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 Raw Story)   Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume is 'puzzled' by these strange polls from battleground states showing a persistent lead for Obama. How could this have happened?   (rawstory.com) divider line 348
    More: Obvious, Brit Hume, Fox News, obama, swing states, political analyst  
•       •       •

5731 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Nov 2012 at 6:05 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-04 06:28:19 PM

spongeboob: Emposter: I'm puzzled how he can call himself a political analyst when he doesn't understand how the electoral college works.

I'm puzzled how anyone can pay him for his political analysis when he doesn't understand how the US elects it's president.


because Fox News.
 
2012-11-04 06:28:41 PM
Never understood the politicizing of polls........seems like saying your guy is leading just comforts his supporters to stay home. I"d be screaming "WE"RE 0.01% BEHIND!" no matter what I really thought.

/lives 93% Republican district
//didn't "bother" to vote
 
2012-11-04 06:29:11 PM
Don't fret Brit. It will all be over soon.
Maybe your doctor can prescribe some med's to get you through this tough time?
 
2012-11-04 06:29:51 PM
Maybe you libs should look a little more closely at the 3 options listed in TFA:

1) The polls are all wrong
2) Romney's ground game will turn out enough votes to make up the difference
3) Obama will win

As you can clearly see, 2 of these 3 options result in a Romney victory, which naturally means Romney has 66% chance of winning. Therefore, even if the polls were skewed 16% towards Obama -- unlikely, despite the lamestream media bias -- Romney can still safely win above 50%. It's just basic subtraction here, folks. AND, if the polls aren't biased at all, then it won't just be a Romney victory but a land-slide man-date for conservatives. You libs are gonna be sooo pissed.
 
2012-11-04 06:30:00 PM

DamnYankees: quatchi: Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume is saying that it's "puzzling" that national polls indicate GOP hopeful Mitt Romney is tied with President Barack Obama while swing state polls suggest that Democrats are going to win enough electoral votes for to keep the White House.

Also, the national polls don't really show a tie. Per Nate Silver:

Simple average of national polls released Thursday: Obama +0.9. Friday: Obama +1.2. Saturday: Obama +1.3. Today (so far): Obama +1.4

Also, a new YouGov poll with the largest sample size I've ever seen (36,000 likely voters) shows Obama up 2.


If you unskew the polls by harmonizing the statistical quirks, Obama is farked.
 
2012-11-04 06:30:53 PM
I forgot to add: Meet the Press was casually talking about how the election is a toss-up and Obama has really failed to win independents over the past month.

Obama failed to win the independents.

Obama.
 
2012-11-04 06:32:04 PM

DeltaPunch: As you can clearly see, 2 of these 3 options result in a Romney victory


While you say this in jest, I do find it amusing that people who say the polls are wrong seemingly always say this meaning Romney will win. Why can't the polls all be wrong in favor of Obama? Seems more plausible to me, since polls are likely not picking up as many Latino voters or cell-phone only voters. What's the methodological justification for the polls all being wrong in Romney's favor?
 
2012-11-04 06:32:15 PM

cchris_39: Never understood the politicizing of polls........seems like saying your guy is leading just comforts his supporters to stay home. I"d be screaming "WE"RE 0.01% BEHIND!" no matter what I really thought.


Yeah. I've always thought the same thing. The Obama campaign has been sending out a shiat-ton of emails to donors for months saying they're being out-raised and etc. etc. etc. It occurred to me that's the way to get your donors to keep the pedal to the metal, regardless of what the campaign ledgers actually show.
 
2012-11-04 06:34:06 PM

AkaDad: DamnYankees: quatchi: Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume is saying that it's "puzzling" that national polls indicate GOP hopeful Mitt Romney is tied with President Barack Obama while swing state polls suggest that Democrats are going to win enough electoral votes for to keep the White House.

Also, the national polls don't really show a tie. Per Nate Silver:

Simple average of national polls released Thursday: Obama +0.9. Friday: Obama +1.2. Saturday: Obama +1.3. Today (so far): Obama +1.4

Also, a new YouGov poll with the largest sample size I've ever seen (36,000 likely voters) shows Obama up 2.

If you unskew the polls by harmonizing the statistical quirks, Obama is farked.


That's my idea,
i49.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-04 06:34:06 PM

js34603: Notabunny: Stock up on ammunition, water, canned food and batteries. Board your windows and doors. When Obama wins on Tuesday, the neocons are going be entirely blindsided and are going to contemplate an alcohol-fueled 2nd Amendment solution.

