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.

(Business Insider)   Latest Gallup poll shows binders full of women supporting Romney by a wide margin   (businessinsider.com) divider line 197
    More: Interesting, obama, Gallup, NYSE Composite  
•       •       •

4395 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Oct 2012 at 5:50 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-18 01:25:37 PM  
Again, Gallup uses a 7-day average. expect these numbers to change noticably in the next few days.
 
2012-10-18 01:30:06 PM  
I still haven't figured out why anybody would vote for Romney. Against Obama sure I understand. But for Romney?
 
2012-10-18 01:37:26 PM  
It's kind a statistical no-no to break out and retrospectively analyze data from sub-groups like women, hispanics, voters from specific states etc. Usually there aren't enough of them to make a statistically significant sample on their own and the MOE is probably big enough to drive a truck through if you do crunch the numbers. Anyhow, grain of salt, yadda yadda.
 
2012-10-18 01:41:21 PM  

Voiceofreason01: I still haven't figured out why anybody would vote for Romney. Against Obama sure I understand. But for Romney?


I think I can field that question...

It is a matter of they feel that Obama's change has not worked, so they want to make another change to something else, anything else, to get us back on track. It does not matter who or what the change is as long as the change is Obama and his policies go bye-bye

/Its not how I feel. I am just giving you an outsiders view
 
2012-10-18 01:42:59 PM  
Also cherry picking polls oten leads to significant butthurt come election day and gallup has been looking weirder and weirder by the day ever since they switched to their likely voter model. They are way out of whack compared to other national polls and especially state polls. Now either Gallup is right and all these other polls and pollsters are wrong or something is goofy at Gallup. You be the judge, but if I had to put money on it I would say it is much more likely that one poll is wrong, not all the rest of them.
 
2012-10-18 01:46:44 PM  

cman: Voiceofreason01: I still haven't figured out why anybody would vote for Romney. Against Obama sure I understand. But for Romney?

I think I can field that question...

It is a matter of they feel that Obama's change has not worked, so they want to make another change to something else, anything else, to get us back on track. It does not matter who or what the change is as long as the change is Obama and his policies go bye-bye

/Its not how I feel. I am just giving you an outsiders view


Right, voting against Obama; Romney's the other candidate so you vote for him. But other than not being Barack can you think of any other reason to vote for Mittens?
 
2012-10-18 01:47:18 PM  

Voiceofreason01: cman: Voiceofreason01: I still haven't figured out why anybody would vote for Romney. Against Obama sure I understand. But for Romney?

I think I can field that question...

It is a matter of they feel that Obama's change has not worked, so they want to make another change to something else, anything else, to get us back on track. It does not matter who or what the change is as long as the change is Obama and his policies go bye-bye

/Its not how I feel. I am just giving you an outsiders view

Right, voting against Obama; Romney's the other candidate so you vote for him. But other than not being Barack can you think of any other reason to vote for Mittens?


I aint voting for either of them. Gary Johnson gets my vote.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-18 01:47:23 PM  
Not all women are into bindage.
 
2012-10-18 01:47:32 PM  
Wow. Someone is REALLY trying to get the message across about this. What is this, five threads on this poll on the Commented page?
 
2012-10-18 01:50:20 PM  

cman:
I aint voting for either of them. Gary Johnson gets my vote.


probably because you're a bad person and have a poor grasp of economics

/no offense
 
2012-10-18 01:50:28 PM  
It seems to be a daily occurrence, Adolf. Some right wing troll picks one news story ans spams the crap out of the politics feed.
 
2012-10-18 01:51:34 PM  

Voiceofreason01: cman:
I aint voting for either of them. Gary Johnson gets my vote.

probably because you're a bad person and have a poor grasp of economics

/no offense


Wow, dude, just wow...

I've been called an asshole, a moron, a dumbfark, a moron, but never a bad person

This is new
 
2012-10-18 01:53:08 PM  

cman: Voiceofreason01: cman:
I aint voting for either of them. Gary Johnson gets my vote.

probably because you're a bad person and have a poor grasp of economics

/no offense

Wow, dude, just wow...

