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.

(Denver Post)   Worst.Swing.State.Ever   (denverpost.com) divider line 57
    More: Interesting, President Obama, Michael Bennet, young voters, Colorado, swing vote, republican presidential candidates  
•       •       •

5097 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Oct 2012 at 10:13 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-25 01:42:49 AM
Like I've said before, I think Obama's going to end up losing almost all the swing states this time.

/he'll barely pull off the 270+ by winning Ohio and a couple of others though.
 
2012-10-25 01:58:33 AM

themindiswatching: Like I've said before, I think Obama's going to end up losing almost all the swing states this time.

/he'll barely pull off the 270+ by winning Ohio and a couple of others though.


Nate Silver's model disagrees. The only "swing states" he has Obama losing are Florida and Virginia.
 
2012-10-25 02:01:21 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Nate Silver's model disagrees. The only "swing states" he has Obama losing are Florida and Virginia.


I dunno. It's not going to take into account GOP election shenanigans and Citizen's United (though the latter would probably be reflected in the polling). Polling doesn't seem to have gotten better since the second and third debates, only stopped getting worse.
 
2012-10-25 02:09:47 AM

themindiswatching: I dunno. It's not going to take into account GOP election shenanigans and Citizen's United (though the latter would probably be reflected in the polling). Polling doesn't seem to have gotten better since the second and third debates, only stopped getting worse.


Obama is slightly trending up this week in basically every poll, but it's barely noticable
 
2012-10-25 02:11:03 AM

themindiswatching: cameroncrazy1984: Nate Silver's model disagrees. The only "swing states" he has Obama losing are Florida and Virginia.

I dunno. It's not going to take into account GOP election shenanigans and Citizen's United (though the latter would probably be reflected in the polling). Polling doesn't seem to have gotten better since the second and third debates, only stopped getting worse.


Yeah, but he's never been projected to be below 280 electoral votes and in fact is projected to get 290 at this point.

If it failed to take into account "GOP election shenanigans" why wasn't it way off in 2008? Did the GOP take the year off?

Additionally, early voting right now is turning out to be as good or nearly so as 2008 especially in Ohio.
 
2012-10-25 02:11:48 AM

SnakeLee: themindiswatching: I dunno. It's not going to take into account GOP election shenanigans and Citizen's United (though the latter would probably be reflected in the polling). Polling doesn't seem to have gotten better since the second and third debates, only stopped getting worse.

Obama is slightly trending up this week in basically every poll, but it's barely noticable


As long as that trend continues, he'll be fine. Silver tweeted that if he gets a 1% bump from that debate, that could be huge at this stage.
 
2012-10-25 10:29:25 AM
Hey it's not our fault Obama forgot to take his altitude pills before the debate.
 
2012-10-25 10:31:22 AM

cameroncrazy1984: If it failed to take into account "GOP election shenanigans" why wasn't it way off in 2008? Did the GOP take the year off?


Well, they have had four years to purge the voter rolls and get some weird laws passed. Such as, you can't get an ID without a copy of your birth certificate, can't get a copy of your birth certificate without an ID. You need to present a marriage license for ALL of your previous marriages. (Who gets custody of a marriage license in a divorce, anyway?)
 
2012-10-25 10:33:50 AM
Amendment 64 will get the liberals out to vote in CO.
 
2012-10-25 10:34:02 AM
Colorado, becoming more "South Park"-y than ever.
 
2012-10-25 10:37:30 AM
Buuu buuuuut Nate Silver!
 
2012-10-25 10:38:37 AM
Already voted.

/voted to legalize
 
2012-10-25 10:39:55 AM
Okay, which one of you posted the second newest comment (with the list) in TFA?
 
2012-10-25 10:40:54 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Nate Silver's model disagrees. The only "swing states" he has Obama losing are Florida and Virginia.


He's got VA painted a light blue this morning.
 
2012-10-25 10:41:40 AM

Sleeping Monkey: Amendment 64 will get the liberals out to vote in CO.


Some conservatives too. Michael Brown of Hurricane Katrina fame, is a conservative radio talk show host here in the denver area and has said he is going to vote for 64.
 
2012-10-25 10:41:52 AM

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Hey it's not our fault Obama forgot to take his altitude pills before the debate.


It's your fault for Coors Light, though. That's unforgivable.
 