Yes I live in constant fear too. I'm totally going to stock up on essentials because I in no way believe when I wake up Wednesday morning absolutely nothing will be different.

It seems totally plausible to me there will be armed revolt instead of a bunch of whining and crying on the Internet no matter who wins. I guess the "neocons" were just saving their energy in 2008, but this time, hooo boy better board my doors.


The key is to be prepared. When it became obvious Obama is going to win, i removed the stairs in my house and replaced them with ladders. I also cut an escape hatch in my roof. If the whining hordes attack, hopefully I can escape to the roof and be rescued by Obama's black helicopters. I have it all planned out.
 
2012-11-04 06:34:39 PM

GAT_00: jso2897: thomps: GAT_00: thomps: cameroncrazy1984: Interesting fact: Of 21 state polls released yesterday, Romney had a lead in 2 of them.

Anyone who thinks this race is a tossup is an idiot at this point.

saturday polls have a known liberal statistical bias, given the under-sampling of college football fans.

Actually, published Saturday would have finished sampling mostly on Friday, so the under-sampling is of high school football fans.

even worse news for obama then.

Aren't you a little old to be writing letters to Santa Claus?

How have you been here since 2006 and don't know what a tongue-in-cheek troll looks like?


Whose tongue, and between whose cheeks?
This is important.
 
2012-11-04 06:34:57 PM

Anti_illuminati: spongeboob: Emposter: I'm puzzled how he can call himself a political analyst when he doesn't understand how the electoral college works.

I'm puzzled how anyone can pay him for his political analysis when he doesn't understand how the US elects it's president.

because Fox News.


I guess that explains it, Fox news and their aversion to liberal 'logic'
 
2012-11-04 06:35:11 PM
HaHa.jpg
 
2012-11-04 06:35:27 PM

Fuggin Bizzy: cchris_39: Never understood the politicizing of polls........seems like saying your guy is leading just comforts his supporters to stay home. I"d be screaming "WE"RE 0.01% BEHIND!" no matter what I really thought.

Yeah. I've always thought the same thing. The Obama campaign has been sending out a shiat-ton of emails to donors for months saying they're being out-raised and etc. etc. etc. It occurred to me that's the way to get your donors to keep the pedal to the metal, regardless of what the campaign ledgers actually show.


The campaign ledgers give Obama the advantage, but that advantage is wiped out and then some by the SuperPAC ledgers.
 
2012-11-04 06:36:12 PM
I'm honestly surprised that they haven't just been substituting the unskewedpolls guy's numbers for the real thing and hoping nobody notices. They tried to get away with palm trees in WI; you'd think this would be par-for-the-course at this point.
 
2012-11-04 06:36:41 PM

Dinki: Like i said in a different thread, the GOP have cocooned themselves in an echo chamber, where everyone says the same thing- Obama is a universally hated man, the worst president in history, and there is no way he will be re-elected. How they handle waking up on Wednesday will be interesting.


Yup. They've spent so much time and energy painting Obama as the worst most communist Muslim Amercia-hating foreigner EVAR. How could Romney possibly lose against such a monster??
 
2012-11-04 06:37:06 PM
He's a FN viewer?
 
2012-11-04 06:37:32 PM

thomps: DamnYankees: Also, the national polls don't really show a tie. Per Nate Silver:

Simple average of national polls released Thursday: Obama +0.9. Friday: Obama +1.2. Saturday: Obama +1.3. Today (so far): Obama +1.4

it's puzzling to me that romney can be ahead in all of the national polls, which are done by more seasoned polling firms, but is behind in the simple average of national polls.


Um, Nate Silver has Obama ahead in the popular vote 50.6% to 48.3%. Considering the margin of error is typically 2-3 points, there's plenty of room for lots of polls to show Romney ahead. But it's just not true that he leads in all or most of them, otherwise Nate Silver wouldn't be showing Obama ahead.
 
2012-11-04 06:38:07 PM

AkaDad: If you unskew the polls by harmonizing the statistical quirks, Obama is farked.


Sounds interesting...

What are the statistical quirks, and how do you harmonize them?
 
2012-11-04 06:40:40 PM

cchris_39: Never understood the politicizing of polls........seems like saying your guy is leading just comforts his supporters to stay home. I"d be screaming "WE"RE 0.01% BEHIND!" no matter what I really thought.

/lives 93% Republican district
//didn't "bother" to vote


People want to vote for the winner.
 
