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 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  
•       •       •

5733 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Nov 2012 at 6:05 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-11-04 04:08:05 PM  
pubrecord.org

The insidiousness just keeps going deeper and deeper. (Now they got to Fox news)
 
2012-11-04 04:10:35 PM  
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.

[ICP.jpg]

Electoral votes, how the fark do they work?

Betcha he wasn't puzzled back in 2000 when Gore actually won the popular vote and lost because Florida.
 
2012-11-04 04:11:53 PM  
I'm sure that if we just double weigh the polls for double accuracy that Romney will win.
 
2012-11-04 04:26:12 PM  
These are not the polls you are looking for...
content8.flixster.com
 
2012-11-04 04:26:33 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.


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.
 
2012-11-04 04:27:40 PM  
Hey, given how the GOP is doing their best to deliver Florida and Ohio for Romney through illegitimate means, you've got to start the narrative that the polls are in Romney's favor so people don't question all the shenanigans.

Parts of Florida are already turning into a clusterfark, what with Miami-Dade opening, then closing, then reopening the supervisors office for in-person absentee voting today and the Obama campaign having to go to court to keep early voting going at one of the Orange County precincts because a bunch of people didn't get to vote due to a bomb threat yesterday.
 
2012-11-04 04:51:06 PM  
Well, I have to hand it to the stupid farking press - they managed to turn this into a horse-race after all, when it should have been over months ago because of Romney's repeated efforts to shoot himself in the foot.

I'm completely disgusted with my country and its election process.
 
2012-11-04 04:53:37 PM  
I get the feeling Brit is confused a lot.
 
2012-11-04 04:56:54 PM  
It's ok Brit. We'll have someone bring you a blanket and a glass of warm milk.
 
2012-11-04 05:02:16 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-04 05:08:38 PM  

rynthetyn: Hey, given how the GOP is doing their best to deliver Florida and Ohio for Romney through illegitimate means, you've got to start the narrative that the polls are in Romney's favor so people don't question all the shenanigans.

Parts of Florida are already turning into a clusterfark, what with Miami-Dade opening, then closing, then reopening the supervisors office for in-person absentee voting today and the Obama campaign having to go to court to keep early voting going at one of the Orange County precincts because a bunch of people didn't get to vote due to a bomb threat yesterday.


This.
I think all laws that effect voting must be delayed by 2 years. It is disingenuous to change election laws so close to the election.
 
2012-11-04 05:09:47 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.


Take Gallup out and there isn't that much of a difference.
 
2012-11-04 05:15:43 PM  
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.
 
2012-11-04 05:21:28 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-04 05:24:27 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.


Actually, published Saturday would have finished sampling mostly on Friday, so the under-sampling is of high school football fans.
 
2012-11-04 05:26:03 PM  

Nezorf: rynthetyn: Hey, given how the GOP is doing their best to deliver Florida and Ohio for Romney through illegitimate means, you've got to start the narrative that the polls are in Romney's favor so people don't question all the shenanigans.

Parts of Florida are already turning into a clusterfark, what with Miami-Dade opening, then closing, then reopening the supervisors office for in-person absentee voting today and the Obama campaign having to go to court to keep early voting going at one of the Orange County precincts because a bunch of people didn't get to vote due to a bomb threat yesterday.

This.
I think all laws that effect voting must be delayed by 2 years. It is disingenuous to change election laws so close to the election.


Yeah. And Rick Scott and the Florida Republicans deliberately changed early voting so that it ended the Saturday before the election to minimize turnout by black voters who historically would carpool to go vote after church on Sunday.
 
2012-11-04 05:27:35 PM  
"We lied and we lied but Obama is still up! How could this have happened?" - Everyone at Fox except for Shep Smith and the janitors

The answer: Outrage induced heart attacks among Republicans (occasionally pushed along by low-quality crystal meth)
 
2012-11-04 05:33:31 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-04 05:40:56 PM  

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.


And Sunday polls have a statistical bias given the under sampling of NFL fans and Fox News Sunday mouth-breathers.
 
2012-11-04 05:41:00 PM  
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.
 
2012-11-04 05:47:26 PM  
Actually, if he said this 3 weeks ago, he'd have a point. But even national polls are breaking for Obama right now.

Probably the most telling one is Rasmussen. In previous years, Rasmussen's polls would always have a Republican lean, but in the week ahead of the election, it'll step into line with all the other polls. Rasmussen had Mitt Romney ahead as late as last week. Now, it's a tie.
 
2012-11-04 05:54:47 PM  

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


Cool beans.

For what it's worth, I just heard David Frum call it for Obama on the Patrick Duffy show onna CBC radio.
 
2012-11-04 06:09:12 PM  

RexTalionis: Rasmussen had Mitt Romney ahead as late as last week. Now, it's a tie.


Did someone almost forget to put out the right numbers so they could be considered "accurate" for 2016?
 
2012-11-04 06:12:38 PM  
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.
 
2012-11-04 06:13:11 PM  
I think that, perhaps, maybe, it just because that it's possible that Brit Hume just might, in fact, be a frickin' moron.

That's only speculative.
 
2012-11-04 06:13:42 PM  
No matter how delusional, hopeful, fanatic you are, sooner or later you have to deal with reality.
 
2012-11-04 06:13:46 PM  
Because Brit Hume is a derper mouthpiece who isn't paid to think, perhaps?
 
2012-11-04 06:16:06 PM  
Today's Nationals from Nate Silver's tweety about an hour ago

tie, tie, O+1, O+1, O+1, O+1, O+2, O+3, O+3, O+3.2
 
2012-11-04 06:17:54 PM  
He sounds very, very concerned.
 
2012-11-04 06:18:39 PM  
Someone's been feeding him red meat again. Get him back on his diet of gruel and lies immediately before he shiats himself.
 
2012-11-04 06:18:57 PM  
I'm puzzled how he can call himself a political analyst when he doesn't understand how the electoral college works.
 
2012-11-04 06:20:27 PM  

doyner: 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.

And Sunday polls have a statistical bias given the under sampling of NFL fans and Fox News Sunday mouth-breathers.


Don't forget Monday polls, which are biased because everyone's got a case of the Mondays.
 
2012-11-04 06:20:43 PM  

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?
 
2012-11-04 06:20:51 PM  

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


Well, it's less socially acceptable to call ones self a propagandist
 
2012-11-04 06:20:53 PM  
He always has a sad droopy dog face whenever I see him. Of course I don't see him too often. The last time I saw his mug was during the 2008 election. I flipped it over to FN and him and some other guy were looking like they were 5 seconds away from crying.

He's not as famous as the Hannities and Oreillys or Douchies over there. Does he have his own show? Or do they just trot him out when they got bad news?
 
2012-11-04 06:21:33 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-04 06:21:36 PM  
I wouldn't say that Brit Hume is a political analyst so much as he's a political anal cyst.
 
2012-11-04 06:23:18 PM  

soporific: doyner: 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.

And Sunday polls have a statistical bias given the under sampling of NFL fans and Fox News Sunday mouth-breathers.

Don't forget Monday polls, which are biased because everyone's got a case of the Mondays.


And Tuesday's exit polls because they won't account for the DIEBOLD effect.
 
2012-11-04 06:24:53 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: I think that, perhaps, maybe, it just because that it's possible that Brit Hume just might, in fact, be a frickin' moron.

That's only speculative.





images.sodahead.com

 
2012-11-04 06:24:55 PM  
I caught a glimpse of CNN the other day at the gym and Virginia was light red (i.e. "leaning Romney") on their map.
 
2012-11-04 06:25:07 PM  

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?
 
2012-11-04 06:25:30 PM  

rthanu: He's not as famous as the Hannities and Oreillys or Douchies over there. Does he have his own show? Or do they just trot him out when they got bad news?


He had his own FOX show from 1998-2008 and is now a "senior political analyst" probably code for semi-retired. He did the 6PM "straight news" hour and before going to FOX was an ABC guy including a stint as Chief White House Correspondent.
 
2012-11-04 06:25:53 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-04 06:26:14 PM  
I guess enough voters figured out that President Obama is the best conservative leader since Ike.

Let's hope they call VA relatively early on Tuesday so everyone can stop worrying because if VA goes for the president (as it seems that it will), it's GAME OVER MAN, GAME OVER.
 
2012-11-04 06:26:23 PM  

js34603: I guess the "neocons" were just saving their energy in 2008, but this time, hooo boy better board my doors.


Well, the Bushies and their ilk knew it would take time for the economy to recover after their lil boy Dubya emptied it, I expect 2016 will be the vote fraud extravaganza. Think about it, do the entrenched GOP Neo-Cons really want Romney to have more power then themselves? However, I'm sure they'll take whatever the US voting public is stupidly willing to give them.
 
2012-11-04 06:26:29 PM  

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.


VOTE VOTE VOTE all the same. There is no guarantee here. Republican vote suppression efforts are at an all-time high, and the snake is still dangerous even with its head cut off.
 
2012-11-04 06:26:31 PM  

guilt by association: I caught a glimpse of CNN the other day at the gym and Virginia was light red (i.e. "leaning Romney") on their map.


Despite recent polls, I still consider Virginia a likely Romney win. If Romney can't win there, it won't matter that he stole Ohio.
 
2012-11-04 06:26:58 PM  
""And there's this striking discrepancy between national polls - which tend to be done, by and large, by older, more-seasoned polling firms - and state polls - a number of which are done by less-established uppity firms.
 
2012-11-04 06:27:35 PM  

guilt by association: I caught a glimpse of CNN the other day at the gym and Virginia was light red (i.e. "leaning Romney") on their map.


You should've seen liberal NBC and their commie tripe this morning.

David Gregory asked the following questions to some random Obama campaign guy
1) The economy is still in trouble *plays clip of Romney pointing out unemployment*. What is Obama going to do?
2) Is Obama willing to work with Congress? He has been quite partisan during his first term.
3) Is the Obama administration hiding something about how they screwed up security in Libya causing the death of an ambassador?
 
2012-11-04 06:27:59 PM  
Wallace: 2/3 of the country thinks we're on the wrong track.

This is what happens when you swallow your own narrative.

Puzzled Brit Hume is puzzled. And it's funny.
 
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.
 
2012-11-04 07:00:34 PM  
And there's this striking discrepancy between national polls - which tend to be done, by and large, by older, more-seasoned polling firms - and state polls - a number of which are done by less-established firms.

This is an amusing ad-hominem attack (excuse?). The explosion of state polls the past 20 years or so have shown that they, on average, are a better predictor than national polls. The proof is in the pudding, Britt. What is puzzling is your refusal to acknowledge reality.
 
2012-11-04 07:00:41 PM  

soporific: 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.


Actually, former Governor Romney hasn't answered any questions from the press for over three weeks. Maybe he could show his tax returns?
 
2012-11-04 07:00:52 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 doubt Obama is going to win re-election in either of those years.
 
2012-11-04 07:02:07 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.


What's your end game? Are you playing the Long Troll? Don't trolls thrive on instant reaction? I commend you for sticking with this 5-year troll project of yours. See you in 2014. 2 more years! 2 more years!
 
2012-11-04 07:02:11 PM  

themadtupper: 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


I heart Fark memes.
 
2012-11-04 07:02:29 PM  
CNN is just running with the "Polls are a dead heat!" line. Maybe Fox should go with that.
 
2012-11-04 07:02:38 PM  

soporific: 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.


Not Just the Daily Show ( which is has been a political media heavyweight ) but Letterman, ( Can understand because letterman has been calling him a coward for not coming on his show ) or even softball Leno

The most puzzling is Fox News which is a 24/7 Romney campaign channel. Going on O'Reilly would have generated news outside of the network. O'Reilly would have fed him softballs disguised as hardball questions. Even going on Hannity would have gotten some buzz or a Limbaugh radio interview.

