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.

(Hot Air)   The DNC's official polling agency puts Obama up by five in Ohio. If only they realized that unlike like their sample group, 45% of people there are not democrats, and assuming they all went out to vote   (hotair.com) divider line 21
    More: Fail, DNC, obama, Ohio, PPP, exit polls  
•       •       •

545 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Oct 2012 at 2:01 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-31 02:17:14 PM  
2 votes:
Polling arguments are stupid but entertaining. But this gem in tfa was interesting.

Even the CBS/NYT/Q-poll today showed GOP enthusiasm leading by 14 in Ohio, 57/43.

They're polling enthusiasm? Is it like a cheerleading contest?

We've got spirit, yes we do! We've got spirit, how 'bout you?"

Sorry for not paying attention to the enthusiasm meters.
2012-10-31 01:54:49 PM  
2 votes:

Counter_Intelligent: AdolfOliverPanties: Truly, it is like you are conducting a masterclass in the art. 10/10. Bravo.

Sometimes to the layperson, even little skill appears to be a lot.


Well excuse the fark out of me. I appreciate a troll that doesn't go overboard and only gives it away with one or two tiny hints.
2012-10-31 04:06:38 PM  
1 votes:

Brubold: I've consistently been pushing my third party agenda here for years. I'm a conservative so I agree with the GOP on more issues than the Democrats so I'm going to be biased in that direction in my posts. It's not enough that I vote for any Republicans though.


Oh so an independent that supports the GOP. I've never seen anyone post something like that here.

Well congrats on entertaining a third party.
2012-10-31 03:25:39 PM  
1 votes:

Brubold: Basically what we have here is a bunch of pollsters who are doing their best to skew polls in favor of Obama. This is for two purposes. First, it's an attempt to get Republican voters to stay home because they think ousting Obama is impossible. Second, it gives Democrats an out if Romney does win. They can simply cry about the election being stolen or some other such nonsense. They will convince themselves that it was racist voter suppression and not the fact that their guy hasn't done anything to earn a second term.

At this point even some of the bluest states are in play. Believe Nate Silver if you wish but don't be surprised if you wake up the morning after the election to a Romney presidency.

/Independent conservative who isn't voting for either of these idiots


Pretty sure you have been one of the Fark Cons touting Romney and putting down Obama,

How convenient you are now an Independent. Thats unique.
2012-10-31 02:52:22 PM  
1 votes:

Drakin020: Don't get me wrong, I'm pulling for Obama big time, but I fear the Derpers might be right on this whole Dem turnout thing.

How can you claim that turnouts will be higher than the last election when we have already seen evidence of a lower turnout. (Early voting)


Got it. I've been trying to figure you out for a while now. I've had my finger on the Ignore button several times but pulled back because while your posts were content-free and/or stupid, they weren't frothingly stupid or personal attacks or full of derp. I just couldn't figure out what your schtick was.

And then you go and out yourself as a vanilla Fark Concern Troll. I have to concede that the build-up was good, but the payoff was a disappointment.
2012-10-31 02:50:40 PM  
1 votes:

ltdanman44: There is a string of states and he would have to win them all including Colorado which is tipping towards the G.O.P. and Florida which is a toss up.


??

No, they don't all include colorado. If you give Obama PA, NV, and the midwest states sans Iowa, he is at 253 electoral votes.

So he can win with:

1) Ohio

2) Florida

3) Virginia plus NH

4) Virginia plus Iowa

all without Colorado
2012-10-31 02:48:06 PM  
1 votes:

ltdanman44: There is a string of states and he would have to win them all including Colorado which is tipping towards the G.O.P. and Florida which is a toss up.


No. If Romney doesn't win Florida, he can't win. If Romney doesn't win Ohio, then he pretty much has to win all other swing states.

If Obama doesn't win Florida or Ohio, there are still quite a few scenarios in which he can win.
2012-10-31 02:48:01 PM  
1 votes:

timujin: mrshowrules: Why would you compare turnout to 2010 in which nearly have of the electorate shows up to 2008 when nearly twice as many show up.

I was with you right up until this sentence. Now, I'm taking cold medicine, so it might just be me, but it seems like you wrote it, then ran it through a couple of other languages in Google translate before re-translating it back to English.