2012-10-25 10:45:04 AM

cameroncrazy1984: themindiswatching: Like I've said before, I think Obama's going to end up losing almost all the swing states this time.

/he'll barely pull off the 270+ by winning Ohio and a couple of others though.

Nate Silver's model disagrees. The only "swing states" he has Obama losing are Florida and Virginia.


I agree with your post in principal. The model explicitly says a 20+ EV advantage at the moment. But it would be more accurate to say that the only swing state Obama losing in the model is FL. VA and CO are effectively coin flips at this point. But the fact that he has IA, NH, NV is a good thing indeed. I've become desensitized to the other "swing states". They have been so solidly in one camp or the other so long that it is hard to even recognize them as a swing state at all. (NC, WI, MI, PA)
 
2012-10-25 10:46:27 AM
One Democratic win in two generations hardly counts as a swing state.

I doubt Amendment 64 will be a big liberal draw. In my personal universe, the dealers and heavy users are all conservatives or libertarians.
 
2012-10-25 10:48:22 AM

The Great EZE: Okay, which one of you posted the second newest comment (with the list) in TFA?


You mean:

None of the reasons why I am voting for Romney were ever discussed in the debates...
Here is why I am going to vote for Mr. Romney...

1) He has no old friends from the 60's that were terrorist that blew up Government buildings.
2) He has no friends, family, employees or preachers in his life that are sworn Communist.
3) He has never hung a bulb on a Christmas tree that had Mao's likeness on it.
4) He has no friends, family or former acquaintances that were or are members of La Raza.
5) He has no friends, family or church affiliation that believes Social Justice is superior to individual responsibility.
6) He actually goes to church... Ever seen Obama take his wife and kids to a real church?
7) He will never bow down to a man wearing a diaper on his head!
8) He will not appoint someone like Eric Holder for Attorney General. His attorney general will actually prosecute whites and blacks fairly.
9) He understands how to do due diligence before investing in a company that is already bankrupt.
10) He knows that Big Government IS the problem, NOT the answer to our problems.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me...
 
2012-10-25 10:49:13 AM

cameroncrazy1984: themindiswatching: Like I've said before, I think Obama's going to end up losing almost all the swing states this time.

/he'll barely pull off the 270+ by winning Ohio and a couple of others though.

Nate Silver's model disagrees. The only "swing states" he has Obama losing are Florida and Virginia.


cameroncrazy1984 is talking about after they unskew the election results.
 
2012-10-25 10:50:55 AM

bmongar: cameroncrazy1984: themindiswatching: Like I've said before, I think Obama's going to end up losing almost all the swing states this time.

/he'll barely pull off the 270+ by winning Ohio and a couple of others though.

Nate Silver's model disagrees. The only "swing states" he has Obama losing are Florida and Virginia.

cameroncrazy1984 is talking about after they unskew the election results.


I meant themindiswatching is talking about after they unskew the election results.
 
2012-10-25 10:51:37 AM

Muta: *fart noises*

Seems pretty cut and dry paste to me...


FTFY

/fwd: fwd: fwd
 
2012-10-25 10:52:39 AM

Muta: The Great EZE: Okay, which one of you posted the second newest comment (with the list) in TFA?

You mean:

None of the reasons why I am voting for Romney were ever discussed in the debates...
Here is why I am going to vote for Mr. Romney...

1) He has no old friends from the 60's that were terrorist that blew up Government buildings.
2) He has no friends, family, employees or preachers in his life that are sworn Communist.
3) He has never hung a bulb on a Christmas tree that had Mao's likeness on it.
4) He has no friends, family or former acquaintances that were or are members of La Raza.
5) He has no friends, family or church affiliation that believes Social Justice is superior to individual responsibility.
6) He actually goes to church... Ever seen Obama take his wife and kids to a real church?
7) He will never bow down to a man wearing a diaper on his head!
8) He will not appoint someone like Eric Holder for Attorney General. His attorney general will actually prosecute whites and blacks fairly.
9) He understands how to do due diligence before investing in a company that is already bankrupt.
10) He knows that Big Government IS the problem, NOT the answer to our problems.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me...


Yes. I would've quote it but I'm never quite sure where Fark stands on quoting comments from other articles.
 