Im sure the campaign strategist that came up with the media blackout plan has to be sweating bullets right now. But they are ready to blame Christie if he loses..Typical
 
2012-11-04 07:03:29 PM  

theknuckler_33: The proof is in the pudding


for all intensive purposes, this is true
 
2012-11-04 07:03:38 PM  

AkaDad: I heart Fark memes.


I work in Fark memes.

So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.

Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.

But trust me.... You don't.

I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you dont know what you are talking about.

This is how bad info gets passed around.

If you dont know about the topic....Dont make yourself sound like you do.

Cuz some Farkers belive anything they hear.
 
2012-11-04 07:04:16 PM  

themadtupper: Book it; done


You missed the "you guys are going to be sooooo pissed"
 
2012-11-04 07:05:06 PM  

DamnYankees: Cuz some Farkers belive anything they hear here.


Sorry. Pet peeve.
 
2012-11-04 07:05:40 PM  

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.


538 (and other poll aggregators) are looking at several hundred polls. the margin of error on any given one of those might be 2-3 points, but the assumption is that if all of them show an advantage to one candidate of a few points, then it is fairly unlikely that all of them are statistical outliers.
 
2012-11-04 07:06:17 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: DamnYankees: Cuz some Farkers belive anything they hear here.

Sorry. Pet peeve peave.

 
2012-11-04 07:07:06 PM  
its true, every polling company is so sick of making money that they are skewing the vote for Obama.
 
2012-11-04 07:07:34 PM  
bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com
 
2012-11-04 07:10:21 PM  

Jackson Herring: theknuckler_33: The proof is in the pudding putting

for all intensive intrusive purposes, this is true


FTFY
 
2012-11-04 07:11:31 PM  

randomjsa: if the media and the entertainment industry hadn't been covering for this president for the last four years


Get it though your thick skull... not 'reporting' the right-wing nonsense you hear on AM radio is not 'covering' for the president. It's not reporting whack-job conspiracy theories and abject nonsense. Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin are pushing your ridiculously partisan buttons and you are buying it hook, line, and sinker. How many 'libs are stoopid' books have you bought?
 
2012-11-04 07:12:55 PM  

Jackson Herring: theknuckler_33: The proof is in the pudding

for all intensive purposes, this is true


Dude... pudding? PUDDING? That was BEGGING for fat dog!!!!
 
2012-11-04 07:14:27 PM  

themadtupper: Jackson Herring: theknuckler_33: The proof is in the pudding putting

for all intensive intrusive purposes, this is true

FTFY


intents and purposes

/pushes glasses up
 
2012-11-04 07:18:14 PM  

socratesthekidd: themadtupper: Jackson Herring: theknuckler_33: The proof is in the pudding putting

for all intensive intrusive purposes, this is true

FTFY

intents and purposes porpoises


FTFY
/pet peeve
 
2012-11-04 07:19:17 PM  

bulldg4life: guilt by association: I caught a glimpse of CNN the other day at the gym and Virginia was light red (i.e. "leaning Romney") on their map.

You should've seen liberal NBC and their commie tripe this morning.

David Gregory asked the following questions to some random Obama campaign guy
1) The economy is still in trouble *plays clip of Romney pointing out unemployment*. What is Obama going to do?
2) Is Obama willing to work with Congress? He has been quite partisan during his first term.
3) Is the Obama administration hiding something about how they screwed up security in Libya causing the death of an ambassador?


There is no bigger dickweed in the country than David Gregory. That guy is literally worse than a wet fart.
 
2012-11-04 07:19:46 PM  

themadtupper: Jackson Herring: theknuckler_33: The proof is in the pudding putting

for all intensive intrusive purposes, this is true

FTFY


I'm pretty sure it's "all in tents and porpoises".
 
2012-11-04 07:20:14 PM  
img534.imageshack.us

Puzzled!
 
2012-11-04 07:21:17 PM  

Jackson Herring: theknuckler_33: The proof is in the pudding

for all intensive purposes, this is true


Hah, my neck store neighbor says that.
 
2012-11-04 07:21:49 PM  

socratesthekidd: themadtupper: Jackson Herring: theknuckler_33: The proof is in the pudding putting

for all intensive intrusive purposes, this is true

FTFY

intents and purposes

/pushes pashas glasses up


FTFY
i1107.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-04 07:22:05 PM  

theknuckler_33: socratesthekidd: themadtupper: Jackson Herring: theknuckler_33: The proof is in the pudding putting

for all intensive intrusive purposes, this is true

FTFY

intents and purposes porpoises

FTFY
/pet peeve


God damn you, sir. God damn you to hell.
 
2012-11-04 07:22:34 PM  

randomjsa: 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.


How did Bush go from being unpopular to popular in his first term? It must have had something to do with an event that happened between September 10, 2001, and September 12, 2001. Somewhere in that time period, I think, is when Bush suddenly got a lot more popular and received a lot more support from the American people. I know it's got to be somewhere in that range of dates, but I just can't put my finger on it.

It's almost as if that same kind of event didn't happen during Obama's first term. But I still can't put my finger on it.

And if that kind of event keeps not happening, then I don't know what we'll see in 2014 and 2016. I'm not sure how America will feel about that kind of thing not happening for a very long time.
 
2012-11-04 07:23:17 PM  

Gyrony: 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?


"Over statement of the regulars", my boy. Are you REALLY going to count basement Black Panther meeting halls as local HQs.

You must be new at this.
 
2012-11-04 07:24:53 PM  

theorellior: Jackson Herring: theknuckler_33: The proof is in the pudding

for all intensive purposes, this is true

Hah, my neck store neighbor says that.


I can honestly say that I have never seen this one before.
 
2012-11-04 07:25:52 PM  

qorkfiend: theknuckler_33: socratesthekidd: themadtupper: Jackson Herring: theknuckler_33: The proof is in the pudding putting

for all intensive intrusive purposes, this is true

FTFY

intents and purposes porpoises

FTFY
/pet peeve

God damn you, sir. God damn you to hell.


If there were a god or hell, I'd be offended. As it is, I offer a discreet internet terrorist fist jab.
 
2012-11-04 07:26:33 PM  

theknuckler_33: randomjsa: if the media and the entertainment industry hadn't been covering for this president for the last four years

Get it though your thick skull... not 'reporting' the right-wing nonsense you hear on AM radio is not 'covering' for the president. It's not reporting whack-job conspiracy theories and abject nonsense. Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin are pushing your ridiculously partisan buttons and you are buying it hook, line, and sinker. How many 'libs are stoopid' books have you bought?


Modern Conservatism is a Con game played against the base.
 
2012-11-04 07:27:00 PM  

soporific: How did Bush go from being unpopular to popular in his first term? It must have had something to do with an event that happened between September 10, 2001, and September 12, 2001. Somewhere in that time period, I think, is when Bush suddenly got a lot more popular and received a lot more support from the American people. I know it's got to be somewhere in that range of dates, but I just can't put my finger on it.


America does love Nickelback.
 
2012-11-04 07:27:27 PM  

soporific: an event that happened between September 10, 2001, and September 12, 2001


BOOM the Feast of Paphnutius of Thebes

farking September 11
 
2012-11-04 07:28:26 PM  

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

Has anyone shown him this poll?


I want to know who is thinking Mitt would win in a fight with one of those scary angry black men?
 
2012-11-04 07:28:30 PM  
i165.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-04 07:29:20 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.


To be fair, the GOP did have the worst primary field in recent history.

Huntsman is the only one who had a chance in the general, but Obama appointed him as ambassador so OMG TREASKN.
 
2012-11-04 07:30:24 PM  

DamnYankees: America does love Nickelback.


I know this is blasphemous, but I like a few of their songs.

/*puts on riot gear*
 
2012-11-04 07:31:09 PM  
Oh Brit, if you're puzzled now, you're going to be going Full Scanner in about 51 hours or so.
 
2012-11-04 07:31:17 PM  
A Senior Political Analyst puzzled by how the EV works?

i293.photobucket.com

/Oblig.
 
2012-11-04 07:31:48 PM  

Nezorf: I think all laws that effect voting must be delayed by 20 years. It is disingenuous to change election laws so close to the election.

And if nothing that your law was designed to protect against happens in that 20 years, well, your party is banned from ...

oh never mind
people in power will do anything to keep their power

the evil they will perpetrate to prevent citizens from voting is repugnant.
 
2012-11-04 07:33:28 PM  

AkaDad: DamnYankees: America does love Nickelback.

I know this is blasphemous, but I like a few of their songs.

/*puts on riot gear*


I still like "Rockstar".

/Dives into foxhole.
//*kicks Fox out* 
 
2012-11-04 07:34:02 PM  
Are you trying to say that they used affirmative action in these polls? Just asking questions, Brit, you insufferable twit.
 
2012-11-04 07:34:16 PM  

soporific: It must have had something to do with an event that happened between September 10, 2001, and September 12, 2001.


no no no...thats just happened to happen. it would have happened regardless. like russia collapsing under reagan...oh wait, I mean reagan caused russia to collapse and it wouldn't have happend without st. ron.

wait, what were we talking about?
 
2012-11-04 07:34:48 PM  

PUBLICPOLICYPOLLING
Barack Obama leads Mitt Romney 52-47 on our final Ohio poll. Up 60-39 with early voters 12 minutes ago


Last PPP poll had Obama up 5 as well.
 
2012-11-04 07:39:30 PM  

DamnYankees: 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?


The same justification they use for the existence of a sky wizard creator and his zombie son.
 
2012-11-04 07:40:25 PM  

DamnYankees: PUBLICPOLICYPOLLING
Barack Obama leads Mitt Romney 52-47 on our final Ohio poll. Up 60-39 with early voters 12 minutes ago

Last PPP poll had Obama up 5 as well.


PPP leans Dem, so the president is up three or so there, and probably up about 15-18 points with early voters.

In other words, this is super-awesome.

I saw Nate Silver today talking about how Romney can win with PA if he drops OH, so he should spend resources and time there over the next two days. However, if PA is going red, OH has long since gone red.

Not to mention that even if Romney did win PA, the President could just win OH and VA to counteract it - two places where the president leads by anywhere from 1-5 points.
 
2012-11-04 07:40:53 PM  

themadtupper: 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.

538 (and other poll aggregators) are looking at several hundred polls. the margin of error on any given one of those might be 2-3 points, but the assumption is that if all of them show an advantage to one candidate of a few points, then it is fairly unlikely that all of them are statistical outliers.


DamnYankees: 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.


No he doesn't. A voter preference survey question will always have at least three categories. There may also be categories for candidates for third parties and perhaps an "other" category as well. we need the confidence interval
for this difference to tell if the lead is statistically significant. Using twice the MOE does not show plenty of room for polls to show Romney ahead. This is because the standard error is going to differ on polls depending on the n.

The margin of error for a poll is not a simple guide to the margin of error for differences either within the poll or across independent polls. The multiple uses of the phrase "margin of error" compounds the confusion. Most "lay people" and journalists don't read the footnotes.

538 is taking a number of different polls and aggregating them. If there is a margin of error it is different within the poll as there is aggregate between all polls. 538 then becomes a poll of the polls. This then sets aside the usual MOE as the n is greater due to the fact there is a larger number of polls being aggregated. So when something falls within the MOE it doesn't mean the outcome will show the opposite if it double the MOE. It's created with a binary construct where you have two outcomes. But the polls give the answer of 3 outcomes - R, D or undecided.

Silver's model weights the polls so it's more likely that the MOE has less effect so you can't just double and say there is plenty of room for the opposite to be true. It doesn't work that way.
 
2012-11-04 07:42:22 PM  

DamnYankees: Up 60-39 with early voters 12 minutes ago


If that number is even close to accurate then Romney is farked given photos like this.
 
