrats that includes. I know people tend to include a couple blue dog democrats, and independents. Not sure how many of those are in the Senate, or whether Nate put them in a different category.

I believe the 538 consensus is that King (the independent in Maine) will likely caucus with the democrats, so I believe he is included in the 52 as well as Bernie Sanders. Which means they are projecting 50 true democrats. And there's quite a few democrats in races that are tacking right (McCaskill in Missouri, for example) so I'm guessing 3-4 that are projected to win will be fairly conservative. Who knows what this will mean policy-wise, since a vast majority of stalled legislation has been consistent with a voting record that any center-right politician could be proud of.


The Dems won't have a filibuster-proof 60 seats no matter what, so any stalled legislation will remain stalled. Don't expect any legislation of any significance being passed any time soon.
 
2012-09-26 11:04:30 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: That crap might fly in small town mayoral races, but you gotta bring your A game to the big show.


That *is* their A-game.
 
2012-09-26 11:04:35 AM  

js34603: Polls are for liberals and barbers. There are plenty of people who FEEL like Romney is going to win and they have a list of reasons why. Do these polls have a list? No they do not. Good day to you sir.


These people want what all Americans want:
1) Cold beer
2) Warm pussy
3) A place to take a shiat with a door on it
I mean, you don't want the dog lookin' at you.
 
2012-09-26 11:05:16 AM  

Semi-Sane: The NYT is a biased paper. I wouldn't believe anything coming out of there. The polling sources they are citing are questionable at best. One should use a more credible polling source, such as the Rasmussen Reports.


I only get my poll results from the mustache of Joseph Farrah.

encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com

He possesses The Mustache of Understanding.
 
2012-09-26 11:05:20 AM  

Tyrano Soros: *Dusts off 2004 GOP voter fraud playbook*


It won't work this time.
 
2012-09-26 11:05:33 AM  
Unemployment in Ohio is down to 6.8% for August and is down to 5.9% in central Ohio (Columbus). Romney's going to have a real hard time wrenching that state away from Obama.
 
2012-09-26 11:05:42 AM  

MyRandomName: Just read the sampling.


Hugh Hewitt, everybody.
 
2012-09-26 11:05:47 AM  
2.bp.blogspot.com

Keep laughing, monkey boys!
 
2012-09-26 11:05:53 AM  

orclover: Its looking pretty grim for the GoP right now. Expect something desperate in the next month.


I can hear them coming down the street already.
 
2012-09-26 11:05:53 AM  

ps69: Sure the pointy heads are saying this with their statistical analysis and regressions, but none of this feels right. The lamestream media is creating a narrative to dissuade conservative, patriotic Americans from going to the polls. For the straight dope, you might want to check some truth.
TakeOutTheSkew


This post brought to you by the National Council For Irrational Thought
 
2012-09-26 11:06:25 AM  
The collective freak out where I live is gonna be awesome. I cannot wait for the whining and lamentations of how the Republic is doomed afterwards
 
2012-09-26 11:06:34 AM  

Semi-Sane: The NYT is a biased paper. I wouldn't believe anything coming out of there. The polling sources they are citing are questionable at best. One should use a more credible polling source, such as the Rasmussen Reports.


OK, I know you're joking, but the thing I hate most about the NYT (which I've read almost every day my entire life in the absence of a better paper) is that idiot Douthat, who just said he thinks Romney still has a chance because - get this - if you don't think about Romney at all, and focus only on Obama's weaknesses, you might actually vote for Romney. I'm not even kidding, his argument is that stupid:

Link
 
2012-09-26 11:06:37 AM  

Geotpf: jcb274: Aidan: bdub77: mrshowrules: orclover: Its looking pretty grim for the GoP right now. Expect something desperate in the next month.

I just wish the DNC could flip the Congress. I'm assuming the hold the Senate.

I think they can win Congress back, based on how badly Mitt is tanking the Senate. Keep in mind we don't really have regular Congressional polls.

538 is currently predicting 52 seats and rising, but I'm not sure how many "real" (sigh) Democrats that includes. I know people tend to include a couple blue dog democrats, and independents. Not sure how many of those are in the Senate, or whether Nate put them in a different category.

I believe the 538 consensus is that King (the independent in Maine) will likely caucus with the democrats, so I believe he is included in the 52 as well as Bernie Sanders. Which means they are projecting 50 true democrats. And there's quite a few democrats in races that are tacking right (McCaskill in Missouri, for example) so I'm guessing 3-4 that are projected to win will be fairly conservative. Who knows what this will mean policy-wise, since a vast majority of stalled legislation has been consistent with a voting record that any center-right politician could be proud of.

The Dems won't have a filibuster-proof 60 seats no matter what, so any stalled legislation will remain stalled. Don't expect any legislation of any significance being passed any time soon.


Unless they do what they should have done in 2008, and clobber the filibuster.
 
2012-09-26 11:07:00 AM  

Bocasio: Wednesday Republican quotes:

"We are watching, FIRST HAND, the beginning of the end to our great country. The 2012 prediction will have meaning for future generations. Who knew the end would be caused by an inept Congress and President."

"Main stream media needs a dose of Sgt. Joe Friday---just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."

"Why does everyone say you can't win the presidency without winning Ohio? Do you mean there aren't enough voters outside Ohio to win an election? Please stop sounding ridiculous."


Sure, if he wins Florida, or Michigan. Or California, for that matter.

I'm starting to think that 77% is too low for Obama right now. Still a month to go, though.
 
2012-09-26 11:07:03 AM  

MyRandomName: farking hilarious. Just read the sampling. +11 in Penn, +9 in Ohio for democrats. These margins are higher than 2008 which was historic turnout for democrats. This poll is assuming even more of an historic turnout? Even nate silver projects a decline from 2008, but not these polls. What a shiatty polling group. Gop goes from 33% of the electorate 2008 to 26%? Lulz

It is nice how fark does green light every shiat pro Obama poll even when so flawed.


Those are nice statisticals. Are we gonna be soooooooooooooo pissed off?
 
2012-09-26 11:07:13 AM  

Rapmaster2000: Semi-Sane: The NYT is a biased paper. I wouldn't believe anything coming out of there. The polling sources they are citing are questionable at best. One should use a more credible polling source, such as the Rasmussen Reports.

I only get my poll results from the mustache of Joseph Farrah.

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 160x159]

He possesses The Mustache of Understanding.


It is +1 to wisdom and intelligence, +4 to creepy pedophile vibe.
 
2012-09-26 11:07:36 AM  

ps69: Sure the pointy heads are saying this with their statistical analysis and regressions, but none of this feels right. The lamestream media is creating a narrative to dissuade conservative, patriotic Americans from going to the polls. For the straight dope, you might want to check some truth.
TakeOutTheSkew


Thank you so much for that.

I will make sure the truth protectors at Conservapedia are notified, and create an entry for this organization.
 
2012-09-26 11:07:45 AM  
The republican and democratic party parties are represented by the elephant and the donkey, respectively. The elephant is a powerful animal which is known to seek revenge on those who harm their family, whereas the donkey is a jackass who refuses to move when told to do so. Can you see the resemblance to the democratic party? They are a bunch of jackass's who dont want to move forward and they are being led by Obama the jackass.
 
2012-09-26 11:07:45 AM  

Terlis: Semi-Sane: The NYT is a biased paper. I wouldn't believe anything coming out of there. The polling sources they are citing are questionable at best. One should use a more credible polling source, such as the Rasmussen Reports.

Ok...

Pennsylvania - "The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Pennsylvania shows Obama with 51% of the vote to Romney's 39%. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate in the race, and seven percent (7%) remain undecided." (Sept 25th)

Ohio - "The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Ohio Voters shows the president earning 47% support to Romney's 46%. Three percent (3%) like some other candidate, and another three percent (3%) are undecided." (Sept 13th)

Florida - "The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Florida Voters finds Obama with 48% support to Mitt Romney's 46%. Three percent (3%) like some other candidate in the race, and another three percent (3%) are undecided." (Sept 13th)


I think he was joking / lighting trolling.
 
2012-09-26 11:07:52 AM  
IMHO If the dems put some serious ground game in Texas and registered voters, etc. etc. They would have a good shot at turning it Dem.
 
2012-09-26 11:07:56 AM  
www.wnd.com 
i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-26 11:08:00 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: The collective freak out where I live is gonna be awesome. I cannot wait for the whining and lamentations of how the Republic is doomed afterwards


I figure that no matter who wins, I will hear that where I live.
 
2012-09-26 11:08:24 AM  

Hobodeluxe: take nothing for granted. make sure you can vote. make sure you have the proper i.d.,make sure you're registered. and vote early. election day will be chaos. the GOP will make sure of it.


QFT.
 
2012-09-26 11:08:26 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Semi-Sane: One should use a more credible polling source, such as the Rasmussen Reports.

Thinking every poll but Rasmussen is skewed is literally as delusional as believing that 9/11 was a conspiracy.- Nate Silver (@fivethirtyeight) September 25, 2012


i.imgur.com

Circa McCain/Palin
 
2012-09-26 11:08:31 AM  
Ohio = Diebold, Florida = Lex Luthor, PA = Voter ID. Obama will be lucky to get one.
 
2012-09-26 11:08:40 AM  

MyRandomName: farking hilarious. Just read the sampling. +11 in Penn, +9 in Ohio for democrats. These margins are higher than 2008 which was historic turnout for democrats. This poll is assuming even more of an historic turnout? Even nate silver projects a decline from 2008, but not these polls. What a shiatty polling group. Gop goes from 33% of the electorate 2008 to 26%? Lulz

It is nice how fark does green light every shiat pro Obama poll even when so flawed.


Looking a bit grim for the Romney magical unicorn team.
 
2012-09-26 11:08:50 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: FTFA: "Mr. Obama has widened his lead over Mr. Romney and is outperforming him on nearly every major campaign issue, even though about half said they were disappointed in Mr. Obama's presidency."

Well? What did you THINK was going to happen when you picked an awful candidate/person for your nominee? Did you really think that "not being Barack Obama" would be good enough?

That crap might fly in small town mayoral races, but you gotta bring your A game to the big show.


I agree with you, but you could also look at it this way: 50% of the people voting for Obama are doing so even though they are disappointed with his performance (I fall into that category). So once again, we choose a president because he is the better of two unsatisfying options.

And I certainly blame the GOP for blocking almost everything Obama tried to do, but things like not closing Gitmo, not prosecuting anyone over the financial disaster or warantless wiretaps, moving the KSM trial out of civilian courts, etc. all fall squarely on his shoulders.

So while I will be thrilled if Romney loses, I certainly won't be as excited as I was in 2008 when I thought this country was finally going to move in the right direction.
 
2012-09-26 11:09:23 AM  
 
2012-09-26 11:09:47 AM  

The Florida Tag: HMS_Blinkin: That crap might fly in small town mayoral races, but you gotta bring your A game to the big show.

That *is* their A-game.


By election day I want every Republican to know that Mitt Romney was the perfect personification of their platform. I don't want any GOP-leaning person to walk away from that night thinking they just picked a bad candidate. NO! That is you, everything from corporations being people, disdain for half our country, the casual disregard of science, the sense of entitlement to power, the bad spray tan to appeal to minorities, everything.

Mitt Romney = Republicans.
 
2012-09-26 11:09:47 AM  

mobile_home_refush: IMHO If the dems put some serious ground game in Texas and registered voters, etc. etc. They would have a good shot at turning it Dem.


It is not unreasonable to believe we could go back there. Our last decent governor was a Democrat, and many of us still remember that.
 
2012-09-26 11:09:51 AM  

Boxcutta: [www.wnd.com image 599x719] 
[i.imgur.com image 300x225]


BWAHAHAHAHA! I wonder how those polls are "unskewed?
 
2012-09-26 11:09:56 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: skullkrusher: Whiskey Pete: Semi-Sane: The NYT is a biased paper. I wouldn't believe anything coming out of there. The polling sources they are citing are questionable at best. One should use a more credible polling source, such as the Rasmussen Reports.

IIRC Nate Silver has said that NYT/Quinnipiac have been the most accurate.

I just spoke to Nate and he told me that 94% of respondents think Semi-Sane was going for the obvious troll is obvious

Seriously, people are biting right and left around here. C'mon guys, it wasn't even subtle.


This. Poe's Law is in now in effect indefinitely. Affect? Whatever.
 
2012-09-26 11:10:08 AM  

Mikey1969: "Romney needs a PR person," Natalie McGee, a law student at Ohio State University who supports Mr. Romney, lamented during an interview on campus

Jeez, thanks Captain Obvious. I'm sure now that you have revealed this secret campaign technology, the Romney campaign will waste no time in researching just what a PR person is, how they function, and how important they are to a campaign. They would like to thank you for introducing the term "PR Person" to the world, BTW, you're going down as a major player in history, Nat.


They have legions of PR people and some of the best spin doctors in the business. PR isn't the GOP's problem.

Their problem is that they have nothing new to offer. No new ideas - just more of the same. Jam religious BS down everyone's throat, tax-cuts for the haves, and export our economic engine to Asia to make the 1% even richer. Oh, and war. They want more war - because wars of choice have worked out so well in the past.
 
2012-09-26 11:10:51 AM  

I_C_Weener: Hobodeluxe: take nothing for granted. make sure you can vote. make sure you have the proper i.d.,make sure you're registered. and vote early. election day will be chaos. the GOP will make sure of it.

Nonsense.  I've seen the polls.  Obama has been leading from the start.  No way he can lose now.  No way New England can't go 18-0.


Do you ever step back and wonder why it's so bad for Republicans if a lot of people come out to vote?
 
2012-09-26 11:10:59 AM  

Masso: Dusk-You-n-Me: Semi-Sane: One should use a more credible polling source, such as the Rasmussen Reports.

Thinking every poll but Rasmussen is skewed is literally as delusional as believing that 9/11 was a conspiracy.- Nate Silver (@fivethirtyeight) September 25, 2012

[i.imgur.com image 797x336]

Circa McCain/Palin


Alphabet soup is never wrong.
 
2012-09-26 11:11:10 AM  

Cork on Fork: HMS_Blinkin: FTFA: "Mr. Obama has widened his lead over Mr. Romney and is outperforming him on nearly every major campaign issue, even though about half said they were disappointed in Mr. Obama's presidency."

Well? What did you THINK was going to happen when you picked an awful candidate/person for your nominee? Did you really think that "not being Barack Obama" would be good enough?

That crap might fly in small town mayoral races, but you gotta bring your A game to the big show.

I agree with you, but you could also look at it this way: 50% of the people voting for Obama are doing so even though they are disappointed with his performance (I fall into that category). So once again, we choose a president because he is the better of two unsatisfying options.

And I certainly blame the GOP for blocking almost everything Obama tried to do, but things like not closing Gitmo, not prosecuting anyone over the financial disaster or warantless wiretaps, moving the KSM trial out of civilian courts, etc. all fall squarely on his shoulders.

So while I will be thrilled if Romney loses, I certainly won't be as excited as I was in 2008 when I thought this country was finally going to move in the right direction.


Most of your above points are valid, but not the bolded one. Read up on why Obama didn't close Gitmo. You might be (un)surprised to find that Republican foot-dragging was involved in that as well.
 
2012-09-26 11:11:21 AM  

www.usefulidiots.net

 
2012-09-26 11:11:35 AM  

The Great EZE: The Florida Tag: HMS_Blinkin: That crap might fly in small town mayoral races, but you gotta bring your A game to the big show.

That *is* their A-game.

By election day I want every Republican to know that Mitt Romney was the perfect personification of their platform. I don't want any GOP-leaning person to walk away from that night thinking they just picked a bad candidate. NO! That is you, everything from corporations being people, disdain for half our country, the casual disregard of science, the sense of entitlement to power, the bad spray tan to appeal to minorities, everything.