2012-10-25 10:53:02 AM
Just think. Every single one of those could be true for Romney, and you'd never know it.

Well one of them, if you consider a Mormon temple to be a "proper" church.
 
2012-10-25 10:53:43 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Silver tweeted that if he gets a 1% bump from that debate, that could be huge at this stage.


Obama will get a better bump from Mourdock's comments, Romney's unwillingness to "refudiate" the statement and that it reminds the nation the type of dicks Republicans are.
 
2012-10-25 10:57:46 AM

The Great EZE: Muta: The Great EZE: Okay, which one of you posted the second newest comment (with the list) in TFA?

You mean:

None of the reasons why I am voting for Romney were ever discussed in the debates...
Here is why I am going to vote for Mr. Romney...

1) He has no old friends from the 60's that were terrorist that blew up Government buildings.
2) He has no friends, family, employees or preachers in his life that are sworn Communist.
3) He has never hung a bulb on a Christmas tree that had Mao's likeness on it.
4) He has no friends, family or former acquaintances that were or are members of La Raza.
5) He has no friends, family or church affiliation that believes Social Justice is superior to individual responsibility.
6) He actually goes to church... Ever seen Obama take his wife and kids to a real church?
7) He will never bow down to a man wearing a diaper on his head!
8) He will not appoint someone like Eric Holder for Attorney General. His attorney general will actually prosecute whites and blacks fairly.
9) He understands how to do due diligence before investing in a company that is already bankrupt.
10) He knows that Big Government IS the problem, NOT the answer to our problems.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me...

Yes. I would've quote it but I'm never quite sure where Fark stands on quoting comments from other articles.


It was reasonably well cited from the context although "spill_thrill" didn't get it.
 
2012-10-25 10:57:54 AM
Republicans and Democrats alike agree that Colorado is a toss-up in this election. Like other battleground states, a slight Obama polling edge before October here has been transformed into a deadlock. That's because independent suburban women-the key demographic in this closely divided state-are taking a second look at Romney.

I guess concentrating on the "war on women" narrative instead of...I dunno...jobs and the economy wasn't such a great strategy after all.
 
2012-10-25 10:59:14 AM

cameroncrazy1984: themindiswatching: Like I've said before, I think Obama's going to end up losing almost all the swing states this time.

/he'll barely pull off the 270+ by winning Ohio and a couple of others though.

Nate Silver's model disagrees. The only "swing states" he has Obama losing are Florida and Virginia.


and North Carolina.
 
2012-10-25 10:59:17 AM

Sleeping Monkey: Amendment 64 will get the liberals out to vote in CO.


As well as the "crazy" voters too... like me.

/Proudly voted "Yes" on 64 and Gary Johnson for pres
 
2012-10-25 10:59:23 AM

Cletus C.: Buuu buuuuut Nate Silver!


*shakes tiny fist*
 
2012-10-25 11:00:48 AM
Well, as a Coloradan, Obama's getting my vote. I am filling out my ballot this weekend.

I have a theory that since the Republicans are thought of in CW as being the party of rich, snobs with money, that some people think it is a "status symbol" to vote Republican despite it being contrary to their best interests. It's kind of like the people who run around with expensive Coach or LV purses, but they don't have a job with benefits or own a car. Or they have an iphone which they pull out at Walmart while buying groceries with food stamps.
 
2012-10-25 11:11:27 AM

cameroncrazy1984: themindiswatching: cameroncrazy1984: Nate Silver's model disagrees. The only "swing states" he has Obama losing are Florida and Virginia.

I dunno. It's not going to take into account GOP election shenanigans and Citizen's United (though the latter would probably be reflected in the polling). Polling doesn't seem to have gotten better since the second and third debates, only stopped getting worse.

Yeah, but he's never been projected to be below 280 electoral votes and in fact is projected to get 290 at this point.

If it failed to take into account "GOP election shenanigans" why wasn't it way off in 2008? Did the GOP take the year off?

Additionally, early voting right now is turning out to be as good or nearly so as 2008 especially in Ohio.


Why does anyone have the impression these early votes are even going to be counted?
 
2012-10-25 11:14:20 AM

wooden_badger: cameroncrazy1984: themindiswatching: cameroncrazy1984: Nate Silver's model disagrees. The only "swing states" he has Obama losing are Florida and Virginia.