I agree that if that sentence was a horse it should have been shot and put out of its misery.

My point is that nearly twice as many people voted in 2008 than 2010, so it is a better comparison to 2012 as a high-turnout election.
2012-10-31 02:39:39 PM  
1 votes:

physt: If Nate's wrong and Romney loses he deletes his account and goes the fark away.

(We also should be doing this with Bill Kristol)

You mean if Nate's right and Rmoney loses, beta_plus slinks away into the night, right?


You know what would be kinda cool, if there was a betting function of Fark.com where when someone posts something ridiculous like that, we could suggest they bet their account on it. Then when clearly wrong, they either admit the mistake and apologize, or their account gets deleted. That'd be frickin awesome.
2012-10-31 02:34:35 PM  
1 votes:

Dr. DJ Duckhunt: Derp. Librul maths something something. Huuuuuurp.

/Can't wait for Wednesday.


Good news- Wednesday is today.
2012-10-31 02:34:14 PM  
1 votes:

Drakin020: babygoat: Drakin020: Don't get me wrong, I'm pulling for Obama big time, but I fear the Derpers might be right on this whole Dem turnout thing.

How can you claim that turnouts will be higher than the last election when we have already seen evidence of a lower turnout. (Early voting)

What numbers are you going by? And why are you comparing sample sizes to turnout?

The argument I've heard is...

"Oh they are sampling +10 Dem when the turnout will likely be +5" or something.


They don't choose how many Dems are in the sample, they self-identify when they're polled. Which early voting numbers are you comparing to which polls?
2012-10-31 02:30:25 PM  
1 votes:

Tigger: If Nate's wrong and Romney loses he deletes his account and goes the fark away.


For the record, a Romney victory would not prove Nate Silver wrong. He gives Romney something like a 25-30% chance of winning, which is non-trivial.
2012-10-31 02:12:52 PM  
1 votes:

Drakin020: Dem Turnout is already going to be lower this year than 2008, yet these pollsters are showing a higher Dem turnout,

I've yet to see a good argument rejecting that claim. Nov 6th could be a very bad day....


www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com
2012-10-31 02:11:46 PM  
1 votes:
The need of retards to compare a low turnout mid term election to a highly engaged Presidential election will never cease being funny.



media.tumblr.com
The Tea Party is still real to me, dammit!!!
2012-10-31 02:09:15 PM  
1 votes:
Unskewed polls nonsense aside, PPP has a house effect of D+3. Factoring that in puts the poll at Obama up by two, which is fairly consistent with polling not just now, but throughout the race.
2012-10-31 02:08:42 PM  
1 votes:
Subby:
www.slate.com
2012-10-31 02:03:42 PM  
1 votes:

mrshowrules: Why would you compare turnout to 2010 in which nearly have of the electorate shows up to 2008 when nearly twice as many show up.


I was with you right up until this sentence. Now, I'm taking cold medicine, so it might just be me, but it seems like you wrote it, then ran it through a couple of other languages in Google translate before re-translating it back to English.
2012-10-31 01:52:21 PM  
1 votes:
It's almost like pollsters don't weight for party ID, other than Rasmussen,
2012-10-31 01:44:25 PM  
1 votes:

AdolfOliverPanties: Truly, it is like you are conducting a masterclass in the art. 10/10. Bravo.


Sometimes to the layperson, even little skill appears to be a lot.
2012-10-31 01:25:58 PM  
1 votes:
The pertinent part

Oh, let's just skip the rest of the preliminaries and go right to the sample. The D/R/I on this poll is a ridiculous 45/36/19 that assumes Democrats will add six points to their 2008 turnout while independents largely stay home. In 2008, recall, the exit polls showed the electorate at 39/31/30, and the 2010 midterm put it at 36/37/28.

So Democrats had an 8 point lead in the last Presidential election but a 9 point lead this round and this is unpossible?

Why would you compare turnout to 2010 in which nearly have of the electorate shows up to 2008 when nearly twice as many show up.
2012-10-31 01:20:10 PM  
1 votes:
So polls don't matter again because your team is losing again I see. Perhaps if your team tried a few radical ideas, like perhaps basing their campaign in reality, not blatantly lying every moment, actually showed even a little bit of specifics, and wasn't a complete douche bag, then maybe he would be winning. But he is not.
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report