Mitt Romney = Republicans.


Don't forget the dumbass religion that's more about the money than the "god". Republican. to. the. core.
 
2012-09-26 11:11:46 AM  

Hobodeluxe: take nothing for granted. make sure you can vote. make sure you have the proper i.d.,make sure you're registered. and vote early. election day will be chaos. the GOP will make sure of it.


This.

Let's not start sucking each other's dicks quite yet. There's a lot of money still floating around in GOP world, and there are plenty of dirty tricks still to appear.
 
2012-09-26 11:11:52 AM  

meat0918: Peter von Nostrand: The collective freak out where I live is gonna be awesome. I cannot wait for the whining and lamentations of how the Republic is doomed afterwards

I figure that no matter who wins, I will hear that where I live.


If Romney somehow won, the politics tab would be epic with spiking the football, and the gnashing of teeth and wailing of liberals.  But it is an unlikely scenario.
 
2012-09-26 11:11:57 AM  

Whiskey Pete: Boxcutta: [www.wnd.com image 599x719] 
[i.imgur.com image 300x225]

BWAHAHAHAHA! I wonder how those polls are "unskewed?


Heh, had to see who was hosting the link. WND.
 
2012-09-26 11:12:06 AM  
Pretty much what I expected. After the debates, that will change again though.

How does Congress look? That's my concern.
 
2012-09-26 11:12:11 AM  
But I'm sure he'll get a bounce from the debates...
 
2012-09-26 11:12:12 AM  

Cork on Fork: And I certainly blame the GOP for blocking almost everything Obama tried to do, but things like not closing Gitmo, not prosecuting anyone over the financial disaster or warantless wiretaps, moving the KSM trial out of civilian courts, etc. all fall squarely on his shoulders.


I guess you haven't been paying attention, or you would remember the hurr and durr raised by the right when the administration suggested that KSM be tried in a civilian court in New York. Or the outrage and refusal on the part of Congress to allocate funds to close Guantanamo or move the detainees. But yeah, the inaction of Congress means the blame rests solely with the President.
 
2012-09-26 11:12:28 AM  

Huggermugger: It can only get worse for Romney after the debates.

/gleefully awaiting the parody "response strips", like they did for Biden and Palin


I am looking forward to those and the new SNL sketches.
 
2012-09-26 11:12:40 AM  
My prediction:

Obama will win with 53% of the popular vote!

I ran a statisticals regression using the length of the Mississippi river as the dependent variable and its width as its eigenvotens.
 
2012-09-26 11:12:40 AM  

madgonad: They have legions of PR people and some of the best spin doctors in the business. PR isn't the GOP's problem.

Romney

is the GOP's problem. Their PR people are constantly on the defense, cleaning up after whatever Romney decided to vomit onto national television the day before.

"No, Romney clearly did not mean Obama is literally pro-spiders, he was obviously referring to his policies which have webbed down our country."
 
2012-09-26 11:12:50 AM  

Hack Patooey: Photo of Romney campaign taken this morning"

[www.strangecosmos.com image 600x409]


"shiat, I opened the window. Should I note have done that?"

web.mit.edu
 
2012-09-26 11:12:50 AM  
We built it!
 
2012-09-26 11:13:01 AM  

MyRandomName: Sounds like Mondale's lead in 84. Or Carter's in 80. Same polling group as well.


You sound like Lou Holtz every weekend on ESPN, when he insists that since Notre Dame had some amazing championship seasons in the 1960s and 70s, that this year will finally be their "return to glory" again due to having some vague similarities to those past seasons.

Keep on pushing that if it makes you sleep better at night, bro.
 
2012-09-26 11:13:26 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Whiskey Pete: Boxcutta: [www.wnd.com image 599x719] 
[i.imgur.com image 300x225]

BWAHAHAHAHA! I wonder how those polls are "unskewed?

Heh, had to see who was hosting the link. WND.


If the World Nut Daily™ hosts them then they have to be true.
 
2012-09-26 11:13:38 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Semi-Sane: One should use a more credible polling source, such as the Rasmussen Reports.

Thinking every poll but Rasmussen is skewed is literally as delusional as believing that 9/11 was a conspiracy.- Nate Silver (@fivethirtyeight) September 25, 2012


Well, 9/11 was a conspiracy. But I think I know what he means.
 
2012-09-26 11:13:56 AM  
Guess what GOP, thanks to Bush Jr. and the Tea Party caring more about penis-goes-where legislation than jobs, the economy, or fiscal responsibility, the independent and undecided voters are too cynical to believe your lies and empty promises.
 
2012-09-26 11:14:12 AM  

The Martian Manhandler: Let's not start sucking each other's dicks quite yet. There's a lot of money still floating around in GOP world, and there are plenty of dirty tricks still to appear.


That's absolutely true, but how many of these backers got rich by throwing good money after bad. There will come a time where it might look so bleak that these guys would see their money better spent by buying Senators and Representatives and waiting for 2016.
 
2012-09-26 11:14:23 AM  

Whiskey Pete: Boxcutta: [www.wnd.com image 599x719] 
[i.imgur.com image 300x225]

BWAHAHAHAHA! I wonder how those polls are "unskewed?


They claim registered Republicans are under-represented so they weigh them more heavily.
Really.
 
2012-09-26 11:14:27 AM  
Prepare for "Obama is peaking too early" chatter from the right very shortly.
 
2012-09-26 11:14:31 AM  

unchellmatt: Hack Patooey: Photo of Romney campaign taken this morning"

[www.strangecosmos.com image 600x409]

"shiat, I opened the window. Should I note have done that?"

"Note" = "not"... rented fingers today...

 
2012-09-26 11:14:56 AM  

Moosecakes: The democratic party learned that lesson the hard way with Kerry. Now the GOP gets to learn that lesson. Somehow though, I think they're going to take away the completely wrong lesson and in 2016 the nominee will be Alan West.


That would be awesome. Burt Ward would be his running mate, of course.

Almost not kidding. They will probably do worse.
 
2012-09-26 11:15:03 AM  

qorkfiend: Unless they do what they should have done in 2008, and clobber the filibuster.


I think the filibuster is an important (if invented) tactic for legislators, but you should have to stand up there and read Ulysses until your eyes glaze over and you collapse on the ground. If something is important enough to filibuster, it's important enough to completely stop all legislative work until the problem is dealt with. Additionally, if you are filibustering something you truly believe should not be enacted under any circumstances, there will be no fallout from congress "shutting down" over it.

The ability for congressmen to say "Yeah, I'm filibustering that bill there. Heading out to lunch," is what has made these past four years some of the worst in legislative history. Before Obama people at least treated the filibuster with some measure of decorum. Sure, by the rules, senators can drop that metaphorical bomb whenever they feel like, but until Obama they at least used it more or less sparingly. Don't like an appointee? Filibuster. Didn't get your pet amendment passed? Filibuster a non-related bill. Don't like the President? Filibuster defense budgets.
 
2012-09-26 11:15:19 AM  

indylaw: Superjew: Eh, they'll just send a bunch of staffers to bang on the county clerk's door for a while, whine about "chads" for a couple days, call Obama a "sore loser", then pay off Scalia with the traditional bag of human hearts and it will be all over for another 8 years like the last time.

Just like in 2008, eh?


Willfully obtuse and ignorant is no way to get through life, son.
 
2012-09-26 11:15:47 AM  

Boxcutta: [www.wnd.com image 599x719] 
[i.imgur.com image 300x225]


And by unskewing, they mean ignoring randomized data collection and giving extra weight to Republican respondents, because randomized data collection is the real problem, not their terrible candidate and his clownshoes campaign.
 
2012-09-26 11:15:56 AM  

MyRandomName: farking hilarious. Just read the sampling. +11 in Penn, +9 in Ohio for democrats. These margins are higher than 2008 which was historic turnout for democrats. This poll is assuming even more of an historic turnout? Even nate silver projects a decline from 2008, but not these polls. What a shiatty polling group. Gop goes from 33% of the electorate 2008 to 26%? Lulz

It is nice how fark does green light every shiat pro Obama poll even when so flawed.


MyRandomName doesn't understand how polls work, surprise surprise.

images.politico.com

This would be like the equivalent of saying that a poll was unfair towards African Americans' voices because it didn't sample 50% whites and 50% blacks.
 
2012-09-26 11:16:26 AM  
I blame the GOP loss on this:

i1162.photobucket.com 

Bush angered the voter gods.
 
2012-09-26 11:16:43 AM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: qorkfiend: Unless they do what they should have done in 2008, and clobber the filibuster.

I think the filibuster is an important (if invented) tactic for legislators, but you should have to stand up there and read Ulysses until your eyes glaze over and you collapse on the ground. If something is important enough to filibuster, it's important enough to completely stop all legislative work until the problem is dealt with. Additionally, if you are filibustering something you truly believe should not be enacted under any circumstances, there will be no fallout from congress "shutting down" over it.

The ability for congressmen to say "Yeah, I'm filibustering that bill there. Heading out to lunch," is what has made these past four years some of the worst in legislative history. Before Obama people at least treated the filibuster with some measure of decorum. Sure, by the rules, senators can drop that metaphorical bomb whenever they feel like, but until Obama they at least used it more or less sparingly. Don't like an appointee? Filibuster. Didn't get your pet amendment passed? Filibuster a non-related bill. Don't like the President? Filibuster defense budgets.


THIS.
 
2012-09-26 11:16:44 AM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Don't forget the dumbass religion that's more about the money than the "god". Republican. to. the. core.


And also the "bullying the gay kid in high school and lying about it".

Man, I've met skinheads I had more respect for; at least those assholes admitted that they were bigots.
 
2012-09-26 11:16:55 AM  

MyRandomName: farking hilarious. Just read the sampling. +11 in Penn, +9 in Ohio for democrats. These margins are higher than 2008 which was historic turnout for democrats. This poll is assuming even more of an historic turnout? Even nate silver projects a decline from 2008, but not these polls. What a shiatty polling group. Gop goes from 33% of the electorate 2008 to 26%? Lulz

It is nice how fark does green light every shiat pro Obama poll even when so flawed.


Karl Rove is speaking like there is accuracy in those polls... But you know more about political polling than him?
 
2012-09-26 11:17:19 AM  
Even Fox News and Rasmussen polls have Obama with at least a 3 point edge in Ohio and Florida. Not looking good. Not looking at all.
 
2012-09-26 11:17:33 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Whiskey Pete: Boxcutta: [www.wnd.com image 599x719] 
[i.imgur.com image 300x225]

BWAHAHAHAHA! I wonder how those polls are "unskewed?

They claim registered Republicans are under-represented so they weigh them more heavily.
Really.


Well that sounds like a perfectly rational...They what?
 
2012-09-26 11:18:06 AM  

Bocasio: "Why does everyone say you can't win the presidency without winning Ohio? Do you mean there aren't enough voters outside Ohio to win an election? Please stop sounding ridiculous."


Well, maybe not Ohio alone, but 538's latest projection had literally zero simulations, out of 25,001, where Romney lost both Ohio and Florida and still won the election. Zero. None. He loses both and he literally can't win.
 
2012-09-26 11:18:07 AM  

Mercutio74: The Martian Manhandler: Let's not start sucking each other's dicks quite yet. There's a lot of money still floating around in GOP world, and there are plenty of dirty tricks still to appear.

That's absolutely true, but how many of these backers got rich by throwing good money after bad. There will come a time where it might look so bleak that these guys would see their money better spent by buying Senators and Representatives and waiting for 2016.


Karl Rove's SuperPAC was actually considering that. I'm sure that Rove has some kind of polling threshold for cutting Romney off from help. I'm guessing that if Mittens falls more than 10-12% back in critical swing states, his goose is cooked and the money starts to flow towards getting Boehner et al re-elected.
 
2012-09-26 11:18:16 AM  

imontheinternet: Boxcutta: [www.wnd.com image 599x719] 
[i.imgur.com image 300x225]

And by unskewing, they mean ignoring randomized data collection and giving extra weight to Republican respondents, because randomized data collection is the real problem, not their terrible candidate and his clownshoes campaign.


I don't get the point of "unskewed" polls. If the polls are all wrong then why does any poll matter?
 
2012-09-26 11:18:31 AM  

Hobodeluxe: take nothing for granted. make sure you can vote. make sure you have the proper i.d.,make sure you're registered. and vote early. election day will be chaos. the GOP will make sure of it.


Repeated because this is necessary
 
2012-09-26 11:19:11 AM  

Whiskey Pete: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Whiskey Pete: Boxcutta: [www.wnd.com image 599x719] 
[i.imgur.com image 300x225]

BWAHAHAHAHA! I wonder how those polls are "unskewed?

They claim registered Republicans are under-represented so they weigh them more heavily.
Really.

Well that sounds like a perfectly rational...They what?


It makes perfect sense.

If you poll 100 people and 75% of them are Democrats and 25% of them are Republicans, and you get 100% of the Democrats voting Democrat and 100% of the Republicans voting Republican, than it means the poll shows a tie.
 
2012-09-26 11:19:11 AM  

sprawl15: js34603: Polls are for liberals and barbers. There are plenty of people who FEEL like Romney is going to win and they have a list of reasons why. Do these polls have a list? No they do not. Good day to you sir.

These people want what all Americans want:1) Cold beer
2) Warm pussy
3) A place to take a shiat with a door on itI mean, you don't want the dog lookin' at you.



Love that show! I'm in the middle of season 1 again, thanks for the laugh!

/Barnaby Jones
//let's go to my house
///and take naps
 
2012-09-26 11:19:40 AM  

The_EliteOne: The republican and democratic party parties are represented by the elephant and the donkey, respectively. The elephant is a powerful animal which is known to seek revenge on those who harm their family, whereas the donkey is a jackass who refuses to move when told to do so. Can you see the resemblance to the democratic party? They are a bunch of jackass's who dont want to move forward and they are being led by Obama the jackass.


Wow. That's some really deep insight there. I think I'll vote for Romney now.
 
2012-09-26 11:19:50 AM  

Muta: I am not holding my breath. Gerrymandering will keep the House in GOP current hands.


Strictly speaking this is true. However it's not just a GOP problem.

One of the biggest problems with Congress is that both sides have gerrymandered the snot out of congressional districts to protect incumbents on both sides. Consequently, most races are determined for all practical purposes in the primary, not the general election. And primary voters (on both sides) tend to their party's extreme, not the center. Combine impregnable incumbency with an absence of term limits and you get... well, Congress.

For the Republicans in particular, their problem is that the Tea Party has figured out that a relatively small number of highly motivated activists can hijack a primary and win a relatively impregnable congressional district. Conversely, the Tea Party hasn't figured out that this tactic doesn't work nearly as well for the Senate or the Presidency.
 
2012-09-26 11:20:05 AM  

GuyFawkes: Love that show! I'm in the middle of season 1 again, thanks for the laugh!

/Barnaby Jones
//let's go to my house
///and take naps


If you imagine Mr. Ford as Romney's campaign adviser, this whole political season starts to make sense.
 
2012-09-26 11:20:14 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Whiskey Pete: Boxcutta: [www.wnd.com image 599x719] 
[i.imgur.com image 300x225]

BWAHAHAHAHA! I wonder how those polls are "unskewed?

Heh, had to see who was hosting the link. WND.


Well Romney is winning if you hold the graphs upside down
 
2012-09-26 11:20:33 AM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: qorkfiend: Unless they do what they should have done in 2008, and clobber the filibuster.

I think the filibuster is an important (if invented) tactic for legislators, but you should have to stand up there and read Ulysses until your eyes glaze over and you collapse on the ground. If something is important enough to filibuster, it's important enough to completely stop all legislative work until the problem is dealt with. Additionally, if you are filibustering something you truly believe should not be enacted under any circumstances, there will be no fallout from congress "shutting down" over it.