2012-11-04 07:44:07 PM  
The Freeper threads on the polls are quite amusing.
 
2012-11-04 07:44:55 PM  

Raharu: randomjsa:
[imageshack.us image 411x294]


WHARGARBLE#$%@#$GeaegargjkwHFKLW FWHELIRF HRFWJKF FW;Lh u 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.DERRRRRRRRRRRP R@#$R%@ GJfofvjajfioj asdfbhasklh



i1107.photobucket.com
To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the STATISTICALS:

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

You're gonna be so pissed
 
2012-11-04 07:45:19 PM  

Shrugging Atlas: DamnYankees: Up 60-39 with early voters 12 minutes ago

If that number is even close to accurate then Romney is farked given photos like this.


That's what happens when your response to changing demographics with SUPPRESS ALL THE VOTES!!!1!

You just scare the people you're trying to stop from voting into making sure to vote.
 
2012-11-04 07:46:26 PM  

randomjsa: 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


Did you forget?

3.bp.blogspot.com

It's extremely difficult to challenge a sitting president in the middle of a major war, even if that war isn't going at all well.

Even more so, in fact, because any criticism of the President means that the speaker "wants the terrorists to win," and the challenger has to avoid any hint of insufficient support for the troops.
 
2012-11-04 07:47:53 PM  

DamnYankees: 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.


That's JUST what he wants you to think!

Gingrich supporters warned of a third Obama term
 
2012-11-04 07:48:30 PM  

Smelly McUgly: That's what happens when your response to changing demographics with SUPPRESS ALL THE VOTES!!!1!


To be fair, that's their response to every election.
 
2012-11-04 07:50:05 PM  
If the Redskins Rule is to be believed, Obama will either lose outright or win the EVs and lose the popular, which is a possibility given some of Nate's blog posts. In fact, if one believes the Redskin Rule and Nate's polling, it is now a very likely scenario.

MAXIMUM BUTTHURT AHEAD: 50 hours
 
2012-11-04 07:50:36 PM  
i159.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-04 07:53:30 PM  

Altitude5280: The Freeper threads on the polls are quite amusing.


Oh, man...haven't been there in a while...do I dare...?

www.wolfhazmat.de

I'm going in!!
 
2012-11-04 07:53:49 PM  

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?


Dear Father Christmas.

All I want for Christmas is pease go away.
 
2012-11-04 07:54:29 PM  

Death Eats a Cracker: I may have to unblock FNC on election night. It's going to be awesome watching a bubble being popped on live TV.


I advise EVERYONE that just before the Prez gets to 270, to switch over to Fox, and have the great pleasure of watching them have to announce Barack Obama as the winner. 😝
 
2012-11-04 07:57:32 PM  

Altitude5280: The Freeper threads on the polls are quite amusing.


They're going to have some sort of psychotic break when Obama wins. They isolate themselves in a right wing media bubble where they only hear news that says what they want to hear. They truly believe Romney is ahead in all the polls. How are they going to react when reality breaks through?
 
2012-11-04 07:57:54 PM  

Skleenar: theknuckler_33: randomjsa: if the media and the entertainment industry hadn't been covering for this president for the last four years

Get it though your thick skull... not 'reporting' the right-wing nonsense you hear on AM radio is not 'covering' for the president. It's not reporting whack-job conspiracy theories and abject nonsense. Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin are pushing your ridiculously partisan buttons and you are buying it hook, line, and sinker. How many 'libs are stoopid' books have you bought?

Modern Conservatism is a Con game played against the base.


Gee, right-wing sites are nothing more than money making schemes for people trying to take advantage of intellectually-challenged conservateatards?
 
2012-11-04 07:59:05 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Altitude5280: The Freeper threads on the polls are quite amusing.

Oh, man...haven't been there in a while...do I dare...?

[www.wolfhazmat.de image 300x548]

I'm going in!!


Godspeed!
 
2012-11-04 07:59:22 PM  

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.


Given the number of Teabagging nutjobs out there, I wouldn't be surprised if a few of them completely go off the deep end after the election. It's more than a little scary.
 
2012-11-04 07:59:54 PM  

Phins: Altitude5280: The Freeper threads on the polls are quite amusing.

They're going to have some sort of psychotic break when Obama wins. They isolate themselves in a right wing media bubble where they only hear news that says what they want to hear. They truly believe Romney is ahead in all the polls. How are they going to react when reality breaks through?


Second amendment solutions tempered with religion and bitterness. Oh, and bigotry, can't forget that.
 
2012-11-04 08:05:38 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Well, I have to hand it to the stupid farking press - they managed to turn this into a horse-race after all, when it should have been over months ago because of Romney's repeated efforts to shoot himself in the foot.

I'm completely disgusted with my country and its election process.


Seconded.

Let's move to our own planet.
 
2012-11-04 08:06:27 PM  
Nate Silver, Dr. Wang, and all the other aggregator types literally stake their reputation as mathematicians and statisticians on their various poll aggregation and tracking.

I've read most of what they've written, they look more interested in truth than bias. They'd report Romney (and did) being up if he were.

So I trust their findings.

A lot more than some plasterbrain reporter at FOX.
 
2012-11-04 08:07:01 PM  
Romney can win 80% of the vote in Arkansas, but he only needs 50.1% of the vote to win its Electoral Votes. But National Polls continue to count that remaining 29.9% in their total, even though it has no impact on who wins. I don't know why this is so difficult for people to understand.
 
2012-11-04 08:08:27 PM  

Generation_D: Nate Silver, Dr. Wang, and all the other aggregator types literally stake their reputation as mathematicians and statisticians on their various poll aggregation and tracking.

I've read most of what they've written, they look more interested in truth than bias. They'd report Romney (and did) being up if he were.



Not only that, but 538 accurately predicted how much of the House the GOP would take over in 2010. Of course, no one on the right was questioning Silver's math then.
 
2012-11-04 08:08:44 PM  

randomjsa:
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.


What the hell, I'll answer.

Why Bush won 2004:
* Americans always re-elect Presidents in the middle of wars (even Lincoln).
* 9/11.
* Multi-state bills banning gay marriage motivated conservative base.
* Liberals, enraged by popular opposition president, drove away moderate support with partisan vitriol and in an attempt to woo them back chose a unlikeable and indecisive blue-blood candidate from Massachusetts, thus alienating minority and working class voters (does this sound familiar?).
* Reagan-era Baby Boomers had not yet reached median life expectancy.

What might happen 2014 and 2016:
* It's projected that the 2012 Senate elections will yield 53 Democratic-leaning seats and 47 Republican-leaning seats. Republicans will consider this another defeat.
* 2014 Senate Election: 20 Democratic and 13 Republican seats (class of 2008, Hope & Change era)
Link
* Likely a switch of 4 seats (AK, CO, MN, NH) leading to slim 51-seat GOP majority.
* 2015-2016: Republican revolt against Obama. Artificial scandal, possible impeachment, shutdown, etc.
* 2016 Senate Election: 10 Democratic and 24 Republican seats (class of 2010, the Tea Party)
Link
* Possibly a total Republican collapse, Democratic supermajority and end to the Tea Party.

So yeah. Good luck with the future, GOP.
 
2012-11-04 08:09:27 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: Not only that, but 538 accurately predicted how much of the House the GOP would take over in 2010. Of course, no one on the right was questioning Silver's math then.


Sam Wang also PERFECTLY predicted Bush's win in 2004 based on his current methodology. And he certainly didn't want Bush to win.
 
2012-11-04 08:10:33 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: Romney can win 80% of the vote in Arkansas, but he only needs 50.1% of the vote to win its Electoral Votes. But National Polls continue to count that remaining 29.9% in their total, even though it has no impact on who wins. I don't know why this is so difficult for people to understand.


Math is on the LOPCATGOPATA. That's why.

Remember, this is the network that said of course Bush beat Gore, it's obvious. Look at all that red on the US map. Why, even most of the blue states were mostly red if you look at the county-by-county returns. God liberals are stupid.
 
2012-11-04 08:14:21 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: Romney can win 80% of the vote in Arkansas, but he only needs 50.1% of the vote to win its Electoral Votes. But National Polls continue to count that remaining 29.9% in their total, even though it has no impact on who wins. I don't know why this is so difficult for people to understand.


I think it's more of a case where if the media were to talk about the electoral math in an honest fashion they'd be out of stuff to talk about months ago besides, "What will Obama's second term be like" and "What Cabinet changes are in store for Obama's second term."

Ratings generators those are not. So instead on the front page of ZOMG Librul MSNBC we currently have:
i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-04 08:18:43 PM  

Altitude5280: Death Eats a Cracker: I may have to unblock FNC on election night. It's going to be awesome watching a bubble being popped on live TV.

I advise EVERYONE that just before the Prez gets to 270, to switch over to Fox, and have the great pleasure of watching them have to announce Barack Obama as the winner. 😝


Yeah, that was fun four years ago. I also listened to Rush Limbaugh for the first time the next morning. Gonna have to do that again.
 
2012-11-04 08:19:18 PM  

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.

 

i.ytimg.com
 
2012-11-04 08:22:03 PM  
I'm a die hard Obama supporter and I can't shake the feeling that america is about to pull a Bush II.

maybe that the fault of the media. all the signs point to an Obama win, but I can't stick a fork in it.
 
2012-11-04 08:23:44 PM  

Spanky_McFarksalot: I'm a die hard Obama supporter and I can't shake the feeling that america is about to pull a Bush II.

maybe that the fault of the media. all the signs point to an Obama win, but I can't stick a fork in it.


What were the polls like at this point in 2004?
 
2012-11-04 08:25:08 PM  
The bubble had to go pop at one point. It's that painful procedure of the GOP reality merging with the actual reality. They should have known by now that actual reality has a well-known liberal bias, and that statistics that run on a proven proces and which are supported by advanced mathematics seem to magically outperform statistics that are "unskewed" by some political hack, which then tries to discredit the former's results based on his skinnyness/effeminate looks.
 
2012-11-04 08:26:52 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Spanky_McFarksalot: I'm a die hard Obama supporter and I can't shake the feeling that america is about to pull a Bush II.

maybe that the fault of the media. all the signs point to an Obama win, but I can't stick a fork in it.

What were the polls like at this point in 2004?


A pretty clear Bush win. Narrow but clear.
 
2012-11-04 08:28:45 PM  
Here are the latest polls from the battleground states:

Colorado: Obama 48%, Romney 47% (YouGov)

Colorado: Obama 48%, Romney 48% (Reuters/Ipsos)

Florida: Romney 49%, Obama 47% (Zogby)

Florida: Romney 48%, Obama 47% (YouGov)

Florida: Obama 46%, Romney 46% (Reuters/Ipsos)

Iowa: Obama 48%, Romney 47% (YouGov)

Iowa: Obama 50%, Romney 48% (Public Policy Polling)

Michigan: Romney 47%, Obama 46% (Foster McCollum)

Michigan: Obama 51%, Romney 44% (YouGov)

Nevada: Obama 49%, Romney 45% (YouGov)

New Hampshire: Obama 47%, Romney 43% (YouGov)

New Hampshire: Obama 50%, Romney 48% (Public Policy Polling)

New Hampshire: Obama 50%, Romney 45% (New England College)

North Carolina: Romney 49%, Obama 47% (YouGov)

Ohio: Obama 50%, Romney 48% (Columbus Dispatch)

Ohio: Obama 50%, Romney 42% (Zogby)

Ohio: Obama 49%, Romney 46% (YouGov)

Ohio: Obama 48%, Romney 44% (Reuters/Ipsos)

Ohio: Obama 52%, Romney 47% (Public Policy Polling)

Pennsylvania: Obama 47%, Romney 47% (Susquehanna)

Pennsylvania: Obama 49%, Romney 46% (Morning Call)

Pennsylvania: Obama 52%, Romney 44% (YouGov)

Virginia: Obama 50%, Romney 44% (Zogby)

Virginia: Obama 48%, Romney 46% (YouGov)

Virginia: Obama 47%, Romney 46% (Reuters/Ipsos)

Wisconsin: Obama 50%, Romney 46% (YouGov)

Link
 
2012-11-04 08:29:32 PM  

randomjsa: 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.