2012-11-04 06:42:46 PM

DeltaPunch: thomps: DamnYankees: Also, the national polls don't really show a tie. Per Nate Silver:

Simple average of national polls released Thursday: Obama +0.9. Friday: Obama +1.2. Saturday: Obama +1.3. Today (so far): Obama +1.4

it's puzzling to me that romney can be ahead in all of the national polls, which are done by more seasoned polling firms, but is behind in the simple average of national polls.

Um, Nate Silver has Obama ahead in the popular vote 50.6% to 48.3%. Considering the margin of error is typically 2-3 points, there's plenty of room for lots of polls to show Romney ahead. But it's just not true that he leads in all or most of them, otherwise Nate Silver wouldn't be showing Obama ahead.



"MARGIN OF ERROR DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY"

t0.gstatic.com
 
2012-11-04 06:42:54 PM

DeltaPunch: thomps: DamnYankees: Also, the national polls don't really show a tie. Per Nate Silver:

Simple average of national polls released Thursday: Obama +0.9. Friday: Obama +1.2. Saturday: Obama +1.3. Today (so far): Obama +1.4

it's puzzling to me that romney can be ahead in all of the national polls, which are done by more seasoned polling firms, but is behind in the simple average of national polls.

Um, Nate Silver has Obama ahead in the popular vote 50.6% to 48.3%. Considering the margin of error is typically 2-3 points, there's plenty of room for lots of polls to show Romney ahead. But it's just not true that he leads in all or most of them, otherwise Nate Silver wouldn't be showing Obama ahead.


...but to try and answer the original question in terms of why the national polls are closer for Romney, my guess (without examining this guess) is that the votes that Romney is closer in the national polls than the state polls because he has more support in states that he is already going to win. A cursory look at the Texas polls, for example, show Romney increasing his lead over Obama by between two and four percentage points after the Denver debate.

I'm guessing that those debates did a whole lot to gin up and solidify support for Romney amongst the True Believers in the red states, but that the rest of Romney's bounce (in blue and purple states) has just about faded at this point and gone back to pre-Denver levels. Therefore, the increase in the national polls comes from red state voters - not a lot of help to Romney, thanks to the Electoral College.
 
2012-11-04 06:44:28 PM
img.ibtimes.com

Has anyone shown him this poll?
 
2012-11-04 06:45:43 PM
i45.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-04 06:46:24 PM

thomps: cameroncrazy1984: Interesting fact: Of 21 state polls released yesterday, Romney had a lead in 2 of them.

Anyone who thinks this race is a tossup is an idiot at this point.

saturday polls have a known liberal statistical bias, given the under-sampling of college football fans.


Look, reality has a known pro-Obama ([Zer0Bama]) bias. The real polls manage to unskew reality and fabricate a victory for the true conservative candidate: EVERETT DIRKSON
 
2012-11-04 06:46:49 PM

Notabunny: Obama's black helicopters


That's racist?
 
2012-11-04 06:48:01 PM
I tell you how it happened! Romney hiding out from the national media, even Fox News, beacuse hes to chickensheat to take a stand on anything or answer any hard questions.
The guy turned into a invisble man. If it was not for the rallies Id have thought he dropped out. Such a strange strategy.
 
2012-11-04 06:49:10 PM
well, Brett, I'm not too shocked by it. You've got a mediocre candidate with a moron running mate running against an empty suit who's biggest accomplishment was costing his party control of the House*. Maybe if you guys could exorcise the bat-shiat crazy Tea Partiers from the GOP and maybe change your economic policies from a sad satire of tax-cuts-all-the-time-always-for-everything, you might be able to win more then the South and Great Plains?

*Only the House because your party ran idiots like i.i.com.com this .
 
2012-11-04 06:50:02 PM
I'm not puzzled at all.

As stated, if the media and the entertainment industry hadn't been covering for this president for the last four years, he wouldn't even be running for office and the Democrats would be trying to figure out a way to tell you they have some great ideas if you'll just elect this other guy.

I do have another question however.

I would like a liberal to explain how Bush during his first term went from barely winning to getting more support while Obama did such a bang up job as president that he's losing multiple states outright and dropping 5-10% in other states that he is winning. I'd also like to hear about how if this trend continues, and it will, what you think is going to happen in 2014 and 2016.
 