The ability for congressmen to say "Yeah, I'm filibustering that bill there. Heading out to lunch," is what has made these past four years some of the worst in legislative history. Before Obama people at least treated the filibuster with some measure of decorum. Sure, by the rules, senators can drop that metaphorical bomb whenever they feel like, but until Obama they at least used it more or less sparingly. Don't like an appointee? Filibuster. Didn't get your pet amendment passed? Filibuster a non-related bill. Don't like the President? Filibuster defense budgets.


I'm ok with this.
 
2012-09-26 11:20:35 AM  

unchellmatt: unchellmatt: Hack Patooey: Photo of Romney campaign taken this morning"

[www.strangecosmos.com image 600x409]

"shiat, I opened the window. Should I note have done that?"

"Note" = "not"... rented fingers today...


Dude, that movie sucked
 
2012-09-26 11:22:15 AM  

Semi-Sane: The NYT is a biased paper. I wouldn't believe anything coming out of there. The polling sources they are citing are questionable at best. One should use a more credible polling source, such as the Rasmussen Reports.


i2.kym-cdn.com



TIME has described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group".[69] According to Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political scientist who co-developed Pollster.com,[70] "He [Rasmussen] polls less favorably for Democrats, and that's why he's become a lightning rod." Franklin also said: "It's clear that his results are typically more Republican than the other person's results."[52]

The Center For Public Integrity listed "Scott Rasmussen Inc" as a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign.[71] The Washington Post reported that the 2004 Bush reelection campaign had used a feature on the Rasmussen Reports website that allowed customers to program their own polls, and that Rasmussen asserted that he had not written any of the questions or assisted Republicans.

Rasmussen has received criticism over the wording in its polls.[72][73] Asking a polling question with different wording can affect the results of the poll;[74] the commentators in question allege that the questions Rasmussen ask in polls are skewed in order to favor a specific response. For instance, when Rasmussen polled whether Republican voters thought Rush Limbaugh was the leader of their party, the specific question they asked was: "Agree or Disagree: 'Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party -- he says jump and they say how high.'"

Talking Points Memo has questioned the methodology of Rasmussen's Presidential Approval Index.[40]
In March 2012, Media Matters for America criticized Rasmussen Reports for portraying itself as politically independent while headlining two Republican fundraising events.
 
2012-09-26 11:22:40 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: Karl Rove's SuperPAC was actually considering that. I'm sure that Rove has some kind of polling threshold for cutting Romney off from help. I'm guessing that if Mittens falls more than 10-12% back in critical swing states, his goose is cooked and the money starts to flow towards getting Boehner et al re-elected.


I think the debates will be the turning point. If Obama's lead widens after a debate or two, the SuperPACs will jump ship and Romney's donations will dry up. Handily winning the debates are really the last realistic shot Romney has to turn things around, but I'm not expecting that to happen.
 
2012-09-26 11:23:08 AM  

the_vegetarian_cannibal: MyRandomName: farking hilarious. Just read the sampling. +11 in Penn, +9 in Ohio for democrats. These margins are higher than 2008 which was historic turnout for democrats. This poll is assuming even more of an historic turnout? Even nate silver projects a decline from 2008, but not these polls. What a shiatty polling group. Gop goes from 33% of the electorate 2008 to 26%? Lulz

It is nice how fark does green light every shiat pro Obama poll even when so flawed.

MyRandomName doesn't understand how polls work, surprise surprise.

[images.politico.com image 457x350]

This would be like the equivalent of saying that a poll was unfair towards African Americans' voices because it didn't sample 50% whites and 50% blacks.


Besides, he got the direction wrong. It's not that Democratic turnout is going to be high, it's going to be that a record number of Republicans stay home.
 
2012-09-26 11:23:09 AM  

Semi-Sane: The NYT is a biased paper. I wouldn't believe anything coming out of there. The polling sources they are citing are questionable at best. One should use a more credible polling source, such as the Rasmussen Reports.

www.fatwallet.com
 
2012-09-26 11:23:12 AM  

dopirt: My prediction:

Obama will win with 53% of the popular vote!

I ran a statisticals regression using the length of the Mississippi river as the dependent variable and its width as its eigenvotens.


I question the robustness of the model. That's only two statisticals.
 
2012-09-26 11:23:42 AM  

ps69: Sure the pointy heads are saying this with their statistical analysis and regressions, but none of this feels right. The lamestream media is creating a narrative to dissuade conservative, patriotic Americans from going to the polls. For the straight dope, you might want to check some truth.
TakeOutTheSkew


0-media-cdn.foolz.us
 
2012-09-26 11:24:21 AM  

sprawl15: GuyFawkes: Love that show! I'm in the middle of season 1 again, thanks for the laugh!

/Barnaby Jones
//let's go to my house
///and take naps

If you imagine Mr. Ford as Romney's campaign adviser, this whole political season starts to make sense.



Hah! "Now get the fark outa my store"

/boosh
 
2012-09-26 11:25:03 AM  

sprawl15: Whiskey Pete: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Whiskey Pete: Boxcutta: [www.wnd.com image 599x719] 
[i.imgur.com image 300x225]

BWAHAHAHAHA! I wonder how those polls are "unskewed?

They claim registered Republicans are under-represented so they weigh them more heavily.
Really.

Well that sounds like a perfectly rational...They what?

It makes perfect sense.

If you poll 100 people and 75% of them are Democrats and 25% of them are Republicans, and you get 100% of the Democrats voting Democrat and 100% of the Republicans voting Republican, than it means the poll shows a tie.


trollmath.jpg
 
2012-09-26 11:25:07 AM  

dopirt: eigenvotens


Nice.

I look forward to your paper on orthogonalizing votenfactors.
 
2012-09-26 11:25:28 AM  

SpectroBoy: Semi-Sane: The NYT is a biased paper. I wouldn't believe anything coming out of there. The polling sources they are citing are questionable at best. One should use a more credible polling source, such as the Rasmussen Reports.

[i2.kym-cdn.com image 363x310]

TIME has described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group".[69] According to Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political scientist who co-developed Pollster.com,[70] "He [Rasmussen] polls less favorably for Democrats, and that's why he's become a lightning rod." Franklin also said: "It's clear that his results are typically more Republican than the other person's results."[52]

The Center For Public Integrity listed "Scott Rasmussen Inc" as a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign.[71] The Washington Post reported that the 2004 Bush reelection campaign had used a feature on the Rasmussen Reports website that allowed customers to program their own polls, and that Rasmussen asserted that he had not written any of the questions or assisted Republicans.

Rasmussen has received criticism over the wording in its polls.[72][73] Asking a polling question with different wording can affect the results of the poll;[74] the commentators in question allege that the questions Rasmussen ask in polls are skewed in order to favor a specific response. For instance, when Rasmussen polled whether Republican voters thought Rush Limbaugh was the leader of their party, the specific question they asked was: "Agree or Disagree: 'Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party -- he says jump and they say how high.'"

Talking Points Memo has questioned the methodology of Rasmussen's Presidential Approval Index.[40]
In March 2012, Media Matters for America criticized Rasmussen Reports for portraying itself as politically independent while headlining two Republican fundraising events.


My question is why does Nate Silver, et al use Rasmussen when their GOP bias is so obvious? Doesn't it just gum up the works?
 
2012-09-26 11:25:32 AM  

indylaw: mrshowrules: The polls are outdated but it looks like if the DNC takes every toss-up district possible, they steal don't take back Congress.

Do you have anything concrete to support this? What constitutes a "toss-up district"?


Just reading the Real Clear Politics House of Representatives map. Not sure how they qualify toss-up. That would be the key.
 
2012-09-26 11:25:32 AM  

MithrandirBooga: ps69: Sure the pointy heads are saying this with their statistical analysis and regressions, but none of this feels right. The lamestream media is creating a narrative to dissuade conservative, patriotic Americans from going to the polls. For the straight dope, you might want to check some truth.
TakeOutTheSkew

[0-media-cdn.foolz.us image 200x200]


Conservapedia wasn't enough. They needed a ConservaSilver. They need a ConservaReality. Because Reality Reality doesn't conform to their expectations and desires readily enough.
 
2012-09-26 11:26:31 AM  

czetie: For the Republicans in particular, their problem is that the Tea Party has figured out that a relatively small number of highly motivated activists can hijack a primary and win a relatively impregnable congressional district.


I disagree. A district the Tea Party is capable of winning was never an "impregnable congressional district" for the Democrats. The Tea Party certainly hijacks primaries, but they upset safe Republican incumbents.
 
2012-09-26 11:27:30 AM  

Wooly Bully: Semi-Sane: The NYT is a biased paper. I wouldn't believe anything coming out of there. The polling sources they are citing are questionable at best. One should use a more credible polling source, such as the Rasmussen Reports.

OK, I know you're joking, but the thing I hate most about the NYT (which I've read almost every day my entire life in the absence of a better paper) is that idiot Douthat, who just said he thinks Romney still has a chance because - get this - if you don't think about Romney at all, and focus only on Obama's weaknesses, you might actually vote for Romney. I'm not even kidding, his argument is that stupid:

Link


There is actually some truth to this - Generic Republican does pretty well against the President, which is why Mitt was nominated in the first place. The problem is, Generic Republican doesn't go on the ballot, Mitt Romney does, and the more voters inspect what that means, the less appealing the choice is.
 
2012-09-26 11:27:32 AM  

SpectroBoy: Semi-Sane: The NYT is a biased paper. I wouldn't believe anything coming out of there. The polling sources they are citing are questionable at best. One should use a more credible polling source, such as the Rasmussen Reports..


What Rasmussen does is ask several similarly worded ambiguous questions to different people. As we know, how you word the question can influence the response, and in addition there is always sampling variation, but is hard to predict exactly how in advance. Then they pick the question that polls the best for Republicans and use that in their "statistics". It is selection bias. They don't outright "lie" but they do cherry pick what they report.
 
2012-09-26 11:27:37 AM  

Boxcutta: [www.wnd.com image 599x719] 
[i.imgur.com image 300x225]


So this guy claims that polls are "skewed" because they don't conform to Rasmussen's demographics, and then post facto applies those demographic weights to other polls. Even if this were statistically valid (which it is not), one would expect him to include Rasmussen's polls in his reports, right? I mean, they have the Golden Truth from On High, the benchmark against all other polls must be judged and found wanting. Instead, he doesn't use them, because rather than showing his totally legitimate Romney +8 margin, they have it tied or Obama+1.

He's either a grifter or a junior College Republican economics major, and I'm leaning towards grifter.
 
2012-09-26 11:27:49 AM  

MyRandomName: farking hilarious. Just read the sampling. +11 in Penn, +9 in Ohio for democrats. These margins are higher than 2008 which was historic turnout for democrats. This poll is assuming even more of an historic turnout? Even nate silver projects a decline from 2008, but not these polls. What a shiatty polling group. Gop goes from 33% of the electorate 2008 to 26%? Lulz

It is nice how fark does green light every shiat pro Obama poll even when so flawed.


you do know that they weigh the samples and adjust for that right?
 
2012-09-26 11:28:29 AM  
I think it's pretty obvious now that the "story" that all these liberal pollsters are creating is that Obama is going to win the election, by putting out all of these polls in liberal hotspots. It's pretty interesting that none of them bother releasing their Texas or Oklahoma results to help balance the story.
 
2012-09-26 11:28:49 AM  

sprawl15: Whiskey Pete: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Whiskey Pete: Boxcutta: [www.wnd.com image 599x719] 
[i.imgur.com image 300x225]

BWAHAHAHAHA! I wonder how those polls are "unskewed?

They claim registered Republicans are under-represented so they weigh them more heavily.
Really.

Well that sounds like a perfectly rational...They what?

It makes perfect sense.

If you poll 100 people and 75% of them are Democrats and 25% of them are Republicans, and you get 100% of the Democrats voting Democrat and 100% of the Republicans voting Republican, than it means the poll shows a tie.


The latest unskewed statisticals showed Obama, Romney, Stein, Johnson, Camacho, and Vermin Supreme in a dead heat.
 
2012-09-26 11:29:00 AM  

MountainClimber: Hack Patooey: Photo of Romney campaign taken this morning"

[www.strangecosmos.com image 600x409]

Is that after he rolled down the windows on that B-17 ??

"Decompression. Hypothermia. Dead."

- Mitt Romney
 
2012-09-26 11:29:17 AM  

LockeOak: He's either a grifter or a junior College Republican economics major, and I'm leaning towards grifter.


You'll never go broke selling people something they want.
 
2012-09-26 11:29:23 AM  
A preview of the actual election results

www.nastyhobbit.org
 
2012-09-26 11:29:31 AM  

Whiskey Pete: SpectroBoy: Semi-Sane:

My question is why does Nate Silver, et al use Rasmussen when their GOP bias is so obvious?


Because if you can quantify the bias and account for it mathematically, the data still has value to a forecast model.
 
2012-09-26 11:29:51 AM  

snowshovel: I think it's pretty obvious now that the "story" that all these liberal pollsters are creating is that Obama is going to win the election, by putting out all of these polls in liberal hotspots. It's pretty interesting that none of them bother releasing their Texas or Oklahoma results to help balance the story.


Not sure if serious.jpg
 
2012-09-26 11:30:33 AM  

MyRandomName: farking hilarious. Just read the sampling. +11 in Penn, +9 in Ohio for democrats. These margins are higher than 2008 which was historic turnout for democrats. This poll is assuming even more of an historic turnout? Even nate silver projects a decline from 2008, but not these polls. What a shiatty polling group. Gop goes from 33% of the electorate 2008 to 26%? Lulz

It is nice how fark does green light every shiat pro Obama poll even when so flawed.


Hey, you guys get ever ass nugget that Townhall, WND, NewsBusters, Investors and Fox manage to squeeze onto the internet, stop yer biatchin'. We hear from Ted Nugent whenever he leaves a steamer in the john, too. What more do you want?

Besides, when ALL the polls are pointing to Obama, any story about polling results is going to be "pro Obama".

Farking moron.
 
2012-09-26 11:30:43 AM  

lemurs: HMS_Blinkin: Karl Rove's SuperPAC was actually considering that. I'm sure that Rove has some kind of polling threshold for cutting Romney off from help. I'm guessing that if Mittens falls more than 10-12% back in critical swing states, his goose is cooked and the money starts to flow towards getting Boehner et al re-elected.

I think the debates will be the turning point. If Obama's lead widens after a debate or two, the SuperPACs will jump ship and Romney's donations will dry up. Handily winning the debates are really the last realistic shot Romney has to turn things around, but I'm not expecting that to happen.


Agreed. Obama won't be too hard on Mittens though. I assume Obama will be waiting for Romney to screw up.

At this point I'm almost wondering if Obama isn't thinking about those House/Senate races. Maybe he'll go easier on Mittens at the debate to make sure his margin of victory in the polls stays low enough to keep GOP money focused on Mittens and not on the House and Senate. That would be a very interesting, though somewhat bold, tactic.
 
2012-09-26 11:31:42 AM  

lemurs: Handily winning the debates are really the last realistic shot Romney has to turn things around


Which is as likely as me getting daily knob jobs from Sofia Vergara.
 
2012-09-26 11:32:26 AM  

Whiskey Pete: SpectroBoy: Semi-Sane: The NYT is a biased paper. I wouldn't believe anything coming out of there. The polling sources they are citing are questionable at best. One should use a more credible polling source, such as the Rasmussen Reports.

[i2.kym-cdn.com image 363x310]

TIME has described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group".[69] According to Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political scientist who co-developed Pollster.com,[70] "He [Rasmussen] polls less favorably for Democrats, and that's why he's become a lightning rod." Franklin also said: "It's clear that his results are typically more Republican than the other person's results."[52]

The Center For Public Integrity listed "Scott Rasmussen Inc" as a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign.[71] The Washington Post reported that the 2004 Bush reelection campaign had used a feature on the Rasmussen Reports website that allowed customers to program their own polls, and that Rasmussen asserted that he had not written any of the questions or assisted Republicans.