Bush gained more support because there was this event that occurred between the 2000 and 2004 elections that had a pretty significant impact on the electorate. You might have heard of it. 9/11? Ring any bells? Amongst other things, it lead to a sustained period in which the media's coverage of the President was largely supportive.

Obama has lost support for two reasons: The first is that his success in 2008 was absolutely extraordinary, it's almost unimaginable that his support would go up. Many people, young and minority Democrats in particular, had entirely unrealistic expectations for Obama, and thus set themselves up for disappointment. Meanwhile, coverage of Obama's term has been driven by a counter-factual right wing narrative, which has lead to a perception that Obama's first term has generally been less successful than it has been, and which has force blame for the many, many failures of House and Senate Republicans onto the President.

To declare this a "trend" is highly suspect. You have one Republican president who did better in his second term election than his first, and one Democrat who looks on track to have done better in his first term election than his second. That's not nearly enough data points to declare a trend. And if there were a general trend for Republicans to be gaining an ever greater share of the electorate (which there is no evidence for, and plenty against), why did McCain lose in 2008?

/why am I responding seriously to the derp?
 
2012-11-04 08:30:47 PM  

DamnYankees: Mrtraveler01: Spanky_McFarksalot: I'm a die hard Obama supporter and I can't shake the feeling that america is about to pull a Bush II.

maybe that the fault of the media. all the signs point to an Obama win, but I can't stick a fork in it.

What were the polls like at this point in 2004?

A pretty clear Bush win. Narrow but clear.


That's what I recalled too but wanted to make sure (and too lazy to Google).
 
2012-11-04 08:31:33 PM  

Spanky_McFarksalot: I'm a die hard Obama supporter and I can't shake the feeling that america is about to pull a Bush II.

maybe that the fault of the media. all the signs point to an Obama win, but I can't stick a fork in it.


I too have nightmares regarding the Bush years, but the facts on the ground are much, much different today than they were 8 years ago. Hell, the available statistics regarding early voting in Iowa, Ohio, and Nevada alone basically remove any suspense.
 
2012-11-04 08:31:43 PM  

Darth Macho: Why Bush won 2004:
* Americans always re-elect Presidents in the middle of wars (even Lincoln).
* 9/11.
* Multi-state bills banning gay marriage motivated conservative base.
* Liberals, enraged by popular opposition president, drove away moderate support with partisan vitriol and in an attempt to woo them back chose a unlikeable and indecisive blue-blood candidate from Massachusetts, thus alienating minority and working class voters (does this sound familiar?).
* Reagan-era Baby Boomers had not yet reached median life expectancy.


You forgot to mention the Swift Boaters who trashed Kerry for his military service, but praised Bush for transporting tropical plants across the U.S. while Kerry risked his life in Vietnam.
 
2012-11-04 08:32:55 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Here are the latest polls from the battleground states:


Michigan: Romney 47%, Obama 46% (Foster McCollum)


This one seems a bit off. I've never heard of Foster McCollum before, do they have a good rep?
 
2012-11-04 08:33:27 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Here are the latest polls from the battleground states:

Polls


Sadly, I think Romney will win FL, which will scuttle my 332-206 prediction in favor of the president. Too many polls over the last few days show him up there between 1-2 points.

Foster McCollum's MI poll is a major outlier.

VA is President Obama's FL; he's had a 1-2 point lead there for what feels like forever. This race is going to be over fairly early in the night, it seems.
 
2012-11-04 08:33:30 PM  

Darth Macho: * 2016 Senate Election: 10 Democratic and 24 Republican seats (class of 2010, the Tea Party)


Wow, only 10 Dem senators and all of them are from bright blue states. The Repubs will be crushed that year. All we have to do is get through 2014, which will admittedly be difficult. It will probably be a long time before we regain the House, though. What will have to happen first is a Republican president who farks up as much as Bush did.
 
2012-11-04 08:34:17 PM  

Vash The Stampede: This one seems a bit off. I've never heard of Foster McCollum before, do they have a good rep?


In their last poll of Florida they had Romney up 15.

Take that as you will.
 
2012-11-04 08:34:24 PM  

Darth Macho: randomjsa:
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.

What the hell, I'll answer.

Why Bush won 2004:
* Americans always re-elect Presidents in the middle of wars (even Lincoln).
* 9/11.
* Multi-state bills banning gay marriage motivated conservative base.
* Liberals, enraged by popular opposition president, drove away moderate support with partisan vitriol and in an attempt to woo them back chose a unlikeable and indecisive blue-blood candidate from Massachusetts, thus alienating minority and working class voters (does this sound familiar?).
* Reagan-era Baby Boomers had not yet reached median life expectancy.

What might happen 2014 and 2016:
* It's projected that the 2012 Senate elections will yield 53 Democratic-leaning seats and 47 Republican-leaning seats. Republicans will consider this another defeat.
* 2014 Senate Election: 20 Democratic and 13 Republican seats (class of 2008, Hope & Change era)
Link
* Likely a switch of 4 seats (AK, CO, MN, NH) leading to slim 51-seat GOP majority.
* 2015-2016: Republican revolt against Obama. Artificial scandal, possible impeachment, shutdown, etc.
* 2016 Senate Election: 10 Democratic and 24 Republican seats (class of 2010, the Tea Party)
Link
* Possibly a total Republican collapse, Democratic supermajority and end to the Tea Party.

So yeah. Good luck with the future, GOP.


I agree with most of what you said, but Al Franken's not gonna lose reelection.
 
2012-11-04 08:35:01 PM  

theknuckler_33: randomjsa: if the media and the entertainment industry hadn't been covering for this president for the last four years

Get it though your thick skull... not 'reporting' the right-wing nonsense you hear on AM radio is not 'covering' for the president. It's not reporting whack-job conspiracy theories and abject nonsense. Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin are pushing your ridiculously partisan buttons and you are buying it hook, line, and sinker. How many 'libs are stoopid' books have you bought?


This. A hundred gazillion times this.
 
2012-11-04 08:35:38 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Benevolent Misanthrope: Well, I have to hand it to the stupid farking press - they managed to turn this into a horse-race after all, when it should have been over months ago because of Romney's repeated efforts to shoot himself in the foot.

I'm completely disgusted with my country and its election process.

Seconded.

Let's move to our own planet.


Coming! Can I be comptroller?
 
2012-11-04 08:36:08 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Spanky_McFarksalot: I'm a die hard Obama supporter and I can't shake the feeling that america is about to pull a Bush II.

maybe that the fault of the media. all the signs point to an Obama win, but I can't stick a fork in it.

What were the polls like at this point in 2004?


Reverse of now. With Bush barely leading nationally and in enough states to put him over the top.
 
2012-11-04 08:37:07 PM  

eddiesocket: Mrtraveler01: Spanky_McFarksalot: I'm a die hard Obama supporter and I can't shake the feeling that america is about to pull a Bush II.

maybe that the fault of the media. all the signs point to an Obama win, but I can't stick a fork in it.

What were the polls like at this point in 2004?

Reverse of now. With Bush barely leading nationally and in enough states to put him over the top.


Eh, Bush was a little better of - he had an average RCP lead of 1.5. Obama is at 0.5. But Bush didn't have the electoral college edge that Obama does.
 
2012-11-04 08:38:13 PM  
Well you see Mr. Hume. When Obama leads in higher population states by 5-10 points in the polls. This will be offset in National Polls by lower population states in the south mainly that have Romney leading by 20 + points. However because of the electoral college it does not matter whether you win a state by .00001% or 99.99999% because in the end you get the same number of electoral votes. So even if Romney received 100% of the votes in the states he currently leads in and if Obama received 50.5%, Obama would still win because that is how the electoral college works. Having the popular vote does not ensure a presidency.

It would be extremely ironic if Romney had more in the popular vote, yet Obama won the electoral college, because a black president would then be (re)elected as a result of an institution that was put in place because the slave owners felt they would not be fairly represented in elections.
 
2012-11-04 08:38:51 PM  

eddiesocket: Mrtraveler01: Spanky_McFarksalot: I'm a die hard Obama supporter and I can't shake the feeling that america is about to pull a Bush II.

maybe that the fault of the media. all the signs point to an Obama win, but I can't stick a fork in it.

What were the polls like at this point in 2004?

Reverse of now. With Bush barely leading nationally and in enough states to put him over the top.


Sounds familar.

/so much that it's scary
 
2012-11-04 08:38:59 PM  

eddiesocket: Darth Macho: * 2016 Senate Election: 10 Democratic and 24 Republican seats (class of 2010, the Tea Party)

Wow, only 10 Dem senators and all of them are from bright blue states. The Repubs will be crushed that year. All we have to do is get through 2014, which will admittedly be difficult. It will probably be a long time before we regain the House, though. What will have to happen first is a Republican president who farks up as much as Bush did.


The house will be a while, but it probably won't be too long.

Consider the teabaggers' 3 biggest enemies, age, obesity, and time.

I give it until 2022.
 
2012-11-04 08:39:08 PM  

Lligeret: It would be extremely ironic if Romney had more in the popular vote, yet Obama won the electoral college, because a black president would then be (re)elected as a result of an institution that was put in place because the slave owners felt they would not be fairly represented in elections.


Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
Romney's now losing the Electoral College about 1/3 of the time he wins the popular vote in our simulations.
 
2012-11-04 08:41:08 PM  
yafh.com
 
2012-11-04 08:42:27 PM  

Mrtraveler01: DamnYankees: Mrtraveler01: Spanky_McFarksalot: I'm a die hard Obama supporter and I can't shake the feeling that america is about to pull a Bush II.

maybe that the fault of the media. all the signs point to an Obama win, but I can't stick a fork in it.

What were the polls like at this point in 2004?

A pretty clear Bush win. Narrow but clear.

That's what I recalled too but wanted to make sure (and too lazy to Google).


It's not the 04 election that you need to consider here. It's the 1992 election--the last time a sitting president got ousted. George HW Bush's loss was more of a shocker than W's win, because W had his war to keep him in place, he was riding the 9/11 patriotism wave, and the business scandals hadn't hit yet.

People should have been examining what was going on between Bush Sr. and Clinton to see what happened there, to know what might go down this time.
 
2012-11-04 08:43:02 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.


Yes. And also, fark you, that's why.
 
2012-11-04 08:43:44 PM  

stoli n coke: The house will be a while, but it probably won't be too long.

Consider the teabaggers' 3 biggest enemies, age, obesity, and time.

I give it until 2022


That 2022 date is probably more accurate than you think. The 2020 census is going to be very unkind to Republicans if current trends continue.
 
2012-11-04 08:43:51 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Mrtraveler01: DamnYankees: Mrtraveler01: Spanky_McFarksalot: I'm a die hard Obama supporter and I can't shake the feeling that america is about to pull a Bush II.

maybe that the fault of the media. all the signs point to an Obama win, but I can't stick a fork in it.

What were the polls like at this point in 2004?

A pretty clear Bush win. Narrow but clear.

That's what I recalled too but wanted to make sure (and too lazy to Google).

It's not the 04 election that you need to consider here. It's the 1992 election--the last time a sitting president got ousted. George HW Bush's loss was more of a shocker than W's win, because W had his war to keep him in place, he was riding the 9/11 patriotism wave, and the business scandals hadn't hit yet.

People should have been examining what was going on between Bush Sr. and Clinton to see what happened there, to know what might go down this time.


Lucky for the Dems, Romney doesn't have Clinton's charisma.
 