I've been called an asshole, a moron, a dumbfark, a moron, but never a bad person

This is new


didn't mean to hurt your feelings just pointing out that your chosen candidate has a shiat platform
 
2012-10-18 01:54:12 PM  

Voiceofreason01: cman: Voiceofreason01: cman:
I aint voting for either of them. Gary Johnson gets my vote.

probably because you're a bad person and have a poor grasp of economics

/no offense

Wow, dude, just wow...

I've been called an asshole, a moron, a dumbfark, a moron, but never a bad person

This is new

didn't mean to hurt your feelings just pointing out that your chosen candidate has a shiat platform


You didn't hurt my feelings. I was making a joke. I thought putting down "moron" twice would have made that apparent.
 
2012-10-18 01:56:13 PM  

vpb: Not all women are into bindage.


Fifty Shades of Red?
 
2012-10-18 01:58:43 PM  

cman:
You didn't hurt my feelings. I was making a joke. I thought putting down "moron" twice would have made that apparent.


Although the same basic question applies to Johnson: other than not being Obama, why?
 
2012-10-18 01:59:07 PM  
And all Romney had to do to start his advance is take a massive swing to, based upon some of the things he said in the debate and the GOP standards about such things, the far socialist left.

Funny how he started being popular once he stopped sounding like a Republican.
 
2012-10-18 02:01:55 PM  

Voiceofreason01: cman:
You didn't hurt my feelings. I was making a joke. I thought putting down "moron" twice would have made that apparent.

Although the same basic question applies to Johnson: other than not being Obama, why?


He fits most of my political positions from gay marriage (pro, wants to bring it as a federal civil rights issue) to something as little as legalizing prostitution. We disagree mostly on tax issues, but thats pretty much it.
 
2012-10-18 02:12:53 PM  
But not more than two weeks ago I was assured these numbers were skewed. Link
 
2012-10-18 02:15:10 PM  

Voiceofreason01: cman:
I aint voting for either of them. Gary Johnson gets my vote.

probably because you're a bad person and have a poor grasp of economics

/no offense


No it's great, right wingers gets to feel good about themselves while not advancing their agenda, the Republican party looks bad and Obama gets Arizona.
 
2012-10-18 02:19:25 PM  
Gallup using a rolling poll over 7 days. This poll did not including anything post 2nd-debate. If Romney doesn't gain more ground, he loses, and I hate to break it to Fark Independents, but he didn't gain any ground in the 2nd debate.
 
2012-10-18 02:26:45 PM  
Is it just me, or if you look at the historical data, Gallup kind of sucks. According to them:

On October 16, 2008, Obama had a 3 point lead on McCain.

On October 16, 2004, Bush had an 8 point lead on Kerry.

On October 18, 2000, Bush had a 10 point lead on Gore.

On October 18, 1996, Clinton had a 23 point lead on Dole.

On October 17, 1992, Clinton had a 2 point lead on Bush.

All of these results are piss-poor predictions of the actual election. Only the 2008 poll was even within 5 points. 2 of these polls were off by more than 10 points. Are these people just bad at their jobs?
 
2012-10-18 02:28:42 PM  
You get the government you deserve. Go ahead and vote for him. See how well that works out for you. How did re-electing Dubya work out for you? All he did was start two wars and crash the economy into the ground, but let's put the GOP back in power!

img.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-18 02:31:20 PM  
There is a reason why 538 does not use Gallup's LV model, and you're looking at a prime example of why.
 
2012-10-18 02:31:52 PM  
Nate's tweet:
Gallup poll real bad for Obama. Marquette poll (WI) pretty bad for Obama. Other polls pretty good for Obama. Canceled out in forecast.
 
2012-10-18 02:32:01 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: There is a reason why 538 does not use Gallup's LV model, and you're looking at a prime example of why.


Is that true? I thought Nate says he uses the LV results wherever available.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2012-10-18 02:33:19 PM  

cman: It is a matter of they feel that Obama's change has not worked, so they want to make another change to something else, anything else, to get us back on track. It does not matter who or what the change is as long as the change is Obama and his policies go bye-bye


So perhaps they should vote their GOP congressmen and women out of office since they are the ones who have killed numerous jobs bills and have literally done everything in their power to prevent economic improvement because Obama is in the White House.
 