Rasmussen has received criticism over the wording in its polls.[72][73] Asking a polling question with different wording can affect the results of the poll;[74] the commentators in question allege that the questions Rasmussen ask in polls are skewed in order to favor a specific response. For instance, when Rasmussen polled whether Republican voters thought Rush Limbaugh was the leader of their party, the specific question they asked was: "Agree or Disagree: 'Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party -- he says jump and they say how high.'"

Talking Points Memo has questioned the methodology of Rasmussen's Presidential Approval Index.[40]
In March 2012, Media Matters for America criticized Rasmussen Reports for portraying itself as politically independent while headlining two Republican fundraising events.

My question is why does Nate Silver, et al use Rasmussen when their GOP bias is so obvious? Doe ...


From what I understand, it's still a valid poll in terms of methodology and data. It just over-samples certain demographics that lean GOP (likely voters vs. registered voters, land lines vs. cell phone only, etc.), and if you're aware of it, you can correct for it pretty easily.
 
2012-09-26 11:32:35 AM  

Paul Baumer: Whiskey Pete: SpectroBoy: Semi-Sane:

My question is why does Nate Silver, et al use Rasmussen when their GOP bias is so obvious?

Because if you can quantify the bias and account for it mathematically, the data still has value to a forecast model.


I'll defer to your explanation because I honestly didn't know.
 
2012-09-26 11:33:15 AM  

Whiskey Pete: My question is why does Nate Silver, et al use Rasmussen when their GOP bias is so obvious? Doesn't it just gum up the works?


His model analyzes each polling outfit's performance in previous races (2004, 2008 etc.), calculates a "house effect" (Dem/Rep) for each polling firm, and incorporates that weighting into results from each poll when running the model. That way you still get information from every poll, and more data is almost always good, but you can still correct for those house effects.
 
2012-09-26 11:34:50 AM  

Whiskey Pete: BWAHAHAHAHA! I wonder how those polls are "unskewed?


They're unskewed in the same way that Scalia is unbiased.

imontheinternet: giving extra weight to Republican


To be fair, most Republican voters do have extra weight, even when you remove them from their hoverrounds.


In any case, Rasmussen will fall in line with everyone else right before the election so they can say they called it correctly.
 
2012-09-26 11:34:55 AM  

HMS_Blinkin:
Did a Republican really say this? They are aware that NO Republican EVER has won the Presidency without Ohio, right? So as Nate Silver already pointed out, if you're a Republican losing Ohio, your options are very limited.


I think Reagan could've possibly done without Ohio. Just because it's never been done doesn't mean it can't be, or even necessarily that it's a key factor.
 
2012-09-26 11:35:10 AM  

LockeOak: Whiskey Pete: My question is why does Nate Silver, et al use Rasmussen when their GOP bias is so obvious? Doesn't it just gum up the works?


qorkfiend: From what I understand, it's still a valid poll in terms of methodology and data. It just over-samples certain demographics that lean GOP (likely voters vs. registered voters, land lines vs. cell phone only, etc.), and if you're aware of it, you can correct for it pretty easily.


Paul Baumer: Because if you can quantify the bias and account for it mathematically, the data still has value to a forecast model.


Thanks, all
 
2012-09-26 11:35:24 AM  

It all made sense at the time: bdub77: mrshowrules: orclover: Its looking pretty grim for the GoP right now. Expect something desperate in the next month.

I just wish the DNC could flip the Congress. I'm assuming the hold the Senate.

I think they can win Congress back, based on how badly Mitt is tanking the Senate. Keep in mind we don't really have regular Congressional polls.

Sam Wang at PEC is currently estimating a 74% chance of a Democratic takeover of the house.

Republicans at risk of losing the House


Interesting link. Thanks.
 
2012-09-26 11:36:05 AM  

Hobodeluxe: take nothing for granted. make sure you can vote. make sure you have the proper i.d.,make sure you're registered. and vote early. election day will be chaos. the GOP will make sure of it.


Good advice!

/ Live in Oregon
// Will be voting at my desk
///Vote by mail FTW
 
2012-09-26 11:36:15 AM  
ih1.redbubble.net

/wicked retahded hot
 
2012-09-26 11:38:24 AM  
s3.amazonaws.com 

/hot
 
2012-09-26 11:38:30 AM  
From TFA:

More voters say [Romney] would be better than Mr. Obama at tackling the budget deficit - the only major issue where he had such an edge

How does this even make sense? What's the rationale behind this? Do people think Rmoney is going to kick in some of his own coin from the Caymans and Switzerland to make up the difference? Bullshiat.

Tax cuts don't help a deficit, even with cutting everything else in sight, except of course the military.

Oh, I forgot: he wants to raise taxes.

On the poor and middle-class.

*sigh*
 
2012-09-26 11:38:32 AM  

qorkfiend: czetie: For the Republicans in particular, their problem is that the Tea Party has figured out that a relatively small number of highly motivated activists can hijack a primary and win a relatively impregnable congressional district.

I disagree. A district the Tea Party is capable of winning was never an "impregnable congressional district" for the Democrats. The Tea Party certainly hijacks primaries, but they upset safe Republican incumbents.


impregnable im·preg·na·ble1 /ɪmˈprɛgnəbəl/ Show Spelled[im-preg-nuh-buhl] adjective
1. strong enough to resist or withstand attack; not to be taken by force, unconquerable: an impregnable fort.
2. not to be overcome or overthrown: an impregnable argument

They're agreeing with you.

The Latin Il, Im and In means "to change". It can mean to make, or to stop. English uses it randomly. So impregnate means "to make pregnant" while impregnable means "unable to be penetrate".

Must be hard on foreign speakers. "Impolite" means to do something which is rude, while "improve" means to make better, not worse.

Neat, huh?
 
2012-09-26 11:38:41 AM  

MyRandomName: farking hilarious. Just read the sampling. +11 in Penn, +9 in Ohio for democrats. These margins are higher than 2008 which was historic turnout for democrats. This poll is assuming even more of an historic turnout? Even nate silver projects a decline from 2008, but not these polls. What a shiatty polling group. Gop goes from 33% of the electorate 2008 to 26%? Lulz

It is nice how fark does green light every shiat pro Obama poll even when so flawed.


How about instead of whining and biatching about this thread after thread after thread, you show off your intense confidence in Romney's "fast approaching victory" and do what no other partisan, republican shill has done here and take up the bet I've been proposing for weeks now. A year of TotalFark or $50 to the charity of their choice. C'mon, show us how all the polls, all the research, and all of reality is wrong and you're somehow right and put up or shut up.
 
2012-09-26 11:39:03 AM  

digistil: Bibi


Bibi loses a lot of leverage if Obama locks up Florida. Israel might have to actually offer something to the US to get the 'red line' they want and it might not be announced until after the election.
 
2012-09-26 11:39:18 AM  

SpectroBoy: dopirt: eigenvotens

Nice.

I look forward to your paper on orthogonalizing votenfactors.


"SpectroBoy" I know where that name comes from!

//Principal Voten Theorem
 
2012-09-26 11:40:06 AM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: qorkfiend: czetie: For the Republicans in particular, their problem is that the Tea Party has figured out that a relatively small number of highly motivated activists can hijack a primary and win a relatively impregnable congressional district.

I disagree. A district the Tea Party is capable of winning was never an "impregnable congressional district" for the Democrats. The Tea Party certainly hijacks primaries, but they upset safe Republican incumbents.

impregnable im·preg·na·ble1 /ɪmˈprɛgnəbəl/ Show Spelled[im-preg-nuh-buhl] adjective
1. strong enough to resist or withstand attack; not to be taken by force, unconquerable: an impregnable fort.
2. not to be overcome or overthrown: an impregnable argument

They're agreeing with you.

The Latin Il, Im and In means "to change". It can mean to make, or to stop. English uses it randomly. So impregnate means "to make pregnant" while impregnable means "unable to be penetrate".

Must be hard on foreign speakers. "Impolite" means to do something which is rude, while "improve" means to make better, not worse.

Neat, huh?


...what are you talking about?
 
2012-09-26 11:40:09 AM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: impregnable im·preg·na·ble1 /ɪmˈprɛgnəbəl/ Show Spelled[im-preg-nuh-buhl] adjective
1. strong enough to resist or withstand attack; not to be taken by force, unconquerable: an impregnable fort.
2. not to be overcome or overthrown: an impregnable argument


Not a lot of people know this, but women can become impregnable if they do enough kegels.
 
2012-09-26 11:40:10 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: You might be (un)surprised to find that Republican foot-dragging was involved in that as well.


I know. But there should have been no negotiation on this. It was (and still is) seen as political suicide to close "the place we hold terrorists," but it is the #1 symbol of how far this country has fallen. It needs to go away, and quickly.

The very existence of that place pisses all over the Constitution and the image of what the US stands for. We can put men on the moon and split the atom... we can certainly figure out a way for the criminal justice system to deal with those cases. Instead, we just continue being one of those countries that "disappears" people. 

And for everything good that Obama has done and is trying to do, the fact that he let Gitmo and the warrantless wiretapping be brushed aside really pisses me off.
 
2012-09-26 11:40:51 AM  
It was awfully nice of Mitt to come to Ohio and point out that Obama hasn't raised taxes.
 
2012-09-26 11:41:04 AM  

Cork on Fork: HMS_Blinkin: You might be (un)surprised to find that Republican foot-dragging was involved in that as well.

I know. But there should have been no negotiation on this. It was (and still is) seen as political suicide to close "the place we hold terrorists," but it is the #1 symbol of how far this country has fallen. It needs to go away, and quickly.

The very existence of that place pisses all over the Constitution and the image of what the US stands for. We can put men on the moon and split the atom... we can certainly figure out a way for the criminal justice system to deal with those cases. Instead, we just continue being one of those countries that "disappears" people. 

And for everything good that Obama has done and is trying to do, the fact that he let Gitmo and the warrantless wiretapping be brushed aside really pisses me off.


What would you have him do about Guantanamo and the detainees?
 
2012-09-26 11:41:15 AM  
qorkfiend [TotalFark]

From what I understand, it's still a valid poll in terms of methodology and data. It just over-samples certain demographics that lean GOP (likely voters vs. registered voters, land lines vs. cell phone only, etc.), and if you're aware of it, you can correct for it pretty easily.


Well, yes and no. Rasmussen uses selection bias to influence their results. They do not lie or make up results, they just selectively report. For example, they might ask three similar or even identical questions to three subgroups.

1) Do you like coffee or tea?
2) Do you like tea or coffee?
3) Do you like coffee best or all drinks?

For 100 people in each groups, they might get
1) Coffee 40
2) Coffee 38
3) Coffee 25

Being anti-coffee and pro-tea, they choose to report the results of question #3, the other two questions are not reported.
 
2012-09-26 11:41:20 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Semi-Sane: One should use a more credible polling source, such as the Rasmussen Reports.

Thinking every poll but Rasmussen is skewed is literally as delusional as believing that 9/11 was a conspiracy.- Nate Silver (@fivethirtyeight) September 25, 2012


9/11 WAS a conspiracy. In technical terms. Multiple people conspired to commit mass murder.

Now, believing the conspiracy theory that it was an inside job... That's Rasmussen crazy.
 
2012-09-26 11:41:39 AM  

Whiskey Pete: My question is why does Nate Silver, et al use Rasmussen when their GOP bias is so obvious? Doesn't it just gum up the works?


Other polls Nate tracks skew Democratic. He adjusts the results for house bias.
 
2012-09-26 11:41:42 AM  

Moosecakes: HMS_Blinkin: FTFA: "Mr. Obama has widened his lead over Mr. Romney and is outperforming him on nearly every major campaign issue, even though about half said they were disappointed in Mr. Obama's presidency."

Well? What did you THINK was going to happen when you picked an awful candidate/person for your nominee? Did you really think that "not being Barack Obama" would be good enough?

That crap might fly in small town mayoral races, but you gotta bring your A game to the big show.

The democratic party learned that lesson the hard way with Kerry. Now the GOP gets to learn that lesson. Somehow though, I think they're going to take away the completely wrong lesson and in 2016 the nominee will be Alan West.


That would be awesome. Can you imagine all the emails and all of his quotes coming out. He would be the new face of the Republican Party. Let me introduce to you.......THE ANGRY BLACK MAN. If that happens maybe the dems would pick up a whole bunch of folks who are scared of THE ANGRY BLACK MAN.


/put it in caps to scare people.........BOO!
//See? It works.
 
2012-09-26 11:41:59 AM  

Whiskey Pete: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Whiskey Pete: Boxcutta: [www.wnd.com image 599x719] 
[i.imgur.com image 300x225]

BWAHAHAHAHA! I wonder how those polls are "unskewed?

They claim registered Republicans are under-represented so they weigh them more heavily.
Really.

Well that sounds like a perfectly rational...They what?


They create their own reality.
 
2012-09-26 11:42:11 AM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Hobodeluxe: take nothing for granted. make sure you can vote. make sure you have the proper i.d.,make sure you're registered. and vote early. election day will be chaos. the GOP will make sure of it.

Good advice!

/ Live in Oregon
// Will be voting at my desk
///Vote by mail FTW


Ballots are coming soon!

//Love voting at home.
 
2012-09-26 11:42:13 AM  

qorkfiend: What would you have him do about Guantanamo and the detainees?


Mandate that they must be tried or released. This was done for most of the detainees after Congress pulled their shenanigans, but a significant portion of detainees remain blackbagged.
 
2012-09-26 11:43:10 AM  

It all made sense at the time: bdub77: mrshowrules: orclover: Its looking pretty grim for the GoP right now. Expect something desperate in the next month.

I just wish the DNC could flip the Congress. I'm assuming the hold the Senate.

I think they can win Congress back, based on how badly Mitt is tanking the Senate. Keep in mind we don't really have regular Congressional polls.

Sam Wang at PEC is currently estimating a 74% chance of a Democratic takeover of the house.

Republicans at risk of losing the House


ohpleaseohpleaseohplease
 
2012-09-26 11:44:19 AM  

SlothB77: Even Fox News and Rasmussen polls have Obama with at least a 3 point edge in Ohio and Florida. Not looking good. Not looking at all.


Is your bunker stocked up?
 
2012-09-26 11:45:16 AM  

Wasteland: Mr. Romney would also need to win Nevada in this eventuality - a state where he has never held the lead in a public poll.

So one sign that Mr. Romney's team is preparing a "Plan B" to win the election without Ohio would be if they begin to place more emphasis on Iowa and Nevada. They would then have to hope that a shift in the national environment would carry states like Virginia and Florida back into their column.

It isn't a great plan. But when you're the Republican candidate and are down outside the margin of error in Ohio with six weeks to go, you don't have any great plans.

- FiveThirtyEight, Sept. 25th


He will need to change his tune about alternative energy in that case. Nevada and Iowa have been making money off wind turbines.
 
2012-09-26 11:45:23 AM  
Where did all the right wing nut jobs go on fark? Have they already given up?
 
2012-09-26 11:45:49 AM  

Whiskey Pete: Boxcutta: [www.wnd.com image 599x719] 
[i.imgur.com image 300x225]

BWAHAHAHAHA! I wonder how those polls are "unskewed?


1) They reweight the voter turnout by party to reflect that of the 2010 election like Rasmussen has been doing in their likely voter model.
2) They assume that anyone undecided has at the very least already eliminated the incumbent as an option and will vote for Romney.

Tada! Republicans have proof of voter fraud because their guy should have won in a landslide according to their analysis.
 
2012-09-26 11:46:08 AM  
The chart with current estimates has been updated for FARK readers.

web.mit.edu
 
2012-09-26 11:47:34 AM  

mrshowrules: orclover: Its looking pretty grim for the GoP right now. Expect something desperate in the next month.

