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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 357 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all


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