2012-10-18 02:36:23 PM  

cman: Voiceofreason01: I still haven't figured out why anybody would vote for Romney. Against Obama sure I understand. But for Romney?

I think I can field that question...

It is a matter of they feel that Obama's change has not worked, so they want to make another change to something else, anything else, to get us back on track. It does not matter who or what the change is as long as the change is Obama and his policies go bye-bye

/Its not how I feel. I am just giving you an outsiders view


I've seen this argument a lot. It still makes no sense. The change would essentially be back to the Republican polices of the previous administration. You know, when it all broke. Attention span of goldfish, I guess.
 
2012-10-18 02:49:29 PM  

WorldCitizen: I've seen this argument a lot. It still makes no sense. The change would essentially be back to the Republican polices of the previous administration. You know, when it all broke. Attention span of goldfish, I guess.


Yeah, but, he isn't going to get rid of guns, which is Obama's diabolical plan, and will love to talk about Jesus.

/at least that is what I got from the right wingers during our post-debate lunch get together yesterday. Well, the gun parts anyway.
 
2012-10-18 02:52:03 PM  

DamnYankees: Grand_Moff_Joseph: There is a reason why 538 does not use Gallup's LV model, and you're looking at a prime example of why.

Is that true? I thought Nate says he uses the LV results wherever available.


At least I think so, thinking back to 2008 and 2010. but, i could be wrong.
 
2012-10-18 02:58:41 PM  

Voiceofreason01: didn't mean to hurt your feelings just pointing out that your chosen candidate has a shiat platform


what do you mean, the Ryan budget is really awesome and furthermore comma
 
2012-10-18 03:05:47 PM  

Voiceofreason01: I still haven't figured out why anybody would vote for Romney. Against Obama sure I understand. But for Romney?


DamnYankees: Is it just me, or if you look at the historical data, Gallup kind of sucks. According to them:

On October 16, 2008, Obama had a 3 point lead on McCain.

On October 16, 2004, Bush had an 8 point lead on Kerry.

On October 18, 2000, Bush had a 10 point lead on Gore.

On October 18, 1996, Clinton had a 23 point lead on Dole.

On October 17, 1992, Clinton had a 2 point lead on Bush.

All of these results are piss-poor predictions of the actual election. Only the 2008 poll was even within 5 points. 2 of these polls were off by more than 10 points. Are these people just bad at their jobs?


Maybe I don't understand your point but everyone with the lead in these polls won their election a few weeks later and if polls are to predict an outcome based on an extrapolation of a sample it would seem they were pretty effective, no?
 
2012-10-18 03:06:41 PM  
More proof that Romney won Tuesday's debate, amirite Fark Independents?
 
2012-10-18 03:07:01 PM  

Jackson Herring: Voiceofreason01: didn't mean to hurt your feelings just pointing out that your chosen candidate has a shiat platform

what do you mean, the Ryan budget is really awesome and furthermore comma


Yeah, it is. It's so...cutting edge, in its bold refusal to embrace things like 'common sense', 'basic accounting practices', or 'reality'.

/ I really hope you were being sarcastic?
 
2012-10-18 03:08:09 PM  

Voiceofreason01: I still haven't figured out why anybody would vote for Romney. Against Obama sure I understand. But for Romney?


it's truly baffling but I am starting to believe he has a chance to win this thing.
 
2012-10-18 03:09:07 PM  

TrainingWheelsNeeded: Voiceofreason01: I still haven't figured out why anybody would vote for Romney. Against Obama sure I understand. But for Romney?

DamnYankees: Is it just me, or if you look at the historical data, Gallup kind of sucks. According to them:

On October 16, 2008, Obama had a 3 point lead on McCain.

On October 16, 2004, Bush had an 8 point lead on Kerry.

On October 18, 2000, Bush had a 10 point lead on Gore.

On October 18, 1996, Clinton had a 23 point lead on Dole.