I just wish the DNC could flip the Congress. I'm assuming the hold the Senate.


Have read exactly this far in the thread, so maybe this has been said but: I expect a clear Obama win, with Dems holding a slight majority in the Senate, and an ongoing obstructionist GOP majority in the House. The reinvigorated and newly-harmonized Dems are going to fight hard and loudly to get things done, with the house keeping with business as usual, the echo chamber doing the same, and 2014 is going to see a return of Dem majority in both chambers for the last two years of Obama's presidency.

Things will continue to slowly improve, Hillary wins in 2016 with the GOP in total shambles.
 
2012-09-26 11:47:54 AM  

Spanky_McFarksalot: "Those fears are affirmed in the findings of the latest Quinnipiac University/New York Times/CBS News polls of likely voters..."

you mean the latest LIEbral/LIEbral/LIEbral poll of likely LIEbrals?

/I'm being ironic


I would probably say more "sarcastic".

/it's all good
 
2012-09-26 11:49:30 AM  

MPAVictoria: Where did all the right wing nut jobs go on fark? Have they already given up?


Is Rush on yet?
 
2012-09-26 11:49:40 AM  

MyRandomName: Sounds like Mondale's lead in 84. Or Carter's in 80. Same polling group as well.


Or Dewey's in '48.

/keep a floggin' that poor horse
 
2012-09-26 11:49:42 AM  

Cosmk: Hillary Franken wins in 2016 with the GOP in total shambles.


How awesome would THAT be?
 
2012-09-26 11:51:22 AM  

MPAVictoria: Where did all the right wing nut jobs go on fark? Have they already given up?


No , we're just left with the Busch league leftovers who hope to troll their way into the Bigs on sheer plate appearances.
 
2012-09-26 11:51:22 AM  

Cosmk: mrshowrules: orclover: Its looking pretty grim for the GoP right now. Expect something desperate in the next month.

I just wish the DNC could flip the Congress. I'm assuming the hold the Senate.

Have read exactly this far in the thread, so maybe this has been said but: I expect a clear Obama win, with Dems holding a slight majority in the Senate, and an ongoing obstructionist GOP majority in the House. The reinvigorated and newly-harmonized Dems are going to fight hard and loudly to get things done, with the house keeping with business as usual, the echo chamber doing the same, and 2014 is going to see a return of Dem majority in both chambers for the last two years of Obama's presidency.

Things will continue to slowly improve, Hillary wins in 2016 with the GOP in total shambles.


Possibly this.
 
2012-09-26 11:51:27 AM  
Speaking of NFL refs, meet the newest referee (and his lyrics to the new theme for MNF)...

i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-26 11:53:08 AM  
There is serious and credible evidence of GOP election fraud in Ohio in 2004. Kerry wins Ohio and Kerry wins. 4 less years of the national disgrace that was President W Bush.

Nothing is over. Nothing!

/ Rambo.jpg
// can't post said Rambo.jpg from phone
 
2012-09-26 11:54:33 AM  

unchellmatt: The chart with current estimates has been updated for FARK readers.

[web.mit.edu image 373x497]


That looks like a giant...
 
2012-09-26 11:57:46 AM  

Hack Patooey: unchellmatt: The chart with current estimates has been updated for FARK readers.

[web.mit.edu image 373x497]

That looks like a giant...


Dick. Dick, take a look out of starboard...
 
2012-09-26 11:58:04 AM  

Hack Patooey: unchellmatt: The chart with current estimates has been updated for FARK readers.

[web.mit.edu image 373x497]

That looks like a giant...


imageshack.us
 
2012-09-26 11:58:46 AM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: mobile_home_refush: IMHO If the dems put some serious ground game in Texas and registered voters, etc. etc. They would have a good shot at turning it Dem.

It is not unreasonable to believe we could go back there. Our last decent governor was a Democrat, and many of us still remember that.

I gotta call one evening from this really nice sounding elderly lady. She said her name was Ann Richards and she was running for govenor and really needed me to go out and vote for her. That was the first time that I had ever voted. She lost that election. This once prowd state has really gone down hill since then. It is very sad.
 
2012-09-26 11:59:39 AM  

Waxing_Chewbacca: There is serious and credible evidence of GOP election fraud in Ohio in 2004. Kerry wins Ohio and Kerry wins. 4 less years of the national disgrace that was President W Bush.

Nothing is over. Nothing!

/ Rambo.jpg
// can't post said Rambo.jpg from phone


That just means McCain (or whoever the GOP nominee was) wins in 2008, as Kerry would have taken an election-year financial crisis to the knee.
 
2012-09-26 12:00:03 PM  

KarmicDisaster: Hack Patooey: unchellmatt: The chart with current estimates has been updated for FARK readers.

[web.mit.edu image 373x497]

That looks like a giant...

Dick. Dick, take a look out of starboard...


PECKER! Oh wait, that's not a woodpecker, it looks like a giant....
 
2012-09-26 12:01:12 PM  

Waxing_Chewbacca: There is serious and credible evidence of GOP election fraud in Ohio in 2004. Kerry wins Ohio and Kerry wins. 4 less years of the national disgrace that was President W Bush.

Nothing is over. Nothing!

/ Rambo.jpg
// can't post said Rambo.jpg from phone


I gots this.

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-09-26 12:02:46 PM  

mobile_home_refush: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: mobile_home_refush: IMHO If the dems put some serious ground game in Texas and registered voters, etc. etc. They would have a good shot at turning it Dem.

It is not unreasonable to believe we could go back there. Our last decent governor was a Democrat, and many of us still remember that. I gotta call one evening from this really nice sounding elderly lady. She said her name was Ann Richards and she was running for govenor and really needed me to go out and vote for her. That was the first time that I had ever voted. She lost that election. This once prowd state has really gone down hill since then. It is very sad.


I still remember her keynote at the 1988 Democratic convention, "Poor George, he was born with a silver foot in his mouth."

That phrase should be revived for the Romney campaign.
 
2012-09-26 12:04:16 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: mobile_home_refush: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: mobile_home_refush: IMHO If the dems put some serious ground game in Texas and registered voters, etc. etc. They would have a good shot at turning it Dem.

It is not unreasonable to believe we could go back there. Our last decent governor was a Democrat, and many of us still remember that. I gotta call one evening from this really nice sounding elderly lady. She said her name was Ann Richards and she was running for govenor and really needed me to go out and vote for her. That was the first time that I had ever voted. She lost that election. This once prowd state has really gone down hill since then. It is very sad.

I still remember her keynote at the 1988 Democratic convention, "Poor George, he was born with a silver foot in his mouth."

That phrase should be revived for the Romney campaign.


We should never forget that Rove got his start figuring out how to beat up a nice old lady.
 
2012-09-26 12:05:07 PM  

The Great EZE: The Florida Tag: HMS_Blinkin: That crap might fly in small town mayoral races, but you gotta bring your A game to the big show.

That *is* their A-game.

By election day I want every Republican to know that Mitt Romney was the perfect personification of their platform. I don't want any GOP-leaning person to walk away from that night thinking they just picked a bad candidate. NO! That is you, everything from corporations being people, disdain for half our country, the casual disregard of science, the sense of entitlement to power, the bad spray tan to appeal to minorities, everything.

Mitt Romney = Republicans.


The problem is that Romney was a bad candidate, and had they picked a good one, they would have won. Keep in mind the reason they would have won has almost nothing to the Republican Party's policy positions-they would have won due to the following calculation: "Economy bad; so vote for non-incumbent"; which is pretty stupid but we are talking about swing voters here who are usually pretty stupid by definition.

Of course, of the dozen or so candidates who ran in the Republican primaries, Romney was the second best candidate in the general election (Huntsman would have done better and would have probably won in the general). So the problem for the Republicans is not that Romney is a bad candidate, but that almost all of their candidates are bad candidates. Of course, they can't comprehend this at all.
 
2012-09-26 12:05:35 PM  

unchellmatt: KarmicDisaster: Hack Patooey: unchellmatt: The chart with current estimates has been updated for FARK readers.

[web.mit.edu image 373x497]

That looks like a giant...

Dick. Dick, take a look out of starboard...

PECKER! Oh wait, that's not a woodpecker, it looks like a giant....


Wang! Pay attention

I was distracted by that giant flying.....
 
2012-09-26 12:06:14 PM  

Whiskey Pete: SpectroBoy: Semi-Sane: The NYT is a biased paper. I wouldn't believe anything coming out of there. The polling sources they are citing are questionable at best. One should use a more credible polling source, such as the Rasmussen Reports.

[i2.kym-cdn.com image 363x310]

TIME has described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group".[69] According to Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political scientist who co-developed Pollster.com,[70] "He [Rasmussen] polls less favorably for Democrats, and that's why he's become a lightning rod." Franklin also said: "It's clear that his results are typically more Republican than the other person's results."[52]

The Center For Public Integrity listed "Scott Rasmussen Inc" as a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign.[71] The Washington Post reported that the 2004 Bush reelection campaign had used a feature on the Rasmussen Reports website that allowed customers to program their own polls, and that Rasmussen asserted that he had not written any of the questions or assisted Republicans.

Rasmussen has received criticism over the wording in its polls.[72][73] Asking a polling question with different wording can affect the results of the poll;[74] the commentators in question allege that the questions Rasmussen ask in polls are skewed in order to favor a specific response. For instance, when Rasmussen polled whether Republican voters thought Rush Limbaugh was the leader of their party, the specific question they asked was: "Agree or Disagree: 'Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party -- he says jump and they say how high.'"

Talking Points Memo has questioned the methodology of Rasmussen's Presidential Approval Index.[40]
In March 2012, Media Matters for America criticized Rasmussen Reports for portraying itself as politically independent while headlining two Republican fundraising events.

My question is why does Nate Silver, et al use Rasmussen when their GOP bias is so obvious? Doesn't it just gum up the works?


Don't know if he still has the article up since the move to the NYT, but he did an article on the 2008 race where he explained accuracy vs. house effects, and how a poll having a strong house effect is not the same thing as a poll being innacurate necessarily.

Think of it like shooting a bullseye. You have one marksman who misses by about 1-5 inches every shot in a random direction. You have another marksman who misses by about 4-6 inches just below the target every shot. Because the second shooter is more consistent, you can predict where the next bullet will hit more accurately than you could with the first shooter.

When you have pollsters who either by a glitch in their likely voter model, data collection methods, or influence of personal bias somehow generally favor one party over the other, this is known as a house effect (since it applies across all polls coming from that organization). You can adjust PPP's poll to account for their favoring of Democratic candidates and do the same for Rasmussen on Republican candates. You only toss a polling organization if their predictions have no reliable relation to the results.
 
2012-09-26 12:06:43 PM  
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-09-26 12:07:07 PM  

qorkfiend: Waxing_Chewbacca: There is serious and credible evidence of GOP election fraud in Ohio in 2004. Kerry wins Ohio and Kerry wins. 4 less years of the national disgrace that was President W Bush.

Nothing is over. Nothing!

/ Rambo.jpg
// can't post said Rambo.jpg from phone

That just means McCain (or whoever the GOP nominee was) wins in 2008, as Kerry would have taken an election-year financial crisis to the knee.


Likely right... Perhaps not as bad
 
2012-09-26 12:08:22 PM  

coeyagi: Waxing_Chewbacca: There is serious and credible evidence of GOP election fraud in Ohio in 2004. Kerry wins Ohio and Kerry wins. 4 less years of the national disgrace that was President W Bush.

Nothing is over. Nothing!

/ Rambo.jpg
// can't post said Rambo.jpg from phone

I gots this.


/ tip of the cap
 
2012-09-26 12:08:31 PM  

snowshovel: I think it's pretty obvious now that the "story" that all these liberal pollsters are creating is that Obama is going to win the election, by putting out all of these polls in liberal hotspots. It's pretty interesting that none of them bother releasing their Texas or Oklahoma results to help balance the story.

In 2008 Mcain/Palin signs were everywhere. Yard signs, bumpers, billboards,fence paintings hell I even saw face paintings. I have yet to see even one Romney/Ryan anywhere not so much as a button. Maybe nobody told Wacoans that it is an election year.Maybe Obama's unicorns stole them....who knows.
 
2012-09-26 12:11:00 PM  

mobile_home_refush: snowshovel: I think it's pretty obvious now that the "story" that all these liberal pollsters are creating is that Obama is going to win the election, by putting out all of these polls in liberal hotspots. It's pretty interesting that none of them bother releasing their Texas or Oklahoma results to help balance the story.
In 2008 Mcain/Palin signs were everywhere. Yard signs, bumpers, billboards,fence paintings hell I even saw face paintings. I have yet to see even one Romney/Ryan anywhere not so much as a button. Maybe nobody told Wacoans that it is an election year.Maybe Obama's unicorns stole them....who knows.


Meh... I see them in Mass all te time and we are, thankfully, saying NO to Rmoney by some 30 points.
 
2012-09-26 12:12:43 PM  
You know, I saw someone quote a lady from "ohio state university". Sorry paper, it's THE Ohio State University.

// alum...
 
2012-09-26 12:13:04 PM  

mobile_home_refush: snowshovel: I think it's pretty obvious now that the "story" that all these liberal pollsters are creating is that Obama is going to win the election, by putting out all of these polls in liberal hotspots. It's pretty interesting that none of them bother releasing their Texas or Oklahoma results to help balance the story.
In 2008 Mcain/Palin signs were everywhere. Yard signs, bumpers, billboards,fence paintings hell I even saw face paintings. I have yet to see even one Romney/Ryan anywhere not so much as a button. Maybe nobody told Wacoans that it is an election year.Maybe Obama's unicorns stole them....who knows.


The only place I see them in Dallas are in the richest neighborhoods and on the nicest cars. And I'm not talking out in the well-to-do suburbs, I mean in the straight-up old money bigass houses in the city proper.
 
2012-09-26 12:19:31 PM  

sprawl15: Whiskey Pete: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Whiskey Pete: Boxcutta: [www.wnd.com image 599x719] 
[i.imgur.com image 300x225]

BWAHAHAHAHA! I wonder how those polls are "unskewed?

They claim registered Republicans are under-represented so they weigh them more heavily.
Really.

Well that sounds like a perfectly rational...They what?

It makes perfect sense.

If you poll 100 people and 75% of them are Democrats and 25% of them are Republicans, and you get 100% of the Democrats voting Democrat and 100% of the Republicans voting Republican, than it means the poll shows a tie.


My sarcasam meter is in the shop for repairs today but I want to check your reasoning.

Let us say a hypothedical state has 500,000 people registered and plan to vote. Of those registered, 365,000 are registered as Republicans and 135,000 are registered as Democrats. When a poll is done, 70% of those who respond to the poll are Republicans and 30% are Democrat and the poll shows a +3 lead for Romney with margin of error of 3%.

How is this misrepresenting the electorate if there are more registered voters for one party or the other in a given state? Would the Democrats in this example need to have their votes weighed more heavily than the Republicans? Your given logic eludes me...

There is the possibility that some voters refuse to talk to pollsters (I know this can be true as I used to work for a polling company part time after school when I was in H.S.) however you can get a pretty accurate sample of the population, otherwise polling companies wouldn't be in business.
 
2012-09-26 12:19:57 PM  
Interesting thing from the comments at 538. If Rmoney loses Ohio but wins all the other battleground states he wins. Unlikely. Now... Let's say Rmoney loses Ohio and wins every battleground with the exception of New Hampshire... Tie. Soooooo unlikely but very scary nonetheless
 
2012-09-26 12:21:22 PM  

snowshovel: I think it's pretty obvious now that the "story" that all these liberal pollsters are creating is that Obama is going to win the election, by putting out all of these polls in liberal hotspots. It's pretty interesting that none of them bother releasing their Texas or Oklahoma results to help balance the story.