2012-11-04 06:50:10 PM

ItchyMcDoogle: I tell you how it happened! Romney hiding out from the national media, even Fox News, beacuse hes to chickensheat to take a stand on anything or answer any hard questions.
The guy turned into a invisble man. If it was not for the rallies Id have thought he dropped out. Such a strange strategy.


If Romney had the balls to go on the Daily Show, then he'd be a contender. But he didn't so he isn't.
 
2012-11-04 06:50:36 PM
It's starting to dawn on them that they're going to lose. This is going to be a lot more fun than last time, when they knew they were losing the whole time. The only problem is, they're going to learn nothing from it, because they're going to blame the whole thing on Sandy. The meme that Romney had momentum before Sandy is flatly false, but most Republicans won't realize that.
 
2012-11-04 06:50:51 PM

randomjsa: I'd also like to hear about how if this trend continues, and it will, what you think is going to happen in 2014 and 2016.


I think Obama is highly unlikely to win a Presidential election in either of those years.
 
2012-11-04 06:50:54 PM

themadtupper: thomps: cameroncrazy1984: Interesting fact: Of 21 state polls released yesterday, Romney had a lead in 2 of them.

Anyone who thinks this race is a tossup is an idiot at this point.

saturday polls have a known liberal statistical bias, given the under-sampling of college football fans.

Look, reality has a known pro-Obama ([Zer0Bama]) bias. The real polls manage to unskew reality and fabricate a victory for the true conservative candidate: EVERETT DIRKSOEN


I CAN'T SPELL THINGS
 
2012-11-04 06:51:00 PM

wotthefark: [img.ibtimes.com image 614x405]

Has anyone shown him this poll?


That has got to be the same 22% who still supported Bush in 2009. The crazy people who cannot admit that their guy sucks.
 
2012-11-04 06:52:09 PM

Zasteva: AkaDad: If you unskew the polls by harmonizing the statistical quirks, Obama is farked.

Sounds interesting...

What are the statistical quirks, and how do you harmonize them?


I don't have the time to explain, you'll have to study it out.
 
2012-11-04 06:52:43 PM
It's not that hard to figure out, Brit. Romney hasn't been able to drum up excitement in his own party. The GOP picked a new front runner in the primary so often that I used that as a way to know when I should throw out the milk in the fridge.

Combine that with the fact that he reminds lots of people of every boss they've ever hated and the fact that he's taken more positions than the Kama Sutra, and it's easy to see why he's lagging behind.

FFS, even the guys at Fox weren't excited about Rmoney until their bosses told them to be.
 
2012-11-04 06:53:04 PM
I may have to unblock FNC on election night. It's going to be awesome watching a bubble being popped on live TV.
 
2012-11-04 06:54:30 PM

thomps: it's puzzling to me that romney can be ahead in all of the national polls, which are done by more seasoned polling firms, but is behind in the simple average of national polls.


Also, seven national polls were released yesterday, and Romney led in only one of them. Of course, Obama's average lead was only by 1 point, but it's not correct to say that Romney is ahead in the nat'l polls.
 
2012-11-04 06:55:05 PM

randomjsa: I'm not puzzled at all.

As stated, if the media and the entertainment industry hadn't been covering for this president for the last four years, he wouldn't even be running for office and the Democrats would be trying to figure out a way to tell you they have some great ideas if you'll just elect this other guy.

I do have another question however.

I would like a liberal to explain how Bush during his first term went from barely winning to getting more support while Obama did such a bang up job as president that he's losing multiple states outright and dropping 5-10% in other states that he is winning. I'd also like to hear about how if this trend continues, and it will, what you think is going to happen in 2014 and 2016.


*clicks Funny button*
 
2012-11-04 06:55:25 PM

quatchi: Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume is saying that it's "puzzling" that national polls indicate GOP hopeful Mitt Romney is tied with President Barack Obama while swing state polls suggest that Democrats are going to win enough electoral votes for to keep the White House.


As a person who just so happens to live in one of these states (Iowa, in fact), I would laugh and laugh if my state would be the one that officially puts Obama past the magic 270 mark.

(That actually happened exactly 20 years ago when Clinton won, so it is possible)
 
2012-11-04 06:56:42 PM
I know the GOP is slated to take the house but are there any legit polls showing this is the case?
 