On October 17, 1992, Clinton had a 2 point lead on Bush.

All of these results are piss-poor predictions of the actual election. Only the 2008 poll was even within 5 points. 2 of these polls were off by more than 10 points. Are these people just bad at their jobs?

Maybe I don't understand your point but everyone with the lead in these polls won their election a few weeks later and if polls are to predict an outcome based on an extrapolation of a sample it would seem they were pretty effective, no?


To be fair... these are national polls , not state by state EV polls. Gore won the popular vote in 2000.
 
2012-10-18 03:09:16 PM  

TrainingWheelsNeeded: Maybe I don't understand your point but everyone with the lead in these polls won their election a few weeks later and if polls are to predict an outcome based on an extrapolation of a sample it would seem they were pretty effective, no?


This is true, but it seems like a fluke rather than a good job. The average error in these polls is over 8%. Now, unless there's some explanation for why they have managed to be off by an average of 8% and still gotten each winner right, I'm erring on the side of "lucky".
 
2012-10-18 03:10:35 PM  

dletter: To be fair... these are national polls , not state by state EV polls.


Oh man, imagine the butthurt if Obama loses the popular vote but wins the Electoral College.
 
2012-10-18 03:16:08 PM  

themindiswatching: dletter: To be fair... these are national polls , not state by state EV polls.

Oh man, imagine the butthurt if Obama loses the popular vote but wins the Electoral College.


Payback? ;)

And I find it interesting the on 538, the odds of a prolonged recount in a state that is material to the outcome are what I would consider fairly high (around 10% I think). So, could get really interesting.
 
2012-10-18 03:25:10 PM  

DamnYankees: TrainingWheelsNeeded: Maybe I don't understand your point but everyone with the lead in these polls won their election a few weeks later and if polls are to predict an outcome based on an extrapolation of a sample it would seem they were pretty effective, no?

This is true, but it seems like a fluke rather than a good job. The average error in these polls is over 8%. Now, unless there's some explanation for why they have managed to be off by an average of 8% and still gotten each winner right, I'm erring on the side of "lucky".


Hopefully their luck is running out. Whenever I see and listen to Romney my George Dubya alarms start going off.
 
2012-10-18 03:37:07 PM  

TrainingWheelsNeeded: Voiceofreason01: I still haven't figured out why anybody would vote for Romney. Against Obama sure I understand. But for Romney?

DamnYankees: Is it just me, or if you look at the historical data, Gallup kind of sucks. According to them:

On October 16, 2008, Obama had a 3 point lead on McCain.

On October 16, 2004, Bush had an 8 point lead on Kerry.

On October 18, 2000, Bush had a 10 point lead on Gore.

On October 18, 1996, Clinton had a 23 point lead on Dole.

On October 17, 1992, Clinton had a 2 point lead on Bush.

All of these results are piss-poor predictions of the actual election. Only the 2008 poll was even within 5 points. 2 of these polls were off by more than 10 points. Are these people just bad at their jobs?

Maybe I don't understand your point but everyone with the lead in these polls won their election a few weeks later and if polls are to predict an outcome based on an extrapolation of a sample it would seem they were pretty effective, no?


Gore beat Bush on the popular vote. So that means the poll was off by 10 points. If a poll is off
by a huge multiple of the margin or error, you might as well be guessing the predicitons yourself based on talking to people at the local bar.
 
2012-10-18 03:46:46 PM  
Typical Gallup call:

*ring*ring*

Wife: "Hello?"

Gallup: "Hello there little lady! May I speak to the man of the house?"

Wife: "One moment, please."

Husband: "Hello?"

Gallup: "Hello, sir. I am calling to ask how your wife will be voting this November. Will she be voting for Romney or Obama?"

Husband: "She's voting for Romn..."

Wife: "Honey...I was thinking I migh.."

Husband: "SHE'S VOTING FOR ROMNEY"

*awkward silence*

Gallup: "Thank you, sir. Have a good day."
 
2012-10-18 03:47:48 PM  

DamnYankees: TrainingWheelsNeeded: Maybe I don't understand your point but everyone with the lead in these polls won their election a few weeks later and if polls are to predict an outcome based on an extrapolation of a sample it would seem they were pretty effective, no?