The press isn't doing stories about how Obama is dominating the polls in New York, Connecticut or California, either.

It's because of the electoral college. There are only a handful of states that really matter in Presidential elections: Ohio, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Virginia. When a poll shows a candidate with a large lead in one of those states it's newsworthy.
 
2012-09-26 12:21:48 PM  

Geotpf: The problem is that Romney was a bad candidate, and had they picked a good one, they would have won. Keep in mind the reason they would have won has almost nothing to the Republican Party's policy positions-they would have won due to the following calculation: "Economy bad; so vote for non-incumbent"; which is pretty stupid but we are talking about swing voters here who are usually pretty stupid by definition.

Of course, of the dozen or so candidates who ran in the Republican primaries, Romney was the second best candidate in the general election (Huntsman would have done better and would have probably won in the general). So the problem for the Republicans is not that Romney is a bad candidate, but that almost all of their candidates are bad candidates. Of course, they can't comprehend this at all.


No - the Republicans were never going to win. None of the "good" Republicans ran because everyone knew that whoever ran against Obama would eventually get steamrolled. All of the most ridiculous candidates came out of the wood work in the resulting power vacuum, which is why we had such an insane primary season. Now that the election is happening, Obama is going to steamroll his opposition and the Republicans are surprised? How did everyone forget so fast? They knew this was happening from day one. If they didn't, then we wouldn't have things like this: 

images4.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-09-26 12:23:52 PM  

Mikey1969: "Romney needs a PR person," Natalie McGee, a law student at Ohio State University who supports Mr. Romney, lamented during an interview on campus

Jeez, thanks Captain Obvious. I'm sure now that you have revealed this secret campaign technology, the Romney campaign will waste no time in researching just what a PR person is, how they function, and how important they are to a campaign. They would like to thank you for introducing the term "PR Person" to the world, BTW, you're going down as a major player in history, Nat.


Problem with her statement is the the Romneybot-Lycos Search for "PR Person" returns a map of Puerto Rico and the Wikipedia link to details about the island's population. Now he's even more confused than ever! Iowans want more Mexicans? College girls like Tan Mitt? Does she mean the campaign is sloppy and needs a maid or that the campaign is tired and needs some blow? Should Romney start running on pushing them to be the 51st state or get off the pot? Do Puerto Ricans vote? Then why do they have a seat in the House?

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-09-26 12:24:05 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Whiskey Pete: My question is why does Nate Silver, et al use Rasmussen when their GOP bias is so obvious? Doesn't it just gum up the works?

Other polls Nate tracks skew Democratic. He adjusts the results for house bias.


I believe it's also the system he uses, that it works best with as much data as possible. So if the poll's done correctly, it goes into the mix, no matter what the bias.

/I don't pay any attention to polls anymore, I just read what Nate Silver has to say
 
2012-09-26 12:25:20 PM  

SnakeLee: Geotpf: The problem is that Romney was a bad candidate, and had they picked a good one, they would have won. Keep in mind the reason they would have won has almost nothing to the Republican Party's policy positions-they would have won due to the following calculation: "Economy bad; so vote for non-incumbent"; which is pretty stupid but we are talking about swing voters here who are usually pretty stupid by definition.

Of course, of the dozen or so candidates who ran in the Republican primaries, Romney was the second best candidate in the general election (Huntsman would have done better and would have probably won in the general). So the problem for the Republicans is not that Romney is a bad candidate, but that almost all of their candidates are bad candidates. Of course, they can't comprehend this at all.

No - the Republicans were never going to win. None of the "good" Republicans ran because everyone knew that whoever ran against Obama would eventually get steamrolled. All of the most ridiculous candidates came out of the wood work in the resulting power vacuum, which is why we had such an insane primary season. Now that the election is happening, Obama is going to steamroll his opposition and the Republicans are surprised? How did everyone forget so fast? They knew this was happening from day one. If they didn't, then we wouldn't have things like this: 

[images4.wikia.nocookie.net image 300x222]


Probably true, but at least one of the primary candidates (Huntsman) would have been much, much harder to steamroll.
 
2012-09-26 12:25:23 PM  

MyRandomName: farking hilarious. Just read the sampling. +11 in Penn, +9 in Ohio for democrats. These margins are higher than 2008 which was historic turnout for democrats. This poll is assuming even more of an historic turnout? Even nate silver projects a decline from 2008, but not these polls. What a shiatty polling group. Gop goes from 33% of the electorate 2008 to 26%? Lulz

It is nice how fark does green light every shiat pro Obama poll even when so flawed.


Are we gonna be soooooooo pissed?

/Concern trolling is so '07-'09
//Get with the times, now you're just supposed to call people names and throw a shiatfit about racism.
 
2012-09-26 12:25:35 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: mobile_home_refush: snowshovel: I think it's pretty obvious now that the "story" that all these liberal pollsters are creating is that Obama is going to win the election, by putting out all of these polls in liberal hotspots. It's pretty interesting that none of them bother releasing their Texas or Oklahoma results to help balance the story.
In 2008 Mcain/Palin signs were everywhere. Yard signs, bumpers, billboards,fence paintings hell I even saw face paintings. I have yet to see even one Romney/Ryan anywhere not so much as a button. Maybe nobody told Wacoans that it is an election year.Maybe Obama's unicorns stole them....who knows.

The only place I see them in Dallas are in the richest neighborhoods and on the nicest cars. And I'm not talking out in the well-to-do suburbs, I mean in the straight-up old money bigass houses in the city proper.


I'm not holding my breath and I don't want to bet "good train riding money " on it but it would not surprise me if President Obama wins the Texas vote. I think alot of republican Texans are thinking "Hell our guy ain't in this race (and he embarassed us).Why the hell do I wanna go vote for a yanky morman for. I ain't taken a day off from work for that shiz". If that happens and the democrats go vote then......
//they are pushing the "Perry had sleep apnea" in the news right now...so somebody's worried
 
2012-09-26 12:27:25 PM  
And it was all the money that Adelson and the Koch brothers spent in the swing states that improved their economy enough to make Obama's reelection possible.
 
2012-09-26 12:29:28 PM  

smimmy: And it was all the money that Adelson and the Koch brothers spent in the swing states that improved their economy enough to make Obama's reelection possible.


If someone did a study and discovered a measurable effect it would be hilarious.
 
2012-09-26 12:34:43 PM  

ps69: Sure the pointy heads are saying this with their statistical analysis and regressions, but none of this feels right. The lamestream media is creating a narrative to dissuade conservative, patriotic Americans from going to the polls. For the straight dope, you might want to check some truth.
TakeOutTheSkew


1.bp.blogspot.com

The Statistical Quirks would be an excellent band name for a barber shop quartet.
 
2012-09-26 12:35:47 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: smimmy: And it was all the money that Adelson and the Koch brothers spent in the swing states that improved their economy enough to make Obama's reelection possible.

If someone did a study and discovered a measurable effect it would be hilarious.


I think it's called the Obomaberge redistribution principal: Money spent on political campaigns helps some members the other party.
 
2012-09-26 12:36:36 PM  
cr*p. "members of the other party."
 
2012-09-26 12:41:58 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Whiskey Pete: My question is why does Nate Silver, et al use Rasmussen when their GOP bias is so obvious? Doesn't it just gum up the works?

Other polls Nate tracks skew Democratic. He adjusts the results for house bias.

I believe it's also the system he uses, that it works best with as much data as possible. So if the poll's done correctly, it goes into the mix, no matter what the bias.

/I don't pay any attention to polls anymore, I just read what Nate Silver has to say


That's not exactly right. A poll that has a consistant house bias is still very useful, if the bias is consistant. If Rasmussen (or any other poll) always has a +5 Republican bias, and their latest poll shows Romney up by one in a state, it's easy to mark that down as an actual 4 point Obama lead.
 
2012-09-26 12:44:15 PM  

qorkfiend: SnakeLee: Geotpf: The problem is that Romney was a bad candidate, and had they picked a good one, they would have won. Keep in mind the reason they would have won has almost nothing to the Republican Party's policy positions-they would have won due to the following calculation: "Economy bad; so vote for non-incumbent"; which is pretty stupid but we are talking about swing voters here who are usually pretty stupid by definition.

Of course, of the dozen or so candidates who ran in the Republican primaries, Romney was the second best candidate in the general election (Huntsman would have done better and would have probably won in the general). So the problem for the Republicans is not that Romney is a bad candidate, but that almost all of their candidates are bad candidates. Of course, they can't comprehend this at all.

No - the Republicans were never going to win. None of the "good" Republicans ran because everyone knew that whoever ran against Obama would eventually get steamrolled. All of the most ridiculous candidates came out of the wood work in the resulting power vacuum, which is why we had such an insane primary season. Now that the election is happening, Obama is going to steamroll his opposition and the Republicans are surprised? How did everyone forget so fast? They knew this was happening from day one. If they didn't, then we wouldn't have things like this: 

[images4.wikia.nocookie.net image 300x222]

Probably true, but at least one of the primary candidates (Huntsman) would have been much, much harder to steamroll.


Yup. And keep in mind, in a great economy, Romney would be losing by 10 to 15 points nationwide, because he's such a moron. The fact that he's only down by 5 means that somebody like Huntsman could have been a winner.
 
2012-09-26 12:44:52 PM  
B-b-b-but how can these polls be going the wrong way for Romney? All the people they bus in to their stump speeches seem so enthusiastic! The campaign must be going well!
 
2012-09-26 12:45:42 PM  

mobile_home_refush: hey are pushing the "Perry had sleep apnea" in the news right now...so somebody's worried


Look like he had awake apnea judging by his debate performances.
 
2012-09-26 12:46:43 PM  

Lando Lincoln: The_EliteOne: The republican and democratic party parties are represented by the elephant and the donkey, respectively. The elephant is a powerful animal which is known to seek revenge on those who harm their family, whereas the donkey is a jackass who refuses to move when told to do so. Can you see the resemblance to the democratic party? They are a bunch of jackass's who dont want to move forward and they are being led by Obama the jackass.

Wow. That's some really deep insight there. I think I'll vote for Romney now.


Don't mind me, that was some derp that got printed in an op-ed letter response in my local paper this morning. I felt the need to spread it.
 
2012-09-26 12:52:22 PM  

The_EliteOne: Don't mind me, that was some derp that got printed in an op-ed letter response in my local paper this morning. I felt the need to spread it.


Your local paper prints sh*t like that?
 
2012-09-26 01:08:52 PM  

Waxing_Chewbacca: Interesting thing from the comments at 538. If Rmoney loses Ohio but wins all the other battleground states he wins. Unlikely. Now... Let's say Rmoney loses Ohio and wins every battleground with the exception of New Hampshire... Tie. Soooooo unlikely but very scary nonetheless


I did the numbers the other day and Romney can't win without Ohio period. Even if he takes all the battleground states.

Click no-tossup on Real Clear Politics. He has 191 electoral votes. Which means he needs to take all the battleground States that aren't safely Blue to win and even that is a squeaker. To win without Ohio means he has to flip Blue states that are not even considered toss-up this year.
 
2012-09-26 01:09:32 PM  

qorkfiend: czetie: For the Republicans in particular, their problem is that the Tea Party has figured out that a relatively small number of highly motivated activists can hijack a primary and win a relatively impregnable congressional district.

I disagree. A district the Tea Party is capable of winning was never an "impregnable congressional district" for the Democrats. The Tea Party certainly hijacks primaries, but they upset safe Republican incumbents.


Either I didn't write clearly or you didn't read clearly, because that's precisely what I meant, and is implicit in the rest of my post, i.e. that only primaries matter in most seats.

If either of us cared enough, we could go back, reread what I wrote, and find out.
 
2012-09-26 01:10:53 PM  

unchellmatt: The chart with current estimates has been updated for FARK readers.

[web.mit.edu image 373x497]


Ohhh.....clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
 
2012-09-26 01:14:09 PM  

mrshowrules: I did the numbers the other day and Romney can't win without Ohio period. Even if he takes all the battleground states.

Click no-tossup on Real Clear Politics. He has 191 electoral votes. Which means he needs to take all the battleground States that aren't safely Blue to win and even that is a squeaker. To win without Ohio means he has to flip Blue states that are not even considered toss-up this year.


What's worse is that Romeny seems to have bungled this too. He's actually IN Ohio campaigning today. The more he campaigns, and the more people get to know him, the more he hurts his chances. He should be stumping in Hawaii or something right now.
 
2012-09-26 01:15:15 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Whiskey Pete: My question is why does Nate Silver, et al use Rasmussen when their GOP bias is so obvious? Doesn't it just gum up the works?

Other polls Nate tracks skew Democratic. He adjusts the results for house bias.

I believe it's also the system he uses, that it works best with as much data as possible. So if the poll's done correctly, it goes into the mix, no matter what the bias.

/I don't pay any attention to polls anymore, I just read what Nate Silver has to say


Yes. He both adjusts for bias and weights for accuracy. That's why he is so much more successful than any simplistic average of polls.
 
2012-09-26 01:17:49 PM  

Therion: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 381x569]

Keep laughing, monkey boys!


GOP seen frantically hiring replacement voting officials
 
2012-09-26 01:22:50 PM  

Mercutio74: mrshowrules: I did the numbers the other day and Romney can't win without Ohio period. Even if he takes all the battleground states.

Click no-tossup on Real Clear Politics. He has 191 electoral votes. Which means he needs to take all the battleground States that aren't safely Blue to win and even that is a squeaker. To win without Ohio means he has to flip Blue states that are not even considered toss-up this year.

What's worse is that Romeny seems to have bungled this too. He's actually IN Ohio campaigning today. The more he campaigns, and the more people get to know him, the more he hurts his chances. He should be stumping in Hawaii or something right now.


He should be practicing airplane window joke and allowing the tanner to fade before the debate. The best thing he had going for himself was that he was white and he even screwed that up.
 
2012-09-26 01:29:35 PM  

Citrate1007: Guess what GOP, thanks to Bush Jr. and the Tea Party caring more about penis-goes-where legislation than jobs, the economy, or fiscal responsibility, the independent and undecided voters are too cynical to believe your lies and empty promises.


And the GOP is counting on those cynical voters to stay at home on election day, while the raving evangelicals are whipped into a voting froth.
 
2012-09-26 01:31:06 PM  

Bocasio: Wednesday Republican quotes:

"Why does everyone say you can't win the presidency without winning Ohio? Do you mean there aren't enough voters outside Ohio to win an election? Please stop sounding ridiculous."


No Republican has won the Presidency without winning Ohio; it's a big block of votes that sits square in the middle of our national identity.
 
2012-09-26 01:33:18 PM  
"With an unemployment rate of 8.8 percent in Florida, some Democrats said they were surprised that the state had seemed to be steadily trending in their direction."

I'm not surprised, really. Nevada's unemployment rate is much higher and I've watched the state go from light blue to solidly dark blue over the past month or so (Nate Silver's blog). I think some people at least are waking up to the fact that the "job creators" aren't creating jobs, and the president can only do so much. Plus, while our 12% unemployment rate is high, it's down from the worst part of the recession and our home values have held fairly steady after plummeting a few years ago. Not to mention, people care about more than just unemployment.
 
2012-09-26 01:33:45 PM  

Therion: Citrate1007: Guess what GOP, thanks to Bush Jr. and the Tea Party caring more about penis-goes-where legislation than jobs, the economy, or fiscal responsibility, the independent and undecided voters are too cynical to believe your lies and empty promises.

And the GOP is counting on those cynical voters to stay at home on election day, while the raving evangelicals are whipped into a voting froth.


There's a Santorum joke there somewhere but is seems pointless. Let's all talk about 2016. I'll start:

Clinton/Franken versus Rubio/Cameron?
 