I dunno. It's not going to take into account GOP election shenanigans and Citizen's United (though the latter would probably be reflected in the polling). Polling doesn't seem to have gotten better since the second and third debates, only stopped getting worse.

Yeah, but he's never been projected to be below 280 electoral votes and in fact is projected to get 290 at this point.

If it failed to take into account "GOP election shenanigans" why wasn't it way off in 2008? Did the GOP take the year off?

Additionally, early voting right now is turning out to be as good or nearly so as 2008 especially in Ohio.

Why does anyone have the impression these early votes are even going to be counted?


Early votes are Super Votes. They not only count them, they count them twice.
 
2012-10-25 11:32:50 AM

Cletus C.: Buuu buuuuut Nate Silver!


Meh, I prefer Sam Wang's method of "dumb" aggregation of state polling to get median. IMHO, Silver's "smart" aggregation takes into account too many factors that are already "baked into the cake" in the state aggregate polling (economic data, weight of house effect, etc.) that create more noise than signal. Then again, I guess when you're getting paid the big NYT bucks, you got to gussy up your models with a lot of bells and whistles to wow everyone..

If anything, Silver's been overly conservative towards Obama's re-election odds compared to other poll predictive poll modeling by Wang, Drew Linzer, etc
 
2012-10-25 11:36:59 AM

wooden_badger: cameroncrazy1984: themindiswatching: cameroncrazy1984: Nate Silver's model disagrees. The only "swing states" he has Obama losing are Florida and Virginia.

I dunno. It's not going to take into account GOP election shenanigans and Citizen's United (though the latter would probably be reflected in the polling). Polling doesn't seem to have gotten better since the second and third debates, only stopped getting worse.

Yeah, but he's never been projected to be below 280 electoral votes and in fact is projected to get 290 at this point.

If it failed to take into account "GOP election shenanigans" why wasn't it way off in 2008? Did the GOP take the year off?

Additionally, early voting right now is turning out to be as good or nearly so as 2008 especially in Ohio.

Why does anyone have the impression these early votes are even going to be counted?


Ugh, because they're already being calculated and the numbers are being released?
 
2012-10-25 11:37:20 AM
I live here, and dropped my ballot off yesterday for Obama. I am still pretty confident about Obama's chances here. Colorado bucked the tea party trend two years ago by rejecting that candidate for governor and picking a Democrat. Same too with the congressional offices. We had a huge same sex debate in our state Congress earlier this year, and it looked ready to pass with bipartisan support, but then the Speaker began engaging in filibustering and committee change games so it wouldn't happen. The state congress Republicans have a one lead vote right now, but that will surely change after the election. And I think those votes for Democrats will carry over to voting for Obama.
 
2012-10-25 11:43:23 AM

natazha: One Democratic win in two generations hardly counts as a swing state.


It swung in the last election, so it counts.

Protip: demographics change over time.

Ten years ago, would you have seen NC or VA even REMOTELY in play?
 
2012-10-25 11:50:13 AM
Denverite here. Voted on Monday for B-rock the Islamic Shock Obama and to leagalize. Woot.
 
2012-10-25 11:54:28 AM

Cletus C.: Buuu buuuuut Nate Silver!


Damn you, objective reality, for contradicting my worldview!
 
2012-10-25 12:07:04 PM

InmanRoshi: Cletus C.: Buuu buuuuut Nate Silver!

Meh, I prefer Sam Wang's method of "dumb" aggregation of state polling to get median. IMHO, Silver's "smart" aggregation takes into account too many factors that are already "baked into the cake" in the state aggregate polling (economic data, weight of house effect, etc.) that create more noise than signal. Then again, I guess when you're getting paid the big NYT bucks, you got to gussy up your models with a lot of bells and whistles to wow everyone..

If anything, Silver's been overly conservative towards Obama's re-election odds compared to other poll predictive poll modeling by Wang, Drew Linzer, etc


I've said it before and I'll say it again. I do like me some Wang.
 
2012-10-25 12:15:34 PM

themindiswatching: I dunno. It's not going to take into account GOP election shenanigans and Citizen's United (though the latter would probably be reflected in the polling). Polling doesn't seem to have gotten better since the second and third debates, only stopped getting worse.


Yes he does take voter ID laws and such into account in his model.
 
