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 357
    More: Interesting, Quinnipiac Poll, Mitt Romney, President Obama, NYT, Pennsylvania, florida, Ohio, NFL  
•       •       •

1497 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Sep 2012 at 10:32 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



357 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
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...
 
Displayed 50 of 357 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report