2012-11-04 08:44:00 PM  
PUBLICPOLICYPOLLING
Our final Virginia poll finds Barack Obama leading Mitt Romney 51-47 4 minutes ago


Their last poll had Obama up 3.
 
2012-11-04 08:44:09 PM  

Lorelle: 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.

Given the number of Teabagging nutjobs out there, I wouldn't be surprised if a few of them completely go off the deep end after the election. It's more than a little scary.


And each time, there will be freepers claiming knowledge that the guy who just gunned down seven people he imagined to be liberals was in fact himself a liberal trying to bring discredit on gun-toting Real Muricans. When it becomes clear that he shot people because he thought they were liberals, and thinks liberals should die, the response will be, "How DARE you try to bring politics into this, the man was clearly mentally ill."
 
2012-11-04 08:45:01 PM  

Gyrfalcon: People should have been examining what was going on between Bush Sr. and Clinton to see what happened there, to know what might go down this time.


How is that a better comparison? That comparison is terrible - the circumstances were wildly different, the incumbent's approval ratings don't match, the economy was very different and there was a third party candidate with huge support (relatively).

2004 is a much better comparison.
 
2012-11-04 08:46:58 PM  

DamnYankees: PUBLICPOLICYPOLLING
Our final Virginia poll finds Barack Obama leading Mitt Romney 51-47 4 minutes ago

Their last poll had Obama up 3.


Yep, the president is up 1-2 points there. Good to know.

I still don't know how VA became Democratic the last two years. I guess maybe it is a state more like fellow Mid-Atlantic state Maryland than it is like the Carolinas, Georgia, etc.?
 
2012-11-04 08:49:12 PM  

Lligeret: It would be extremely ironic if Romney had more in the popular vote, yet Obama won the electoral college, because a black president would then be (re)elected as a result of an institution that was put in place because the slave owners felt they would not be fairly represented in elections.


I'm in a very blue state, and just thought it would be fun to give Rmoney my vote, just to nudge this possibility along. The epic butthurt when the r's lose while 'winning' would be, well, epic.

Too bad I already voted.
 
2012-11-04 08:50:01 PM  

eddiesocket: Altitude5280: Death Eats a Cracker: I may have to unblock FNC on election night. It's going to be awesome watching a bubble being popped on live TV.

I advise EVERYONE that just before the Prez gets to 270, to switch over to Fox, and have the great pleasure of watching them have to announce Barack Obama as the winner. 😝

Yeah, that was fun four years ago. I also listened to Rush Limbaugh for the first time the next morning. Gonna have to do that again.


Hmm, I'm going to have to try this.

I did this after the Biden debate. Unfortunately that didn't have an "announced" winner, so they just did the standard "our guy won because derp" thing. I'd actually like to see how Thy spin that with an actual verified winner.

/assuming Obama wins
//already voted for him, but chickens and eggs and all that stuff
 
2012-11-04 08:50:14 PM  
The bottom line is that people don't get that an election can be close with one of the candidates still highly likely to win. The two are not mutually exclusive. And because its winner take all, it really doesn't matter how close it is.

I guess the sports analogy is the point spread. The spread can be close with one of the teams still strongly favored to win, which is the whole reason we bet on a point spread rather than who wins (it handicaps the underdog).
 
2012-11-04 08:51:57 PM  

bulldg4life: 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.


As Nate Silver said, no one ever lost their job claiming that an election was a horse race.
 
2012-11-04 08:53:14 PM  

Smelly McUgly: DamnYankees: PUBLICPOLICYPOLLING
Our final Virginia poll finds Barack Obama leading Mitt Romney 51-47 4 minutes ago

Their last poll had Obama up 3.

Yep, the president is up 1-2 points there. Good to know.

I still don't know how VA became Democratic the last two years. I guess maybe it is a state more like fellow Mid-Atlantic state Maryland than it is like the Carolinas, Georgia, etc.?


My liberal friend who lives there says that in the last half a decade or so, the northern part of Virginia has become overrun by former DC residents, turning the state blue. It's weird how the north is almost always more liberal than the south, pretty much everywhere.
 
2012-11-04 08:56:20 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.


9/10 bravo!
 
2012-11-04 08:57:01 PM  

DamnYankees: Lligeret: It would be extremely ironic if Romney had more in the popular vote, yet Obama won the electoral college, because a black president would then be (re)elected as a result of an institution that was put in place because the slave owners felt they would not be fairly represented in elections.

Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
Romney's now losing the Electoral College about 1/3 of the time he wins the popular vote in our simulations.




Yep. It doesn't matter if you have an energized voting base if it is in the wrong location. I am hopeful it happens, and not by a Bush/Gore margin, I hope it is at least a full 1% of the national population that it is different. Come on Alabama/Mississippi/Arkansas/Louisiana/etc... Democrats do your part vote Republican!!
 
2012-11-04 08:59:04 PM  

Jgok: eddiesocket: Altitude5280: Death Eats a Cracker: I may have to unblock FNC on election night. It's going to be awesome watching a bubble being popped on live TV.

I advise EVERYONE that just before the Prez gets to 270, to switch over to Fox, and have the great pleasure of watching them have to announce Barack Obama as the winner. 😝

Yeah, that was fun four years ago. I also listened to Rush Limbaugh for the first time the next morning. Gonna have to do that again.

Hmm, I'm going to have to try this.

I did this after the Biden debate. Unfortunately that didn't have an "announced" winner, so they just did the standard "our guy won because derp" thing. I'd actually like to see how Thy spin that with an actual verified winner.


He started out by saying "hey at least we kept Hillary out of the White House!" (Remember when the Clintons were totally evil and out to destroy the country? Funny how quickly Obama took over that role). Then he played Obama's acceptance speech and gave it the MST3K treatment, pausing every five seconds to harp on whatever Obama said and make some snide remark. Then callers called in to talk about how Obama had fooled everyone and we were all doomed. It was a fun morning, though I confess I only made it about an hour.
 
2012-11-04 08:59:50 PM  

eddiesocket: It's weird how the north is almost always more liberal than the south, pretty much everywhere.


Florida is the only exception to this rule.
 
2012-11-04 09:02:28 PM  

thornhill: As Nate Silver said, no one ever lost their job claiming that an election was a horse race.


Part of the problem is that some (most?) of these media types simply don't know how to understand the data. They'll see a 52/48 split in the polls in some state and believe the race is really close there. But poll watchers who've kept an eye on the trend lines and margins of error will see the race isn't close at all. But pushing this inaccurate assessment of the situation does a disservice to their viewers.
 
2012-11-04 09:02:47 PM  

themadtupper: 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.

538 (and other poll aggregators) are looking at several hundred polls. the margin of error on any given one of those might be 2-3 points, but the assumption is that if all of them show an advantage to one candidate of a few points, then it is fairly unlikely that all of them are statistical outliers.


Sure, and the average of all polls is currently 50.6% to 48.3%. Let's say that's the "true" number for the sake of example. Since the difference is 2.3%, some polls with a MoE of 3-4% (say) *could* show Romney leading, right? That's what I was originally getting at...
 
2012-11-04 09:03:10 PM  

quatchi: 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

Cool beans.

For what it's worth, I just heard David Frum call it for Obama on the Patrick Duffy show onna CBC radio.


Wait a minute here..........

Patrick Duffy has a show?!
 
2012-11-04 09:04:39 PM  

Shrugging Atlas: Hell, the available statistics regarding early voting in Iowa, Ohio, and Nevada alone basically remove any suspense.


yeah, I understand all that. but then I think...

0.tqn.com 

and I have second thoughts
 
2012-11-04 09:05:43 PM  

Mrtraveler01: eddiesocket: It's weird how the north is almost always more liberal than the south, pretty much everywhere.

Florida is the only exception to this rule.



Not really heavy population centers traditionally lean liberal. The northeast you have a lot of large cities, then further northeast you have all the city people that wanted to get away from the city. The midwest (northern portion) you have large cities surrounded by rural areas so you end up with blue islands in a red sea (Wisconsin for example typically looks all red, except for Madison, Milwaukee, and the college towns, then the rest is red). It is similar in the south however not quite to that extent due to history. Florida is farked up because old people all retire there whether they lean left or right. The west coast you have all the hippies so they go blue, although again once you hit rural sections for it it is pretty red.
 
2012-11-04 09:07:58 PM  

lemurs: But pushing this inaccurate assessment of the situation does a disservice to their viewers.


They have no obligation to their viewers. They are performing a service for their advertisers, and a horse-race keeps people glued to the TV through the car commercial to hear the latest on how Romney is making a comeback in key states.
 
2012-11-04 09:08:36 PM  
Actually, that was a lot more reasonable and honest in its delivery than i ever expected from Fox
 
2012-11-04 09:09:03 PM  
After Obama wins it this time around, I think we're going to see open calls from Fox for Electors from Obama states to vote for Romney anyway, regardless of what applicable state law has to say about it.
 
2012-11-04 09:09:25 PM  

wotthefark: themadtupper: 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.

538 (and other poll aggregators) are looking at several hundred polls. the margin of error on any given one of those might be 2-3 points, but the assumption is that if all of them show an advantage to one candidate of a few points, then it is fairly unlikely that all of them are statistical outliers.

DamnYankees: 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 ...


OK, thanks for that. But I was referring to an individual poll with a MoE of 3-4% being capable of showing Romney ahead, because the aggregate shows only about a 2-point difference between them. I didn't mean to suggest that their difference is within the aggregate MoE -- in fact, if it's anything like in my field, the final MoE for the aggregate is much smaller than the MoE from any individual poll.
 
2012-11-04 09:11:28 PM  
Maybe because he isn't sucking Obama's d*ck, like ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, TNT, CNN... shall I go on.
 
2012-11-04 09:11:43 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: I think that, perhaps, maybe, it just because that it's possible that Brit Hume just might, in fact, be a frickin' moron.
That's only speculative.


It's further only speculative that Brit Hume might also be puzzled by shoelaces.
 
2012-11-04 09:12:08 PM  
Calling Cindy Sheehan. Please pick up the white phone in the lobby.
 
2012-11-04 09:12:39 PM  
November 3, 1980 the polls had Carter winning. Reagan won with 489. 2012 is imitating 1980 in economy, gas prices, shortages and a middle east in turmoil. History repeats itself with regularity when people don't learn from it.
 
2012-11-04 09:12:58 PM  

Mean Daddy: Maybe because he isn't sucking Obama's d*ck, like ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, TNT, CNN... shall I go on.


No thanks.
 
2012-11-04 09:14:39 PM  

Mean Daddy: Maybe because he isn't sucking Obama's d*ck, like ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, TNT, CNN... shall I go on.


The Lamestream media is absolutely sucking Obama's cock. Just look at how much they ignored the Romney supporting Gallup poll and emphasized all the others.

graphics8.nytimes.com
 
2012-11-04 09:16:45 PM  
It is almost like most people would like to take their chances with Obama again despite the slow economic recovery because they aren't buying the Romney sales pitch.
 
2012-11-04 09:20:07 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: November 3, 1980 the polls had Carter winning. Reagan won with 489. 2012 is imitating 1980 in economy, gas prices, shortages and a middle east in turmoil. History repeats itself with regularity when people don't learn from it.


Yeah, like in 2008 when right-wingers were sure McCain was going to win despite the fact that Obama was the clear favorite in the polls.
 
2012-11-04 09:21:30 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: November 3, 1980 the polls had Carter winning. Reagan won with 489. 2012 is imitating 1980 in economy, gas prices, shortages and a middle east in turmoil. History repeats itself with regularity when people don't learn from it.


themonkeycage.org
 
2012-11-04 09:21:43 PM  

Mean Daddy: Maybe because he isn't sucking Obama's d*ck, like ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, TNT, CNN... shall I go on.