MFL
2012-10-25 12:18:29 PM
cameroncrazy1984 .

Nate Silver's model disagrees. The only "swing states" he has Obama losing are Florida and Virginia.

Nate Silver....I'd take his opinion with a grain of salt.

Rasmussen was the most accurate pollster of 2008 (and 2004), and in his most recent polls in Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire and Colorado Romney is ahead.

This puts Romney at 261 in the Electoral College with Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Iowa Wisconsin and the great prize, Ohio, still up for grabs. In those states, Mr. Obama has a thin edge (at best), while Mr. Romney has momentum, a stronger argument, and time to grab the seven additional electoral votes he needs. (ask Karl Rove. This is his analysis and he's thumped the DNC every time he's tried)

Another couple tidbits of history for you....

1. In the past week's 40 national surveys, Mr. Romney was at or above 50% in eleven, with Mr. Obama at or above 50% in one. Mr. Romney leads 48.9% to 46.7% in an average of these surveys. At this same point in 2004, President George W. Bush led Sen. John Kerry in this composite average, 48.9% to 45.8%.

2. In OHIO back in 2008 Democrats beat Republicans in turnout by five points. The current polls show an average oversample of D+6.6. A D+5 turnout in 2008 gave Obama a 4.5-point victory, while he is currently leading by only 2.1 points on an even greater D+6.6 turnout. Do you honestly believe Democrats are going to turn out in larger numbers than they did in 2008?

3. In the last nine elections, the GOP has outperformed pre-election polling in Ohio. With Romney currently running just ahead of Obama nationally, it seems much more likely that Obama's lead in Ohio has more to do with the higher party-ID advantage than a dramatic shift in Ohio from the past nine elections.

Didn't any of you find it strange that there was such a dramatic swing after one debate? Either Obama's support was remarkably weak....Romney was more impressive than Abe Lincoln in the debate.....or that many of these pollsters that had been pushing the narrative inevitability for Obama instead of doing their job might have needed an excuse to save face when the actual numbers didn't follow their lead into October.

meanwhile.....the pollster you love to hate (Rassmussen) had only a slight bump for Romney (like good debate traditionally would have)....maybe, just maybe, Mitt Romney was never really that far down to begin with? 

What if.....everything you think you know isn't so?
 
2012-10-25 12:25:23 PM

MFL: cameroncrazy1984 .

Nate Silver's model disagrees. The only "swing states" he has Obama losing are Florida and Virginia.

Nate Silver....I'd take his opinion with a grain of salt.

Rasmussen was the most accurate pollster of 2008 (and 2004), and in his most recent polls in Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire and Colorado Romney is ahead.

This puts Romney at 261 in the Electoral College with Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Iowa Wisconsin and the great prize, Ohio, still up for grabs. In those states, Mr. Obama has a thin edge (at best), while Mr. Romney has momentum, a stronger argument, and time to grab the seven additional electoral votes he needs. (ask Karl Rove. This is his analysis and he's thumped the DNC every time he's tried)

Another couple tidbits of history for you....

1. In the past week's 40 national surveys, Mr. Romney was at or above 50% in eleven, with Mr. Obama at or above 50% in one. Mr. Romney leads 48.9% to 46.7% in an average of these surveys. At this same point in 2004, President George W. Bush led Sen. John Kerry in this composite average, 48.9% to 45.8%.

2. In OHIO back in 2008 Democrats beat Republicans in turnout by five points. The current polls show an average oversample of D+6.6. A D+5 turnout in 2008 gave Obama a 4.5-point victory, while he is currently leading by only 2.1 points on an even greater D+6.6 turnout. Do you honestly believe Democrats are going to turn out in larger numbers than they did in 2008?

3. In the last nine elections, the GOP has outperformed pre-election polling in Ohio. With Romney currently running just ahead of Obama nationally, it seems much more likely that Obama's lead in Ohio has more to do with the higher party-ID advantage than a dramatic shift in Ohio from the past nine elections.

Didn't any of you find it strange that there was such a dramatic swing after one debate? Either Obama's support was remarkably weak....Romney was more impressive than Abe Lincoln in the debate.....or th ...


Rasmussen also doesn't get real with a lot of their polling methodology until shortly before the election. They did this in 2008 with widely skewed polls leading up to the election and then shortly before their numbers became real.
 