2012-09-26 01:39:56 PM  

sprawl15: This just makes Romney's inevitable victory that much more impressive.


Can I have some of what you're smoking?
 
2012-09-26 01:42:27 PM  
These numbers are fake. They're taken from way over-sampled polls, as much as by 10% oversampling Democrats. Well, heck, the more Dems you ask the larger numbers there's gonna be for Obama, duh. Take these manufactured numbers for what they are: the Obama compliant media's hope. They are not reporting the news, they're trying to make the news by depressing the Conservative vote with these inflated numbers. I think the America people are much smarter than that.
 
2012-09-26 01:42:41 PM  

The_EliteOne: The republican and democratic party parties are represented by the elephant and the donkey, respectively. The elephant is a powerful animal which is known to seek revenge on those who harm their family, whereas the donkey is a jackass who refuses to move when told to do so. Can you see the resemblance to the democratic party? They are a bunch of jackass's who dont want to move forward and they are being led by Obama the jackass.


2/10. Too much for a first effort there.
 
2012-09-26 01:45:30 PM  

MyRandomName: Sounds like Mondale's lead in 84. Or Carter's in 80. Same polling group as well.



If you take out the sampling from democrats and independents, Romney is actually ahead of Oblahma.
 
2012-09-26 01:48:31 PM  
I haven't visited Freeperville today, but a couple of days ago the polls that had Obama leading actually meant that Romney was up by ~18 points. So I'm going to guess that these latest polls mean Romney is up by 25-30.

All the pollsters and the media have been "ordered" to report that Obama is leading to lay the foundation for the Dems to yell "fraud" when Romney crushes Obama. They love the "unskewed" polls site of course.
 
2012-09-26 01:50:15 PM  

tony41454: These numbers are fake. They're taken from way over-sampled polls, as much as by 10% oversampling Democrats. Well, heck, the more Dems you ask the larger numbers there's gonna be for Obama, duh. Take these manufactured numbers for what they are: the Obama compliant media's hope. They are not reporting the news, they're trying to make the news by depressing the Conservative vote with these inflated numbers. I think the America people are much smarter than that.


I guess you would really have to hope these polls are oversampling Democratic voters because if they aren't, not only is Obama winning but you also have less Conservative voters than ever.

Is it possible that the DNC has converted some Latino voters, veterans, military and women voters?

I could see how that would be disturbing.
 
2012-09-26 01:52:13 PM  

tony41454: These numbers are fake. They're taken from way over-sampled polls, as much as by 10% oversampling Democrats. Well, heck, the more Dems you ask the larger numbers there's gonna be for Obama, duh. Take these manufactured numbers for what they are: the Obama compliant media's hope. They are not reporting the news, they're trying to make the news by depressing the Conservative vote with these inflated numbers. I think the America people are much smarter than that.



If only there was some way to get poll data from somewhere other than the NYTimes.
 
2012-09-26 01:54:46 PM  

Lord_Baull: tony41454: These numbers are fake. They're taken from way over-sampled polls, as much as by 10% oversampling Democrats. Well, heck, the more Dems you ask the larger numbers there's gonna be for Obama, duh. Take these manufactured numbers for what they are: the Obama compliant media's hope. They are not reporting the news, they're trying to make the news by depressing the Conservative vote with these inflated numbers. I think the America people are much smarter than that.


If only there was some way to get poll data from somewhere other than the NYTimes.


Or you know, examine the polling methodology and comparative accuracy of those involved - a "track record" if you will of those pollsters who have been accurate in the past.
 
2012-09-26 01:59:04 PM  

Paul Baumer: Lord_Baull: tony41454: These numbers are fake. They're taken from way over-sampled polls, as much as by 10% oversampling Democrats. Well, heck, the more Dems you ask the larger numbers there's gonna be for Obama, duh. Take these manufactured numbers for what they are: the Obama compliant media's hope. They are not reporting the news, they're trying to make the news by depressing the Conservative vote with these inflated numbers. I think the America people are much smarter than that.


If only there was some way to get poll data from somewhere other than the NYTimes.

Or you know, examine the polling methodology and comparative accuracy of those involved - a "track record" if you will of those pollsters who have been accurate in the past.



I guess we'll never what Real Americans think. Thanks, LIEberal media!
 
2012-09-26 02:00:35 PM  
I can assure you that this is all LSMSLMNOP,as Rush has just infromed me that all the poles are lieberrail, except Rassmusen and they have it tied at 47.

/seriously, that is what he said on the radio during lunch today
 
2012-09-26 02:01:58 PM  

All the poll denialism from the Right is not merely angst. They are telegraphing they will NOT accept the legitimacy of PBO's second term.

- Chernynkaya (@Chernynkaya) September 26, 2012



Just like term one.
 
2012-09-26 02:10:27 PM  

SpectroBoy: dopirt: eigenvotens

Nice.

I look forward to your paper on orthogonalizing votenfactors.


I'm sorry but I have done the definitive work on orthofactoring geigencounter dirndlvergnungen votengescheissners.
 
2012-09-26 02:13:15 PM  

mobile_home_refush: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: mobile_home_refush: snowshovel: I think it's pretty obvious now that the "story" that all these liberal pollsters are creating is that Obama is going to win the election, by putting out all of these polls in liberal hotspots. It's pretty interesting that none of them bother releasing their Texas or Oklahoma results to help balance the story.
In 2008 Mcain/Palin signs were everywhere. Yard signs, bumpers, billboards,fence paintings hell I even saw face paintings. I have yet to see even one Romney/Ryan anywhere not so much as a button. Maybe nobody told Wacoans that it is an election year.Maybe Obama's unicorns stole them....who knows.

The only place I see them in Dallas are in the richest neighborhoods and on the nicest cars. And I'm not talking out in the well-to-do suburbs, I mean in the straight-up old money bigass houses in the city proper.

I'm not holding my breath and I don't want to bet "good train riding money " on it but it would not surprise me if President Obama wins the Texas vote. I think alot of republican Texans are thinking "Hell our guy ain't in this race (and he embarassed us).Why the hell do I wanna go vote for a yanky morman for. I ain't taken a day off from work for that shiz". If that happens and the democrats go vote then......
//they are pushing the "Perry had sleep apnea" in the news right now...so somebody's worried


In 2008, McCain won Texas by only ~950,000 votes. The population of Texas has increased by about two million since then, mostly from people moving to cities (8 of the 15 fastest growing cities in the country are in Texas). Those new Texans are more likely to be Dems, but I don't think there are enough of them yet. But projections are for another 2 million by 2016 and Texas will definitely be a swing state.

Also 25% of the TX population is Hispanic. They tend to vote Dem but a low percentage of them vote. Wake them up and get them to vote and Texas is blue.
 
2012-09-26 02:20:19 PM  

tony41454: These numbers are fake. They're taken from way over-sampled polls, as much as by 10% oversampling Democrats. Well, heck, the more Dems you ask the larger numbers there's gonna be for Obama, duh. Take these manufactured numbers for what they are: the Obama compliant media's hope. They are not reporting the news, they're trying to make the news by depressing the Conservative vote with these inflated numbers. I think the America people are much smarter than that.


Sarah Palin is polling at 90%.
 
2012-09-26 02:41:13 PM  

tony41454: These numbers are fake. They're taken from way over-sampled polls, as much as by 10% oversampling Democrats. Well, heck, the more Dems you ask the larger numbers there's gonna be for Obama, duh. Take these manufactured numbers for what they are: the Obama compliant media's hope. They are not reporting the news, they're trying to make the news by depressing the Conservative vote with these inflated numbers. I think the America people are much smarter than that.


Hey everyone, look at this farking guy!

/thanks for the laughs
 
2012-09-26 02:41:52 PM  

spiderpaz: MyRandomName: Sounds like Mondale's lead in 84. Or Carter's in 80. Same polling group as well.

It could also remind us of Obama's lead in '08, since Mitt Romney isn't even a shadow of Reagan, and has too many skeletons in his closet, unlike Reagan, and comparisons to the 80 and 84 elections is just wishful thinking by retards with nothing else to cling to.


Pretty sure Reagan was in the lead over those two at this point.

Which would mean MyRandomName has another case of

i75.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-26 02:43:23 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: The_EliteOne: Don't mind me, that was some derp that got printed in an op-ed letter response in my local paper this morning. I felt the need to spread it.

Your local paper prints sh*t like that?


Oh yeah, it's a piece of trash. Also, according to many residents it's either 1) Not conservative enough or 2) Part of a liberal left-wing lame-stream media conspiracy to attack Republicans.
 
2012-09-26 02:44:40 PM  

tony41454: Come with me... And you'll be... Living in a world of pure imagination...

 
2012-09-26 02:48:56 PM  

Whiskey Pete: I hope that the Kock brothers and Adelson kept their receipts. After spending all that money for the results they got Mitt should at least give them a few shares of Stericycle.


I hope that cocksucker Sheldon Adelson loses his shirt, so to speak. He was a failure here in Vegas so all his money is coming from China anyway. I'm sure MGM or Steve Wynn would love to pick up his casinos at a bargain.
 
2012-09-26 02:50:04 PM  

JusticeandIndependence: unchellmatt: KarmicDisaster: Hack Patooey: unchellmatt: The chart with current estimates has been updated for FARK readers.

[web.mit.edu image 373x497]

That looks like a giant...

Dick. Dick, take a look out of starboard...

PECKER! Oh wait, that's not a woodpecker, it looks like a giant....

Wang! Pay attention

I was distracted by that giant flying.....


ONE-EYED MONSTER! Come see the amazing, the terrifying ONE-EYED MONSTER folks! Barnaby circus presents the dreaded cyclops to shock and amaze!

Raar! Hey wait, that looks like a humongous-
 
2012-09-26 02:56:55 PM  

I should be in the kitchen: Whiskey Pete: I hope that the Kock brothers and Adelson kept their receipts. After spending all that money for the results they got Mitt should at least give them a few shares of Stericycle.

I hope that cocksucker Sheldon Adelson loses his shirt, so to speak. He was a failure here in Vegas so all his money is coming from China anyway. I'm sure MGM or Steve Wynn would love to pick up his casinos at a bargain.


I'm travelling to Vegas this winter? How many casinos does he own because I would like to avoid them if I can.
 
2012-09-26 03:05:34 PM  
 
2012-09-26 03:10:03 PM  
I've run my polls through hundreds of iterations of talking to my stepfather and his buddies, and in every single simulation, Obama is going to lose, is probably Kenyan, is definitely Marxist and Joe Arpaio is a hero. Every. One.

Proof is in the pudding, libs.
 
2012-09-26 03:10:03 PM  

meat0918: Hobodeluxe: take nothing for granted. make sure you can vote. make sure you have the proper i.d.,make sure you're registered. and vote early. election day will be chaos. the GOP will make sure of it.

QFT


Couldnt agree more. I think i may start posting it daily on facebook to get my point across
 
2012-09-26 03:34:47 PM  

At this point, the Obama team should probably start pushing harder to try and take Texas. Without Ohio and Florida, Romney's troubles are epic.

physiodetective.files.wordpress.com



Take away Texas, and Romney's trouble reverts all the way to comic.

www.aidan.id.au



Of course, the Democrats won't manage to take it this year. But making inroads now might help soften it up for 2016 and 2020.
 
2012-09-26 03:36:22 PM  
Don't want Obama to ease off on the accelerator. Keep pounding Romney daily. Keep him on the defensive.

I don't just want Mittens to lose. I want him to be demolished.
 
2012-09-26 03:43:22 PM  

Phins: In 2008, McCain won Texas by only ~950,000 votes. The population of Texas has increased by about two million since then, mostly from people moving to cities (8 of the 15 fastest growing cities in the country are in Texas). Those new Texans are more likely to be Dems, but I don't think there are enough of them yet. But projections are for another 2 million by 2016 and Texas will definitely be a swing state.

Also 25% of the TX population is Hispanic. They tend to vote Dem but a low percentage of them vote. Wake them up and get them to vote and Texas is blue.


Though, there's another factor. I know a number of die hard Republicans here that just aren't going to vote come November, at all.
 
2012-09-26 03:47:26 PM  

abb3w: At this point, the Obama team should probably start pushing harder to try and take Texas. Without Ohio and Florida, Romney's troubles are epic.

[physiodetective.files.wordpress.com image 220x214]

Take away Texas, and Romney's trouble reverts all the way to comic.

[www.aidan.id.au image 300x263]

Of course, the Democrats won't manage to take it this year. But making inroads now might help soften it up for 2016 and 2020.


Campaigning in Texas would be brilliant:

1) fark with Romney's head
2) make in roads for future elections
3) show signs that Obama wants to work closer with Conservatives in 2nd term (be the President of the 100%)
 
2012-09-26 03:48:31 PM  

Close2TheEdge: Don't want Obama to ease off on the accelerator. Keep pounding Romney daily. Keep him on the defensive.

I don't just want Mittens to lose. I want him to be demolished.


Romney's pounding himself daily. Obama doesn't even have a chance.

/pounding LOL
 
2012-09-26 03:48:57 PM  
I've actually been seeing Obama ads here in Texas.

Every time they come on, I'm shocked that they would spend money campaigning in Texas.

So, they are. Push harder? Sure!
 
2012-09-26 04:00:58 PM  
Intrade has Obama up 12 points in just 2 weeks. Not including the 2 point jump just today (so far). I know some Farkers got a piece of that so congratulations.
 
2012-09-26 04:02:59 PM  

EighthDay: I've actually been seeing Obama ads here in Texas.

Every time they come on, I'm shocked that they would spend money campaigning in Texas.

So, they are. Push harder? Sure!


Obama campaigned everywhere in 2008. Many people were surprised. I think Obama saw the campaign as the first part of his Presidency. In a sense Obama is beginning his second term now and maybe he wants to show that he wants to be inclusive of Conservatives.
 
2012-09-26 04:14:12 PM  
As a Texan, I would love for my state to become competitive. We haven't had a massive state become competitive in the internet age, and seeing how they approach that would be very interesting indeed.
 
2012-09-26 04:17:35 PM  

Close2TheEdge: Don't want Obama to ease off on the accelerator.


"If we have to issue horse blinders to everyone on our campaign staff, we will."

-- Obama spokesperson Jen Psaki, quoted by Politicker, on the President Obama's unexpectedly good poll numbers. Link
 
2012-09-26 04:19:30 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Close2TheEdge: Don't want Obama to ease off on the accelerator.

"If we have to issue horse blinders to everyone on our campaign staff, we will."

-- Obama spokesperson Jen Psaki, quoted by Politicker, on the President Obama's unexpectedly good poll numbers. Link


Maybe it makes more sense for Obama to withhold his sharpest/most recent criticisms until the debate.
 
2012-09-26 04:22:17 PM  

tony41454: These numbers are fake. They're taken from way over-sampled polls, as much as by 10% oversampling Democrats. Well, heck, the more Dems you ask the larger numbers there's gonna be for Obama, duh. Take these manufactured numbers for what they are: the Obama compliant media's hope. They are not reporting the news, they're trying to make the news by depressing the Conservative vote with these inflated numbers. I think the America people are much smarter than that.


Ok, scumbag, I'll give you the same betting option as myrandomname. You have the balls to accept it, or are you just as big a coward as he is?
 
2012-09-26 04:34:10 PM  

Bill Murray said I was weird: tony41454: These numbers are fake. They're taken from way over-sampled polls, as much as by 10% oversampling Democrats. Well, heck, the more Dems you ask the larger numbers there's gonna be for Obama, duh. Take these manufactured numbers for what they are: the Obama compliant media's hope. They are not reporting the news, they're trying to make the news by depressing the Conservative vote with these inflated numbers. I think the America people are much smarter than that.

Ok, scumbag, I'll give you the same betting option as myrandomname. You have the balls to accept it, or are you just as big a coward as he is?


You know that's a rhetorical question when it comes to those two.
 