This is true, but it seems like a fluke rather than a good job. The average error in these polls is over 8%. Now, unless there's some explanation for why they have managed to be off by an average of 8% and still gotten each winner right, I'm erring on the side of "lucky".


Well, it would be nice to see a day-before-the-election poll rather than a three-weeks-before, to see if they were any closer. I don't know which - if any - of those candidates surged or sunk significantly in the final few weeks.
 
2012-10-18 03:51:06 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Well, it would be nice to see a day-before-the-election poll rather than a three-weeks-before, to see if they were any closer. I don't know which - if any - of those candidates surged or sunk significantly in the final few weeks.


That's fair. I picked the polls I did because they match today's date. The day before numbers look like this:

Obama +11
Bush +2
Bush +2
Clinton +8
Clinton +12

Average error of 2.5.
 
2012-10-18 03:51:23 PM  

Ed Finnerty: Typical Gallup call:

*ring*ring*

Wife: "Hello?"

Gallup: "Hello there little lady! May I speak to the man of the house?"

Wife: "One moment, please."

Husband: "Hello?"

Gallup: "Hello, sir. I am calling to ask how your wife will be voting this November. Will she be voting for Romney or Obama?"

Husband: "She's voting for Romn..."

Wife: "Honey...I was thinking I migh.."

Husband: "SHE'S VOTING FOR ROMNEY"

*awkward silence*

Gallup: "Thank you, sir. Have a good day."


Sounds like someone got out of her binder.
 
2012-10-18 03:56:05 PM  

DamnYankees: Is it just me, or if you look at the historical data, Gallup kind of sucks. According to them:

On October 16, 2008, Obama had a 3 point lead on McCain.

On October 16, 2004, Bush had an 8 point lead on Kerry.

On October 18, 2000, Bush had a 10 point lead on Gore.

On October 18, 1996, Clinton had a 23 point lead on Dole.

On October 17, 1992, Clinton had a 2 point lead on Bush.

All of these results are piss-poor predictions of the actual election. Only the 2008 poll was even within 5 points. 2 of these polls were off by more than 10 points. Are these people just bad at their jobs?


The thing about polls is that they are only good at measuring the viewpoints of people who enjoy taking polls.
 
2012-10-18 03:58:57 PM  

themindiswatching: dletter: To be fair... these are national polls , not state by state EV polls.

Oh man, imagine the butthurt if Obama loses the popular vote but wins the Electoral College.


Considering that "The Continuing Importance Of Protecting The Electoral College" is one of the main points of the GOP's Official 2012 platform...
 
2012-10-18 04:03:11 PM  
Binders of women is a code for letting the Chinese take over America. WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!!!!

www.china-mike.com
 
2012-10-18 04:04:34 PM  

NowhereMon: Also cherry picking polls oten leads to significant butthurt come election day and gallup has been looking weirder and weirder by the day ever since they switched to their likely voter model. They are way out of whack compared to other national polls and especially state polls


ding ding ding ding....Gallup can no longer be trusted, no matter which side you are on. You want to talk about skewed polls, well that's it right there.
 
2012-10-18 04:05:20 PM  

WorldCitizen: cman: Voiceofreason01: I still haven't figured out why anybody would vote for Romney. Against Obama sure I understand. But for Romney?

I think I can field that question...

It is a matter of they feel that Obama's change has not worked, so they want to make another change to something else, anything else, to get us back on track. It does not matter who or what the change is as long as the change is Obama and his policies go bye-bye

/Its not how I feel. I am just giving you an outsiders view

I've seen this argument a lot. It still makes no sense. The change would essentially be back to the Republican polices of the previous administration. You know, when it all broke. Attention span of goldfish, I guess.


Doesnt matter. Perception is reality, and the perception is is that things are getting worse and not better. They perceive Obama's era to be a failure and they want to try something different because what he is doing isnt working.

/As I said, not what I believe. I don't blame Obama for the shiatty economy
 
Displayed 50 of 197 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | 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