Awright, who brought this silly alt out of deep freeze for the occasion?
 
2012-11-04 09:22:27 PM  

Mean Daddy: Maybe because he isn't sucking Obama's d*ck, like ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, TNT, CNN... shall I go on.


Oh, you are one of those "only fox tells it straight" tards.

Can't wait to read your tears of impotent rage Tuesday. God damn, I seriously have a giant erection thinking off all the butthurt, I'm finally really excited, really really excited. It's like when I heard they were making a lord of the rings movie. I feel a similar sense of giddy excitement.

The tears and impotent rage of people like you.. Oh man, I feel so alive. I'm going to cum so hard listening to limbaugh the next morning.
 
2012-11-04 09:23:49 PM  
Regardless of election results, going off the grid Wednesday sounds amazing. Whether it be petulant whining or incessant gloating that I'll have to tolerate, I don't think I will want to be around anyone.
 
2012-11-04 09:25:19 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.


This graph explains the problem and why Romney will lose:

Fillibusters

Now fark off you ignorant troll.
 
2012-11-04 09:25:30 PM  

mainstreet62: quatchi: 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

Cool beans.

For what it's worth, I just heard David Frum call it for Obama on the Patrick Duffy show onna CBC radio.

Wait a minute here..........

Patrick Duffy has a show?!


Oh, FFS. I didn't say Patrick did I?

No, this guy. Mike Duffy.

www.mikeduffy.ca

You can see how one can easily mix the two up though. Right?
 
2012-11-04 09:25:34 PM  

theorellior: Mean Daddy: Maybe because he isn't sucking Obama's d*ck, like ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, TNT, CNN... shall I go on.

Awright, who brought this silly alt out of deep freeze for the occasion?


I don't know. I thought slipping "TNT" into that list was a hint that he's not being serious. Unless he thinks that reruns of Law and Order are sucking Obama's d*ck.

/there might be an SVU episode about that
//I never really watched that spinoff version of the show
///kinda creeped me out
 
2012-11-04 09:26:47 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: I don't know. I thought slipping "TNT" into that list was a hint that he's not being serious. Unless he thinks that reruns of Law and Order are sucking Obama's d*ck.


All the blah people in the NBA are in the tank for n0bama
 
2012-11-04 09:27:13 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Florida: Romney 49%, Obama 47% (Zogby)

Florida: Romney 48%, Obama 47% (YouGov)

Florida: Obama 46%, Romney 46% (Reuters/Ipsos)


Most Liberals are capable of looking at these numbers and thinking "Wow, Obama will likely lose Florida". Why can't Conservatives concede the same when the margins are so much bigger for Obama in Ohio?
 
2012-11-04 09:27:35 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: November 3, 1980 the polls had Carter winning. Reagan won with 489. 2012 is imitating 1980 in economy, gas prices, shortages and a middle east in turmoil. History repeats itself with regularity when people don't learn from it.


Except that's more made-up bullshiat from the Romney campaign. Carter was not ahead of Reagan the weekend before the election, except in an outlier poll. Additionally, Carter's popularity was much lower than Obama's and his popularity was further diminished by a dismal debate performance only a week before the election..
Link
 
2012-11-04 09:27:37 PM  

DamnYankees: Smeggy Smurf: November 3, 1980 the polls had Carter winning. Reagan won with 489. 2012 is imitating 1980 in economy, gas prices, shortages and a middle east in turmoil. History repeats itself with regularity when people don't learn from it.

[themonkeycage.org image 850x617]


If you say so, see ya Wednesday morning.
 
2012-11-04 09:28:42 PM  
I tend to take polls with a grain of salt. The one that predicts swing state A spot on is off its rocker on swing state B or C.
 
2012-11-04 09:31:40 PM  

Oldiron_79: I tend to take polls with a grain of salt. The one that predicts swing state A spot on is off its rocker on swing state B or C.


There's enough polling from different firms in the swing states that all the non-crazy ones have to be wrong for Obama to lose the electoral college.
 
2012-11-04 09:35:32 PM  

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

OK, thanks for that. But I was referring to an individual poll with a MoE of 3-4% being capable of showing Romney ahead, because the aggregate shows only about a 2-point difference between them. I didn't mean to suggest that their difference is within the aggregate MoE -- in fact, if it's anything like in my field, the final MoE for the aggregate is much smaller than the MoE from any individual poll


Yes the aggregate is a much smaller MOE. However on the individual poll level if you have an MOE of lets say 4% and the race is 45-49 that doesn't make it a tie nor does it make in favor for the one behind. Most individual polls have an n
With an MOE of ± 4% would be 40 however that 40 is not all going to one individual candidate. Is it possible? yes; is it probable? no. b is going to pick up some of those as it is binary so a 45-49 is not even close. Then you state well maybe the polling is off by 40 if this is the case then all 40 would have to be taken away from one candidate and given to another again, that's possible but extremely unlikely. With national polls you also have house effects (see Rasmussen) but even those with favorable house effects towards Romney have Obama within 2 points. If this is the case and that poll is favorable towards Republicans, Romney is screwed.

With the aggregate polls where they are I don't see Romney getting the popular vote.
 
2012-11-04 09:35:47 PM  
I'm liking how the polls have looked this week, In Nate I Trust, but don't get me wrong. The butthole isn't coming unclenched until I see Brit Hume dejectedly call Ohio for Obama.
 
2012-11-04 09:35:51 PM  

Oldiron_79: I tend to take polls with a grain of salt. The one that predicts swing state A spot on is off its rocker on swing state B or C.


There is a lot of weird stuff with the polls this time.  The likely voter determination is different from national to state in some polls in ways it makes no sense.  And poll to poll are widely varied.  But I have to think that since the majority of polls point one way, that the makeup of the likely voters is going to be D+7 against all odds.  Though, to be fair, many of the polls today and yesterday dropped back to D+4 or close.  That's still pretty high in a year like this.  Plus, only 9% or so of people respond to polls.  So, if the polls are right, then they are right.  If they are wrong, then I won't be too surprised either. 
 
But I won't believe a Romney win until the counting is finished.  I don't see Obama losing this.
 
2012-11-04 09:36:05 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: I don't know. I thought slipping "TNT" into that list was a hint that he's not being serious.


I thought perhaps so, but the subsequent Cindy Sheehan comment made me think that someone was just playing the Crazy Game and I got bored.
 
2012-11-04 09:37:10 PM  

Mean Daddy: Maybe because he isn't sucking Obama's d*ck, like ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, TNT, CNN... shall I go on.


Man, you "conservatives" are just obsessed with Obama's cock, aren't you?

i159.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-04 09:37:37 PM  

robsul82: I'm liking how the polls have looked this week, In Nate I Trust, but don't get me wrong. The butthole isn't coming unclenched until I see Brit Hume dejectedly call Ohio for Obama.


This. 2000 made me distrust thinking anything is a lock until the magic number 270 comes up.
 
2012-11-04 09:37:49 PM  

theorellior: Mean Daddy: Maybe because he isn't sucking Obama's d*ck, like ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, TNT, CNN... shall I go on.

Awright, who brought this silly alt out of deep freeze for the occasion?


I think Amos Butthurtos or EnviroPhil got banned so, y'know...
 
2012-11-04 09:38:30 PM  

mrshowrules: Dusk-You-n-Me: Florida: Romney 49%, Obama 47% (Zogby)

Florida: Romney 48%, Obama 47% (YouGov)

Florida: Obama 46%, Romney 46% (Reuters/Ipsos)

Most Liberals are capable of looking at these numbers and thinking "Wow, Obama will likely lose Florida". Why can't Conservatives concede the same when the margins are so much bigger for Obama in Ohio?


What is because they live in a different reality to all others including pragmatic independents? Alex.
 
2012-11-04 09:40:23 PM  
Last polls I've had come across my PollTracker app -

OH - 52-47 Obama (PPP, Nov. 4)
VA - 51-47 Obama (PPP, Nov. 4)

FL - 50-48 Romney (Pulse Opinion Research, Oct. 29)
OH - 48-46 Obama (Pulse Opinion Research, Oct. 29)
WI - 49-48 Obama (Pulse Opinion Research, Oct. 29)
VA - 49-48 Obama (Pulse Opinion Research, Oct. 29)

/never heard of this Pulse Opinion Research, and yes I know PPP is a Dem lean
 
2012-11-04 09:40:54 PM  

theorellior: robsul82: I'm liking how the polls have looked this week, In Nate I Trust, but don't get me wrong. The butthole isn't coming unclenched until I see Brit Hume dejectedly call Ohio for Obama.

This. 2000 made me distrust thinking anything is a lock until the magic number 270 comes up.


Btw, RealClearPolitics 2000 election analysis is HILARIOUS in retrospect. Cached version here.

November 6, 2000
RCP Electoral College Analysis:
Bush 446 Gore 92
Bush 51.2 Gore 41.8 Nader 5.7
 
2012-11-04 09:41:33 PM  

theorellior: robsul82: I'm liking how the polls have looked this week, In Nate I Trust, but don't get me wrong. The butthole isn't coming unclenched until I see Brit Hume dejectedly call Ohio for Obama.

This. 2000 made me distrust thinking anything is a lock until the magic number 270 comes up.


No shiat. I mean, best of all worlds, I'm in the ODT on Tuesday just waiting for the west coast polls to close so that CA/WA/OR makes it official like 2008, but.
 
2012-11-04 09:44:23 PM  

robsul82: theorellior: robsul82: I'm liking how the polls have looked this week, In Nate I Trust, but don't get me wrong. The butthole isn't coming unclenched until I see Brit Hume dejectedly call Ohio for Obama.

This. 2000 made me distrust thinking anything is a lock until the magic number 270 comes up.

No shiat. I mean, best of all worlds, I'm in the ODT on Tuesday just waiting for the west coast polls to close so that CA/WA/OR makes it official like 2008, but.


At this point, I won't believe anything till at least December.
 
2012-11-04 09:44:47 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: November 3, 1980 the polls had Carter winning. Reagan won with 489. 2012 is imitating 1980 in economy, gas prices, shortages and a middle east in turmoil. History repeats itself with regularity when people don't learn from it.



Polls are a hell of a lot more accurate now than they were in 1980, so that's a laughable talking point. State polls were practically brand new at that time, and they were shiatty. But if you want to hang your hat on that flimsy comparison to get you through the next 36 hours, that's cool, I guess.
 
2012-11-04 09:46:12 PM  

Bag of Hammers: I think Amos Butthurtos... got banned


The ani-immigration nutjob named after an annoying insect? Huh. He wasn't so bad, unless you got him in a thread about non-white people.
 
2012-11-04 09:49:38 PM  

Mean Daddy: Maybe because he isn't sucking Obama's d*ck, like ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, TNT, CNN... shall I go on


One day the Republicans will stop blaming the media and start looking at what wrong with their party

One day.....
 
2012-11-04 09:50:08 PM  

Lligeret: Mrtraveler01: eddiesocket: It's weird how the north is almost always more liberal than the south, pretty much everywhere.

Florida is the only exception to this rule.


Not really heavy population centers traditionally lean liberal. The northeast you have a lot of large cities, then further northeast you have all the city people that wanted to get away from the city. The midwest (northern portion) you have large cities surrounded by rural areas so you end up with blue islands in a red sea (Wisconsin for example typically looks all red, except for Madison, Milwaukee, and the college towns, then the rest is red). It is similar in the south however not quite to that extent due to history. Florida is farked up because old people all retire there whether they lean left or right. The west coast you have all the hippies so they go blue, although again once you hit rural sections for it it is pretty red.


I was referring to the whole "Florida gets more liberal the further south you go" part than it's standing compared to the rest of the country.

But i see you point.
 
2012-11-04 09:50:17 PM  
Ratliff is hurt. Maybe not.
 