2012-10-25 01:05:06 PM
I voted for Fartbongo (only because sociopath Rmoney scares me, I don't want to be drafted and sent to Iran) I'm just hoping that we legalize weed so no matter who wins I can just light up and not care.
 
2012-10-25 02:07:58 PM
Fartbongo can go be Rahm's bootlicker.
 
2012-10-25 02:11:36 PM

Three-Fifty: I have a theory that since the Republicans are thought of in CW as being the party of rich, snobs with money, that some people think it is a "status symbol" to vote Republican despite it being contrary to their best interests. It's kind of like the people who run around with expensive Coach or LV purses, but they don't have a job with benefits or own a car. Or they have an iphone which they pull out at Walmart while buying groceries with food stamps.


It's called aspirational voting and it's nothing new.
 
2012-10-25 02:40:05 PM
I think Obama will win here... not because he's more popular, but because the LV model excludes many young voters who could give two craps about Obama, but will likely vote for him at the same time they vote for the State Constitutional Amendment requiring the state to treat marijuana in the same manner as it does alcohol.
 
2012-10-25 02:46:06 PM

MFL: Rasmussen was the most accurate pollster of 2008 (and 2004), and in his most recent polls in Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire and Colorado Romney is ahead.


Ugh, Silver isn't a pollster numbnuts, so comparing them to with Silver is apples and oranges.

A better comparison with Silver would be Sam Wang, who also uses aggregate poll modeling. He exactly got the Electoral College count right in 2004. He missed the exact Electoral College count by 1 vote in 2008. I assure you, that absolutely blows Rasmussan out of the water. Wang's model currently shows Obama with a 90% chance of winning, after calculating all 2.3 quadrillion possible combinations of states.


election.princeton.edu
 
2012-10-25 03:01:16 PM

firefly212: I think Obama will win here... not because he's more popular, but because the LV model excludes many young voters who could give two craps about Obama, but will likely vote for him at the same time they vote for the State Constitutional Amendment requiring the state to treat marijuana in the same manner as it does alcohol.


Why wouldn't those people vote for someone who is for stopping the war on drugs (Johnson) instead of voting for someone who has no issues with continuing it (Obama/Romney)?
 
2012-10-25 03:03:08 PM

MFL: cameroncrazy1984 .

Nate Silver's model disagrees. The only "swing states" he has Obama losing are Florida and Virginia.

Nate Silver....I'd take his opinion with a grain of salt.

Rasmussen was the most accurate pollster of 2008 (and 2004), and in his most recent polls in Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire and Colorado Romney is ahead.

This puts Romney at 261 in the Electoral College with Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Iowa Wisconsin and the great prize, Ohio, still up for grabs. In those states, Mr. Obama has a thin edge (at best), while Mr. Romney has momentum, a stronger argument, and time to grab the seven additional electoral votes he needs. (ask Karl Rove. This is his analysis and he's thumped the DNC every time he's tried)

Another couple tidbits of history for you....

1. In the past week's 40 national surveys, Mr. Romney was at or above 50% in eleven, with Mr. Obama at or above 50% in one. Mr. Romney leads 48.9% to 46.7% in an average of these surveys. At this same point in 2004, President George W. Bush led Sen. John Kerry in this composite average, 48.9% to 45.8%.

2. In OHIO back in 2008 Democrats beat Republicans in turnout by five points. The current polls show an average oversample of D+6.6. A D+5 turnout in 2008 gave Obama a 4.5-point victory, while he is currently leading by only 2.1 points on an even greater D+6.6 turnout. Do you honestly believe Democrats are going to turn out in larger numbers than they did in 2008?

3. In the last nine elections, the GOP has outperformed pre-election polling in Ohio. With Romney currently running just ahead of Obama nationally, it seems much more likely that Obama's lead in Ohio has more to do with the higher party-ID advantage than a dramatic shift in Ohio from the past nine elections.

Didn't any of you find it strange that there was such a dramatic swing after one debate? Either Obama's support was remarkably weak....Romney was more impressive than Abe Lincoln in the debate.....or th ...


What if you're comparing a statistician with a pollster? That's like me comparing you and my cat, and saying which one would do a better job of purring.

Some pollsters may be statisticians, but most statisticians are not pollsters.
 
Displayed 50 of 57 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report