2012-09-26 04:35:12 PM  

mrshowrules: I should be in the kitchen: Whiskey Pete: I hope that the Kock brothers and Adelson kept their receipts. After spending all that money for the results they got Mitt should at least give them a few shares of Stericycle.

I hope that cocksucker Sheldon Adelson loses his shirt, so to speak. He was a failure here in Vegas so all his money is coming from China anyway. I'm sure MGM or Steve Wynn would love to pick up his casinos at a bargain.

I'm travelling to Vegas this winter? How many casinos does he own because I would like to avoid them if I can.


Just the Venetian/Palazzo and the Sands expo center. I meant it when I said all his money comes from China now! All the big casino owners are hardcore "pro business" Republicans, but AFAIK Adelson is the only one who's given millions to R campaigns. Do me a favor, and if you play slots avoid the machines made by IGT... They are a huge employer here but a few years ago (when the economy took a dump) they laid off about 1000 employees, while continuing to give their executives huge bonuses. My boyfriend was one of those who lost their job and it took nearly two years to find permanent employment again. I'm still very pissed at them.
 
2012-09-26 04:38:57 PM  

I should be in the kitchen: mrshowrules: I should be in the kitchen: Whiskey Pete: I hope that the Kock brothers and Adelson kept their receipts. After spending all that money for the results they got Mitt should at least give them a few shares of Stericycle.

I hope that cocksucker Sheldon Adelson loses his shirt, so to speak. He was a failure here in Vegas so all his money is coming from China anyway. I'm sure MGM or Steve Wynn would love to pick up his casinos at a bargain.

I'm travelling to Vegas this winter? How many casinos does he own because I would like to avoid them if I can.

Just the Venetian/Palazzo and the Sands expo center. I meant it when I said all his money comes from China now! All the big casino owners are hardcore "pro business" Republicans, but AFAIK Adelson is the only one who's given millions to R campaigns. Do me a favor, and if you play slots avoid the machines made by IGT... They are a huge employer here but a few years ago (when the economy took a dump) they laid off about 1000 employees, while continuing to give their executives huge bonuses. My boyfriend was one of those who lost their job and it took nearly two years to find permanent employment again. I'm still very pissed at them.


Should be easy ones to avoid. Thanks for the info.
 
2012-09-26 04:38:59 PM  

NateGrey: Funny, I haven't been polled once this year!


Ah, good times.
 
2012-09-26 04:46:49 PM  

mrshowrules: Campaigning in Texas would be brilliant

SOOOOOPER Genius:

(FTFY.)

So, the question is, where in Texas should he make his campaign stops?
 
2012-09-26 05:06:42 PM  

mrshowrules: EighthDay: I've actually been seeing Obama ads here in Texas.

Every time they come on, I'm shocked that they would spend money campaigning in Texas.

So, they are. Push harder? Sure!

Obama campaigned everywhere in 2008. Many people were surprised. I think Obama saw the campaign as the first part of his Presidency. In a sense Obama is beginning his second term now and maybe he wants to show that he wants to be inclusive of Conservatives.


I probably wasn't watching as much TV at that time because of WoW.

Thankfully, I quit that beast and haven't looked back.
 
2012-09-26 05:23:50 PM  

EighthDay: mrshowrules: EighthDay: I've actually been seeing Obama ads here in Texas.

Every time they come on, I'm shocked that they would spend money campaigning in Texas.

So, they are. Push harder? Sure!

Obama campaigned everywhere in 2008. Many people were surprised. I think Obama saw the campaign as the first part of his Presidency. In a sense Obama is beginning his second term now and maybe he wants to show that he wants to be inclusive of Conservatives.

I probably wasn't watching as much TV at that time because of WoW.

Thankfully, I quit that beast and haven't looked back.


It's sad, I really like the trailer and the look of the new expansion, but there is no way I can waste that kind of time and money.
 
2012-09-26 05:37:14 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Whiskey Pete: Boxcutta: [www.wnd.com image 599x719] 
[i.imgur.com image 300x225]

BWAHAHAHAHA! I wonder how those polls are "unskewed?

They claim registered Republicans are under-represented so they weigh them more heavily.
Really.

Well that sounds like a perfectly rational...They what?


I can't wait to take a look at the site November 7th. What could they possibly say then? Claim election fraud?
 
2012-09-26 06:43:38 PM  

abb3w: So, the question is, where in Texas should he make his campaign stops?


He PACKED the old Reunion arena when he came to Dallas during the primaries in '08. I was there covering it for my student newspaper. It was insane.
 
2012-09-26 08:13:27 PM  

abb3w: mrshowrules: Campaigning in Texas would be brilliant SOOOOOPER Genius:

(FTFY.)

So, the question is, where in Texas should he make his campaign stops?


Austin, Dallas, Houston possibly.
 
2012-09-26 09:06:33 PM  
The CBS/New York Times and the Washington Post polls are irresponsible. They are designed to do exactly this: to depress conservatives and suppress their vote. These two polls today are designed to convince everybody this election is over.

We are told that according to the latest New York Times/Quinnipiac/CBS News poll, Obama is leading Romney by nine points in Florida, by ten points in Ohio, and by 12 points in Pennsylvania. If it's this good for Obama, then why is he there? Why is he campaigning in Ohio today? If it's that wrapped up and he's got a 10-point lead, why is he there? Why not go to some other state where it's not that big a lead?

The mainstream media's efforts to suppress your vote is now at full speed. They're trying to wrap this up before the debates even start, because I think they're worried about the debates. I think they're trying to get this election finished and in the can by suppressing your vote and depressing you so that you just don't think there's any reason to vote.

The problem out there is Rasmussen. Rasmussen has the race tied at 46, and Rasmussen has been one of the leading polling units in presidential races for a long time. So here comes CBS, the New York Times, and Quinnipiac. They've got this race over in these three swing states, and yet, there's Rasmussen out there today: 46-46. There's Gallup out there. Gallup doesn't show any of this, and Gallup's got Obama disapproval rising.

What we aren't told? Let me tell you what we're not told (and this according to their own data): They oversample Democrats. 7% in Florida, where Obama is up by nine points; 11 points in Pennsylvania, where Obama is up 12.

So you have an 11%-plus advantage for Democrats Pennsylvania and a 7% Democrat plus advantage in Florida. What they're telling us is that they expect the turnout in Florida, to be 43% Democrats, 36% Republican, and 1% independent. These guys are going back and using the turnout from 2004 and 2008. They're ignoring 2010.

Every one of these polls is ignoring the actual turnout in 2010, which was a referendum on Obama and was a referendum on health care. They're using turnout in previous elections where Democrats came close or won, say, congressional races -- Senate races -- in off-year presidential years, such as 2006. And, of course, 2008 when Obama won by seven, they go back and use that turnout. But does anybody expect that to be the case?

On August 31st Rasmussen reported that people identified themselves as Republican 37.6%, Democrat 33%, independent 29%. So why are the polls oversampling the Democrats by anywhere from seven to 11 points?
Do they not believe Rasmussen? Obviously not.

What are we to do, though? Here's Rasmussen August 31st: Latest national party affiliation, Republicans up four over Democrats. That's never reflected in any poll. If, by the way, you do that, if you take all these polls and you change the samples... Some guy did this at www.UnskewedPolls.com the other day. If you do this, if you take every one of these polls and you exchange the sample for what Rasmussen found you find Romney up by anywhere from six to nine points, and in some cases ten points. That's if you use an accurate sample of Republicans and Democrats as reflected by Rasmussen's party affiliation reported on August 31st.

And early voting is taking place.  Everybody wants to be on the winning side. If you put a poll out, and Obama's up ten, 25 points with women and you're Republican, you say "Ah, to hell with it."

You've got an attempt here to set up the idea that there has to have been some fraud because every poll had Obama winning by double digits or high single digits, and then Romney wins by five points. The first thing they're gonna think of is they had the election stolen from 'em and they're gonna start raising hell.
You notice that in Ohio, Obama is only leading Romney by eight even when they oversample the Democrats by seven? In the ABC/Washington Post poll, they oversampled Democrats by seven points!

Imagine what the real numbers must be. There's no way that there's going to be 7% more turnout of Democrats over Republicans. It's 7% that Washington Post oversamples the Democrats in Ohio. It's ten points in Florida, seven points in Ohio. I would love to repeat some of the stuff in the first hour but I must move forward. But there could be a lot of reasons for this. Voter suppression, voter depression, set up the possibility of allegations of voter fraud.

They have all these polls with Obama running away with this, and then say Romney wins. Guess what happens? People blow a gasket on the left. There's also early voting going on, and they know this stuff is not reported to reflect opinion. They're trying to shape opinion with these polls. --Rush Limbaugh
 
2012-09-26 09:19:04 PM  

Rwa2play: abb3w: mrshowrules: Campaigning in Texas would be brilliant SOOOOOPER Genius:

(FTFY.)

So, the question is, where in Texas should he make his campaign stops?

Austin, Dallas, Houston possibly.


He should send Biden to Dallas and Houston, skip Austin entirely. Obama shouldnt have a planned event anywhere near Texas until after the election. He's almost a sure thing, the GoP are desperate and Austin PD is getting more and more corrupt every day. Too farking dangerous.
 
2012-09-26 09:24:56 PM  

tony41454:
I eat paste.


We know, dear. Bless your heart, we know.

Figures you'd be lazy about it, too. That little screed's a near verbatim, paint-by-numbers pastiche of an El Rushbo tirade.
 
2012-09-26 10:12:43 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Phins: In 2008, McCain won Texas by only ~950,000 votes. The population of Texas has increased by about two million since then, mostly from people moving to cities (8 of the 15 fastest growing cities in the country are in Texas). Those new Texans are more likely to be Dems, but I don't think there are enough of them yet. But projections are for another 2 million by 2016 and Texas will definitely be a swing state.

Also 25% of the TX population is Hispanic. They tend to vote Dem but a low percentage of them vote. Wake them up and get them to vote and Texas is blue.

Though, there's another factor. I know a number of die hard Republicans here that just aren't going to vote come November, at all.


I'm hoping Romney will say in the debate that he's getting rid of Earned Income Credit. Poor working class people in Texas will unite and vote!!
 
2012-09-26 10:15:34 PM  

TheBigJerk: JusticeandIndependence: unchellmatt: KarmicDisaster: Hack Patooey: unchellmatt: The chart with current estimates has been updated for FARK readers.

[web.mit.edu image 373x497]

That looks like a giant...

Dick. Dick, take a look out of starboard...

PECKER! Oh wait, that's not a woodpecker, it looks like a giant....

Wang! Pay attention

I was distracted by that giant flying.....

ONE-EYED MONSTER! Come see the amazing, the terrifying ONE-EYED MONSTER folks! Barnaby circus presents the dreaded cyclops to shock and amaze!

Raar! Hey wait, that looks like a humongous-


"Willard! Willard Romney, wake up! We're at the next campaign stop and you need to give a speech. Try not to screw this one up."
 
2012-09-26 10:25:16 PM  
Wasteland

tony41454:
I eat paste.

We know, dear. Bless your heart, we know.

Figures you'd be lazy about it, too. That little screed's a near verbatim, paint-by-numbers pastiche of an El Rushbo tirade.


Of course it is. And you know why? Because if I post a link, ya'll won't click it. This way you at least read most if it before you realize where it came from. And you REALLY really need to read it. It makes a great point.
 
2012-09-26 11:29:34 PM  

tony41454: Wasteland

tony41454:
I eat paste.

We know, dear. Bless your heart, we know.

Figures you'd be lazy about it, too. That little screed's a near verbatim, paint-by-numbers pastiche of an El Rushbo tirade.

Of course it is. And you know why? Because if I post a link, ya'll won't click it. This way you at least read most if it before you realize where it came from. And you REALLY really need to read it. It makes a great point.



The point that you're a mindless sheeple?
 
2012-09-27 07:53:05 AM  

tony41454: Wasteland

tony41454:
I eat paste.

We know, dear. Bless your heart, we know.

Figures you'd be lazy about it, too. That little screed's a near verbatim, paint-by-numbers pastiche of an El Rushbo tirade.

Of course it is. And you know why? Because if I post a link, ya'll won't click it. This way you at least read most if it before you realize where it came from. And you REALLY really need to read it. It makes a great point.


Or. You could try to make the points yourself by typing out a long, reasoned argument in your own words. But that would take work on your part.

//Lazy troll is lazy.
 
2012-09-27 11:45:15 AM  
Close2TheEdge

tony41454: Wasteland

tony41454:
I eat paste.

We know, dear. Bless your heart, we know.

Figures you'd be lazy about it, too. That little screed's a near verbatim, paint-by-numbers pastiche of an El Rushbo tirade.

Of course it is. And you know why? Because if I post a link, ya'll won't click it. This way you at least read most if it before you realize where it came from. And you REALLY really need to read it. It makes a great point.

Or. You could try to make the points yourself by typing out a long, reasoned argument in your own words. But that would take work on your part.

//Lazy troll is lazy.


And what would be the point in that? The article makes the point much better. But you wouldn't listen anyway, you're too busy kissing Obama's rear end and waiting for the socialists to take over.
 
2012-09-27 02:59:26 PM  

brianbankerus: Whiskey Pete: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Whiskey Pete: Boxcutta: [www.wnd.com image 599x719] 
[i.imgur.com image 300x225]

BWAHAHAHAHA! I wonder how those polls are "unskewed?

They claim registered Republicans are under-represented so they weigh them more heavily.
Really.

Well that sounds like a perfectly rational...They what?

I can't wait to take a look at the site November 7th. What could they possibly say then? Claim election fraud?


That is exactly what they're going to do.
 
2012-09-27 03:51:20 PM  

tony41454: Close2TheEdge

tony41454: Wasteland

tony41454:
I eat paste.

We know, dear. Bless your heart, we know.

Figures you'd be lazy about it, too. That little screed's a near verbatim, paint-by-numbers pastiche of an El Rushbo tirade.

Of course it is. And you know why? Because if I post a link, ya'll won't click it. This way you at least read most if it before you realize where it came from. And you REALLY really need to read it. It makes a great point.

Or. You could try to make the points yourself by typing out a long, reasoned argument in your own words. But that would take work on your part.

//Lazy troll is lazy.

And what would be the point in that? The article makes the point much better. But you wouldn't listen anyway, you're too busy kissing Obama's rear end and waiting for the socialists to take over.


Maybe a well-reasoned argument that doesn't rely on talking points created by Rush will change my mind. Fight the good fight, conservative warrior.

Or have you just given up and are resorting to name calling?
 
2012-09-27 10:41:57 PM  

tony41454: Close2TheEdge

tony41454: Wasteland

tony41454:
I eat paste.

We know, dear. Bless your heart, we know.

Figures you'd be lazy about it, too. That little screed's a near verbatim, paint-by-numbers pastiche of an El Rushbo tirade.

Of course it is. And you know why? Because if I post a link, ya'll won't click it. This way you at least read most if it before you realize where it came from. And you REALLY really need to read it. It makes a great point.

Or. You could try to make the points yourself by typing out a long, reasoned argument in your own words. But that would take work on your part.

//Lazy troll is lazy.

And what would be the point in that? The article makes the point much better. But you wouldn't listen anyway, you're too busy kissing Obama's rear end and waiting for the socialists to take over.


If you don't like it so much why don't you post his personal info like you've done to multiple other people here over the years, simply for disagreeing with you, you psychotic scumbag? You should be banned for a lot of various reasons, but that alone should give you a permanent vacation from this site.
 
2012-09-28 03:36:18 PM  

tony41454: The article makes the point much better. But you wouldn't listen anyway, you're too busy kissing Obama's rear end and waiting for the socialists to take over.


Aw man. Tony's really got me nailed. Sheesh. Now what?
 
Displayed 357 of 357 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report