2012-11-04 09:50:52 PM  
Whoops, wrong tab.
 
2012-11-04 09:51:45 PM  
Obviously the polls are not taking all the vote suppression and stealing into account.
 
2012-11-04 09:53:07 PM  
As of about a half hour ago, Nate says that if the national polls turn out to be +1.5 for Obama, it's a 100% chance he wins te electoral college. Also if trends hold, Obama is heading into Tuesday with the blowout numbers he had back before the first debate.
 
2012-11-04 09:53:39 PM  

robsul82: Ratliff is hurt. Maybe not.


Eyebeam looks around all concerned.

/Obscure? Fark don't fail me now. 
 
2012-11-04 09:55:59 PM  
www.rawstory.com 

www.mykoreanmom.com
 
2012-11-04 09:58:38 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: As of about a half hour ago, Nate says that if the national polls turn out to be +1.5 for Obama, it's a 100% chance he wins te electoral college. Also if trends hold, Obama is heading into Tuesday with the blowout numbers he had back before the first debate.


It really is amazing that Romney never managed to tie or jump ahead of Obama in any of 538's graphs.

Now we wait to see whether reality meets simulation.
 
2012-11-04 09:59:28 PM  

theorellior: It really is amazing that Romney never managed to tie or jump ahead of Obama in any of 538's graphs.

Now we wait to see whether reality meets simulation.


I seem to remember Nate saying that in the entire campaign, only 2 STATES ever switched between the candidates - Florida and NC.
 
2012-11-04 10:00:11 PM  
Fox: You've been making sh*t up against Obama and lying campaigning for Mitt Romney 24/7 since he became the presumptive nominee... What did you do wrong? You colossal f*ck ups!
 
2012-11-04 10:01:34 PM  

theorellior: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: As of about a half hour ago, Nate says that if the national polls turn out to be +1.5 for Obama, it's a 100% chance he wins te electoral college. Also if trends hold, Obama is heading into Tuesday with the blowout numbers he had back before the first debate.

It really is amazing that Romney never managed to tie or jump ahead of Obama in any of 538's graphs.

Now we wait to see whether reality meets simulation.


At this point, it's about whether the polling is statistically biased or not. Are they reaching a representative population? Are there tons of people lying in ways that a favorable Obama but not Romney?
 
2012-11-04 10:04:27 PM  

12349876: At this point, it's about whether the polling is statistically biased or not. Are they reaching a representative population? Are there tons of people lying in ways that a favorable Obama but not Romney?


Because of the cell phone problem I'd think the bias would be the other way, but I'm not gonna double-guess any more and try to chill until Tuesday night.
 
2012-11-04 10:05:07 PM  

theorellior: 12349876: At this point, it's about whether the polling is statistically biased or not. Are they reaching a representative population? Are there tons of people lying in ways that a favorable Obama but not Romney?

Because of the cell phone problem I'd think the bias would be the other way, but I'm not gonna double-guess any more and try to chill until Tuesday night.


Cell phone problem plus non-polling of spanish speakers (look at the 2010 NV Senate race).
 
2012-11-04 10:06:18 PM  

Lligeret: Obama would still win because that is how the electoral college works. Having the popular vote does not ensure a presidency.


Back in 2000 I remember the Mormon Republicans(there I go repeating myself) I was going to school with who were glad that the electoral college was going to elect Bush even though Gore won the popular vote. I wonder how they will feel if their coreligionist loses the same way.
 
2012-11-04 10:09:48 PM  
I wonder if Brit and Jack Cafferty ever get together and trade tips on the looking-sourpuss-like-droopy-dawg-makes-you-seem-like-a-serious-journa list approach to punditry
 
2012-11-04 10:12:07 PM  

ItchyMcDoogle: Mean Daddy: Maybe because he isn't sucking Obama's d*ck, like ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, TNT, CNN... shall I go on

One day the Republicans will stop blaming the media and start looking at what wrong with their party

One day.....


i.imgur.com 

.. But not today.
 
2012-11-04 10:13:01 PM  
Here are the state polling averages on Pollster right now. Next to them I've listed the average that the polls were "off" by per state in 2004, which this election is being compared to:

CO: Obama +0.7 (off by 0.5 in Dem's favor in 2004)
IA: Obama +2.6 (off by 0.2 in Dem's favor in 2004)
NV: Obama +3.1 (off by 1.9 in Rep's favor in 2004)
NC: Romeny +2.5 (off by 4.6 in Dem's favor in 2004)
PA: Obama +5.6 (off by 1.0 in Rep's favor in 2004)
WI: Obama +4.2 (off by 1.4 in Rep's favor in 2004)
FL: Romney +0.8 (off by 4.9 in Dem's favor in 2004)
MI: Obama +6.2 (off by 0.1 in Rep's favor in 2004)
NH: Obama +2.2 (off by 1.0 in Dem's favor in 2004)
OH: Obama +3.2 (off by 2.3 in Dem's favor in 2004)
VA: Obama +1.1 (off by 1.0 in Dem's favor in 2004)

So in every single instance where Obama is leading the polls, the polls would have to be MORE inaccurate than they were in 2004 -- in some cases WAY MORE inaccurate -- in order for him to lose any of those states.

BUT STILL -- DEMS HAVE TO F*CKING VOTE!!!
 
2012-11-04 10:13:57 PM  
Here are my predictions.

Obama
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Rhode Island
Vermont
Wisconsin
Pennsylvania
Oregon

Romney
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Tennessee
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming
 
2012-11-04 10:14:17 PM  

spongeboob: Back in 2000 I remember the Mormon Republicans(there I go repeating myself) I was going to school with who were glad that the electoral college was going to elect Bush even though Gore won the popular vote. I wonder how they will feel if their coreligionist loses the same way.


If Kerry had won, IIRC, 200K more votes in Ohio, he would've won Ohio and with it the Electoral College, while losing the popular vote by 2,500,000 votes.

Now THAT would've been some sweet tears, had that happened.
 
2012-11-04 10:21:45 PM  

thenewmissus: Romney...
Washington

I'll wager a month of Total Fark that Romney doesn't win either Washington.

/ DC and State
// That gives you 50% better odds
/// Shhhhh
 
2012-11-04 10:24:26 PM  

thenewmissus: Here are my predictions.


You think Romney will win Washington?
 
2012-11-04 10:27:33 PM  
Wednesday is going to be a rough day.

The thing is, the modern conservative movement has never had to acknowledge an out-and-out loss. They've been winning since the 1994 takeover of the House of Representatives. Yes, they lost the 96 presidential election, but they exacted their revenge on a president who should have known better, and that made it all better. The vitriol helped solidify their base. Progress was still being made. In 2000, all their dreams came true, and later, those dreams turned into fever dream fantasies as they gained control of the entire congress. They had political capital and by gum they were going to spend it. And by effectively crippling the senate through the filibuster, they don't even need to have a majority to run things, thanks to spineless Democrats who will never reach a supermajority.

What's that? They lost the White House in 2000? Well, yes, but they've been able to justify that in their minds. They live in a carefully constructed fantasy world where Obama was just a fluke, a bump in the road caused by bad timing, good marketing, mad telepromter skillz, and a wave of misplaced enthusiasm. But after four years of this guy, there's simply no way people will want to reelect him, especially not after the way they've roughed him up. The final victory should be at hand. But if Obama is reelected, two things that they simply can't process will have happened; people actually think he's doing a decent job, and people aren't agreeing with them.

Remember, the unofficial motto of the republican party is, "I can't believe that everyone in the world doesn't think exactly like me." They can no more understand it than a caveman could understand an iPad.
 
2012-11-04 10:28:18 PM  

thenewmissus: Here are my predictions.


Looking at your posting history, I'm going to assume you're not a right wing troll and that the Washington prediction was a goof. I officially take back my mocking.
 
2012-11-04 10:33:05 PM  
I predict the ER's will have a sudden surge of stroke and cardiac emergencies Tuesday night. Gun sales will skyrocket.
 
2012-11-04 10:37:38 PM  

Shirley Ujest: I predict the ER's will have a sudden surge of stroke and cardiac emergencies Tuesday night. Gun sales will skyrocket.


Buy stock in those nose plugs that supply oxygen to the elderly.
 
2012-11-04 10:38:32 PM  
Real clever Brit. "It's puzzling" is just enough to cause Fox watchers to infer "hmm, something's fishy about this". I think we'll see more and more of the Fox pundits take up this new narrative tomorrow, so they can easily segue into "the election was rigged" come Tuesday and run with it for the next four years. They may be despicable and devious, but they sure are business savvy.
 
2012-11-04 10:39:17 PM  
How could this have happened?

Because maybe people really aren't that stupid to vote for a shiathead like Romney after all.
 
2012-11-04 10:41:12 PM  

robsul82: Last polls I've had come across my PollTracker app -

OH - 52-47 Obama (PPP, Nov. 4)
VA - 51-47 Obama (PPP, Nov. 4)

FL - 50-48 Romney (Pulse Opinion Research, Oct. 29)
OH - 48-46 Obama (Pulse Opinion Research, Oct. 29)
WI - 49-48 Obama (Pulse Opinion Research, Oct. 29)
VA - 49-48 Obama (Pulse Opinion Research, Oct. 29)

/never heard of this Pulse Opinion Research, and yes I know PPP is a Dem lean


When the hell did WI get so close?
 
2012-11-04 10:41:48 PM  
How is the polling for Ryan's house seat my google-fu is weak tonight.
 
2012-11-04 10:42:59 PM  

Thigvald the Big-Balled: When the hell did WI get so close?


It didn't. Polls a big outlier. RCP average is D+4.2.
 
2012-11-04 10:43:22 PM  

robsul82: I'm liking how the polls have looked this week, In Nate I Trust, but don't get me wrong. The butthole isn't coming unclenched until I see Brit Hume dejectedly call Ohio for Obama.


This.

I KNOW the polls and statistics look good for Obama and Princeton/538/Votamatic/etc. all agree Obama will win -- and that it would an unprecedented polling failure for Romney to pull off a victory -- but:

1) I don't trust the vote count of Republican-governed states as far as I could throw Chris Christie
2) Voter suppression via long lines etc. in Republican-governed swing states
3) One in a thousand or one in a hundred are both too likely to occur for my comfort.

So, yeah, looking at the polling numbers, it's almost inconceivable that Romney will win, but there are too many moving parts and anything more than a .0000001 chance is too high for me.
 
2012-11-04 10:45:33 PM  

robsul82: spongeboob: Back in 2000 I remember the Mormon Republicans(there I go repeating myself) I was going to school with who were glad that the electoral college was going to elect Bush even though Gore won the popular vote. I wonder how they will feel if their coreligionist loses the same way.

If Kerry had won, IIRC, 200K more votes in Ohio, he would've won Ohio and with it the Electoral College, while losing the popular vote by 2,500,000 votes.

Now THAT would've been some sweet tears, had that happened.



I think we wouldn't have to worry about the Tea Party, they would have all died of apoplexy.
 
2012-11-04 10:47:29 PM  

Kibbler: I wonder if Brit and Jack Cafferty ever get together and trade tips on the looking-sourpuss-like-droopy-dawg-makes-you-seem-like-a-serious-journa list approach to punditry


Coffee at Starbucks every morning. "No, you need to frown a little more, and your eyes should turn down just a tad at the corners."
 
2012-11-04 10:47:37 PM  

Thigvald the Big-Balled: When the hell did WI get so close?



robsul82 made the mistake of only grabbing one or two polls per state, and from only two pollsters. Obama is up over 4 points in WI on average right now.
 
2012-11-04 10:51:14 PM  

DamnYankees: theorellior: robsul82: I'm liking how the polls have looked this week, In Nate I Trust, but don't get me wrong. The butthole isn't coming unclenched until I see Brit Hume dejectedly call Ohio for Obama.