2012-11-04 06:57:12 PM

DeltaPunch: Maybe you libs should look a little more closely at the 3 options listed in TFA:

1) The polls are all wrong
2) Romney's ground game will turn out enough votes to make up the difference
3) Obama will win

As you can clearly see, 2 of these 3 options result in a Romney victory, which naturally means Romney has 66% chance of winning. Therefore, even if the polls were skewed 16% towards Obama -- unlikely, despite the lamestream media bias -- Romney can still safely win above 50%. It's just basic subtraction here, folks. AND, if the polls aren't biased at all, then it won't just be a Romney victory but a land-slide man-date for conservatives. You libs are gonna be sooo pissed.


In Ohio, 122 Obama local HQs compared to 40 for Romney.
There's your ground game... what were you saying again?
 
2012-11-04 06:57:53 PM

Zasteva: AkaDad: If you unskew the polls by harmonizing the statistical quirks, Obama is farked.

Sounds interesting...

What are the statistical quirks, and how do you harmonize them?


1. 30% of Obama supporters vote for Romney
2. 1 in 7 polls have not yet been unskewed
3. Silent majority

Book it; done
 
2012-11-04 06:58:07 PM

Speaking for Iowa... we were insulated from most of the recession, we have about 4400 wind energy jobs that pay decent wages, and we have low fuel prices because our gas comes from refined Alberta Tar Sands oil. Romney's "energy policy:"

oi50.tinypic.com


would cost us those 4400 jobs, and his "day one" promise to approve Keystone would send our cheap gas to China. 

Gee. I can't imagine why the president is leading in Iowa.
 
2012-11-04 06:58:16 PM
I understand why he is puzzled. The facts:

1. Real Americans would never vote for soshulist Kenyan communist gay lazy golf-playing sekrit Mooslim
2. Obama's going to be re-elected

When you live in the Land of the Looking Glass, it's not surprising that you're puzzled.
 
2012-11-04 06:58:31 PM

js34603: Yes I live in constant fear too. I'm totally going to stock up on essentials because I in no way believe when I wake up Wednesday morning absolutely nothing will be different.


Yes I live in constant fear too. I'm totally going to stock up on essentials because I in no way believe when I wake up Wednesday morning absolutely nothinganything will be different.
 
2012-11-04 06:59:00 PM
What a puzzled Brit Hume might look like:

i60.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-04 06:59:14 PM
Could it be people are tired of this?  Link

My favorite image of Fox so far, and yet how true. Could not get it to come up as photo in Fark.
 
2012-11-04 06:59:26 PM

wotthefark: DeltaPunch: thomps: DamnYankees: Also, the national polls don't really show a tie. Per Nate Silver:

Simple average of national polls released Thursday: Obama +0.9. Friday: Obama +1.2. Saturday: Obama +1.3. Today (so far): Obama +1.4

it's puzzling to me that romney can be ahead in all of the national polls, which are done by more seasoned polling firms, but is behind in the simple average of national polls.

Um, Nate Silver has Obama ahead in the popular vote 50.6% to 48.3%. Considering the margin of error is typically 2-3 points, there's plenty of room for lots of polls to show Romney ahead. But it's just not true that he leads in all or most of them, otherwise Nate Silver wouldn't be showing Obama ahead.


"MARGIN OF ERROR DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY"

[t0.gstatic.com image 256x197]


Can you explain it to me, then? Not being snarky... I study physics, so I deal with errors and statistical significance all the time... I'm curious how one interprets the MoE from a poll.
 
2012-11-04 07:00:17 PM

DeltaPunch: Can you explain it to me, then? Not being snarky... I study physics, so I deal with errors and statistical significance all the time... I'm curious how one interprets the MoE from a poll.


DeltaPunch: wotthefark: DeltaPunch: thomps: DamnYankees: Also, the national polls don't really show a tie. Per Nate Silver:

Simple average of national polls released Thursday: Obama +0.9. Friday: Obama +1.2. Saturday: Obama +1.3. Today (so far): Obama +1.4

it's puzzling to me that romney can be ahead in all of the national polls, which are done by more seasoned polling firms, but is behind in the simple average of national polls.

Um, Nate Silver has Obama ahead in the popular vote 50.6% to 48.3%. Considering the margin of error is typically 2-3 points, there's plenty of room for lots of polls to show Romney ahead. But it's just not true that he leads in all or most of them, otherwise Nate Silver wouldn't be showing Obama ahead.


"MARGIN OF ERROR DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY"

[t0.gstatic.com image 256x197]

Can you explain it to me, then? Not being snarky... I study physics, so I deal with errors and statistical significance all the time... I'm curious how one interprets the MoE from a poll.


You had it right.
 
Displayed 50 of 348 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report