This. 2000 made me distrust thinking anything is a lock until the magic number 270 comes up.

Btw, RealClearPolitics 2000 election analysis is HILARIOUS in retrospect. Cached version here.

November 6, 2000
RCP Electoral College Analysis:
Bush 446 Gore 92
Bush 51.2 Gore 41.8 Nader 5.7


Holy crap that's about as bad as Glenn Beck's map for this election which has Romney winning every state but Colorado.

What the hell made RCP think Bush was going to win 446 Electoral Votes in 2000?
 
2012-11-04 10:52:20 PM  

spongeboob: How is the polling for Ryan's house seat my google-fu is weak tonight.


I couldn't find any polls, but his election record is pretty consistent: he wins reelection every time by a large margin (with 60-68% of the vote). Sounds like his district is pretty solidly Republican. I imagine it would be a lot easier to find news about the race if it were at all close.
 
2012-11-04 10:56:27 PM  

Thigvald the Big-Balled: robsul82: Last polls I've had come across my PollTracker app -

OH - 52-47 Obama (PPP, Nov. 4)
VA - 51-47 Obama (PPP, Nov. 4)

FL - 50-48 Romney (Pulse Opinion Research, Oct. 29)
OH - 48-46 Obama (Pulse Opinion Research, Oct. 29)
WI - 49-48 Obama (Pulse Opinion Research, Oct. 29)
VA - 49-48 Obama (Pulse Opinion Research, Oct. 29)

/never heard of this Pulse Opinion Research, and yes I know PPP is a Dem lean

When the hell did WI get so close?


It probably doesn't hurt that Pulse Opinion Research is the organization that handles the polling for Rasmussen, using the same methodology.
 
2012-11-04 10:56:57 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


Your guy leading brings in more big money donors, who will be less willing to invest in a losing candidate.
 
2012-11-04 11:01:08 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: Thigvald the Big-Balled: When the hell did WI get so close?


robsul82 made the mistake of only grabbing one or two polls per state, and from only two pollsters. Obama is up over 4 points in WI on average right now.


Well, I was just listing the most recent alerts I got over PollTracker, that's all.

Robots are Strong: It probably doesn't hurt that Pulse Opinion Research is the organization that handles the polling for Rasmussen, using the same methodology.


Ohhhhhhhh. Gotcha.
 
2012-11-04 11:04:57 PM  

DamnYankees: AkaDad: I heart Fark memes.

I work in Fark memes.

So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.

Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.

But trust me.... You don't.

I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you dont know what you are talking about.

This is how bad info gets passed around.

If you dont know about the topic....Dont make yourself sound like you do.

Cuz some Farkers belive anything they hear.


Kudos, it's been a while since I've seen the whole thing.
 
2012-11-04 11:10:53 PM  
Pulse Opinion Research

More like Poor Opinion Research


Amirite??
 
2012-11-04 11:12:03 PM  

wotthefark: Pulse Opinion Research

More like Poor Opinion Research


Amirite??


How about Pure Opinion Research...
 
2012-11-04 11:12:54 PM  

Great_Milenko: Wednesday is going to be a rough day.

The thing is, the modern conservative movement has never had to acknowledge an out-and-out loss. They've been winning since the 1994 takeover of the House of Representatives. Yes, they lost the 96 presidential election, but they exacted their revenge on a president who should have known better, and that made it all better. The vitriol helped solidify their base. Progress was still being made. In 2000, all their dreams came true, and later, those dreams turned into fever dream fantasies as they gained control of the entire congress. They had political capital and by gum they were going to spend it. And by effectively crippling the senate through the filibuster, they don't even need to have a majority to run things, thanks to spineless Democrats who will never reach a supermajority.

What's that? They lost the White House in 2000? Well, yes, but they've been able to justify that in their minds. They live in a carefully constructed fantasy world where Obama was just a fluke, a bump in the road caused by bad timing, good marketing, mad telepromter skillz, and a wave of misplaced enthusiasm. But after four years of this guy, there's simply no way people will want to reelect him, especially not after the way they've roughed him up. The final victory should be at hand. But if Obama is reelected, two things that they simply can't process will have happened; people actually think he's doing a decent job, and people aren't agreeing with them.

Remember, the unofficial motto of the republican party is, "I can't believe that everyone in the world doesn't think exactly like me." They can no more understand it than a caveman could understand an iPad.


Nah, that was 2008.

The Republicans thought they had it and that Dubya wasn't going to sink them. They still had the Silent Majority, still had their finger on the pulse of what REAL Americans thought. And as soon as it hit 11PM EST, they started screaming because they had to face reality: not only did Dubya lose, he broke the white-only label on the presidency. Dubya failed so hard he took down the racial rulebook that most Republicans live by.

2010 encouraged them because, to them, it gave them hope that maybe Obama was a fluke. Sure, Dubya was a failure, but he no longer counted because they said so. They were really the ones in charge, the ones with power, and that was going to fix the 'mistake' of 2008. They ignored that their actions cost them the Senate (and with that, their way to impeach the Democrat for existing) and were so in love with being 'back on top' that they pretended that they were totally back in power again. And overstepped right off a farking cliff.

2012 will cement their fears about 2008. Making Obama a one-term president is a big deal, but they'll shrug it off like they always do when something doesn't go completely their way. Obama's second term will turn them into foaming hate machines, just as they really want. They can't stand Romney and did nothing right up until the first debate, but this loss will destroy their morale. Sure, they'll foam and get even angrier and start screeching for their elected officials to call Obama a racial slur, but it will be the screaming of the castrated sadsacks whose time is finally up.
 
2012-11-04 11:13:09 PM  

Skleenar: Modern Conservatism is a Con game played against the base.


~Ya think?~
 
2012-11-04 11:15:28 PM  

DamnYankees: Smeggy Smurf: November 3, 1980 the polls had Carter winning. Reagan won with 489. 2012 is imitating 1980 in economy, gas prices, shortages and a middle east in turmoil. History repeats itself with regularity when people don't learn from it.

[themonkeycage.org image 850x617]


Interesting graph, but it notes that it includes private campaign polls. Those poll results would not have been known to the public at the time, just as we don't know what the O and R campaigns' polls are telling them.

What were the _public_ polls saying in the last couple days before Reagan's landslide? Anybody know?
 
2012-11-04 11:16:56 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.


I like this tremendously. This in a nutshell has been the election cycle on Fox News. It's weird, if you capture a segment of the population and can keep them in your bubble, what a job it is to let them in on what the rest of the world has been doing for the last few months. The trend in conservative reporting seems to be shifting blame on Sandy and that Obama, the jerk he is, helped people and responded presidentially, thus erasing the 4 year record of burning churches and insulting elderly women. What a world.
 
2012-11-04 11:23:21 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: spongeboob: How is the polling for Ryan's house seat my google-fu is weak tonight.

I couldn't find any polls, but his election record is pretty consistent: he wins reelection every time by a large margin (with 60-68% of the vote). Sounds like his district is pretty solidly Republican. I imagine it would be a lot easier to find news about the race if it were at all close.


I guess we can't expect to win every race.
 
2012-11-04 11:24:32 PM  
The polls are faked: Virgil Goode wins in a landslide.
 
2012-11-04 11:30:35 PM  
The fact that Tagg or Tripp or Bapp or one of the Rmoney sons is part owner of the company


haahahahaahahhahahahahaa
 
2012-11-04 11:31:17 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: Thigvald the Big-Balled: When the hell did WI get so close?


robsul82 made the mistake of only grabbing one or two polls per state, and from only two pollsters. Obama is up over 4 points in WI on average right now.


Good to know.

Won't stop me from drinking my nerves away Tuesday, but still good to know.
 
2012-11-04 11:31:37 PM  

Lligeret: Mrtraveler01: eddiesocket: It's weird how the north is almost always more liberal than the south, pretty much everywhere.

Florida is the only exception to this rule.


Not really heavy population centers traditionally lean liberal. The northeast you have a lot of large cities, then further northeast you have all the city people that wanted to get away from the city. The midwest (northern portion) you have large cities surrounded by rural areas so you end up with blue islands in a red sea (Wisconsin for example typically looks all red, except for Madison, Milwaukee, and the college towns, then the rest is red). It is similar in the south however not quite to that extent due to history. Florida is farked up because old people all retire there whether they lean left or right. The west coast you have all the hippies so they go blue, although again once you hit rural sections for it it is pretty red.


To elaborate on the bolded part: here in California, the most heavily populated areas (especially Los Angeles and the Bay Area) are deep blue, but once you get into less densely-populated areas (especially south of San Diego and north of Humboldt) it turns red quickly, and the rednecks and Teahadis become very well-represented. Overall, however, the state remains deep blue because the red areas are so sparsely populated.

I'm not as familiar with Washington politics, but in Oregon, I've noticed that the state tends to be pretty blue to the west of Crater Lake and Mount Hood, and pretty red to the east. As a result, Oregon was considered a swing state as recently as 2004.
 
2012-11-04 11:35:53 PM  

anfrind: south of San Diego


Mexico?
 
2012-11-04 11:36:28 PM  

wotthefark: Pulse Opinion Research

More like Poor Opinion Research


Amirite??


IIRC from 538, Pulse Opinion Research is the same as Rasmussen, just under a different name.
 
2012-11-04 11:40:17 PM  

anfrind: Lligeret: Mrtraveler01: eddiesocket: It's weird how the north is almost always more liberal than the south, pretty much everywhere.

Florida is the only exception to this rule.


Not really heavy population centers traditionally lean liberal. The northeast you have a lot of large cities, then further northeast you have all the city people that wanted to get away from the city. The midwest (northern portion) you have large cities surrounded by rural areas so you end up with blue islands in a red sea (Wisconsin for example typically looks all red, except for Madison, Milwaukee, and the college towns, then the rest is red). It is similar in the south however not quite to that extent due to history. Florida is farked up because old people all retire there whether they lean left or right. The west coast you have all the hippies so they go blue, although again once you hit rural sections for it it is pretty red.

To elaborate on the bolded part: here in California, the most heavily populated areas (especially Los Angeles and the Bay Area) are deep blue, but once you get into less densely-populated areas (especially south of San Diego and north of Humboldt) it turns red quickly, and the rednecks and Teahadis become very well-represented. Overall, however, the state remains deep blue because the red areas are so sparsely populated.

I'm not as familiar with Washington politics, but in Oregon, I've noticed that the state tends to be pretty blue to the west of Crater Lake and Mount Hood, and pretty red to the east. As a result, Oregon was considered a swing state as recently as 2004.


WA is the same way. East of the cascades is all red. Although WA-8 keeps re-electing repubs due to the combination of affluent suburban areas, exurban communities, and a sizable Mormon population much like Illinois's 10th congressional district or Connecticut's 4th congressional district in terms of voting patterns.

Sorry my district gave you this douche.

www.nationaljournal.com
 
2012-11-04 11:41:18 PM  

Doc Daneeka: wotthefark: Pulse Opinion Research

More like Poor Opinion Research


Amirite??

IIRC from 538, Pulse Opinion Research is the same as Rasmussen, just under a different name.


POOP Orifice Research

Amirite.
 
2012-11-04 11:53:05 PM  

DamnYankees: anfrind: south of San Diego

Mexico?


I was actually thinking of the Escondido area (where my grandparents lived until about 15 years ago), but after checking Google Maps I realized that it's between Los Angeles and San Diego. Oops.

/no reason for me to visit Escondido now that I don't have family living there
 
2012-11-04 11:57:30 PM  
Brit Hume looks so tired and sad in that picture. I hope he cries Tuesday night.
 
2012-11-05 12:00:17 AM  

FuturePastNow: Brit Hume looks so tired and sad in that picture. I hope he cries poops Tuesday night.

 
2012-11-05 12:03:07 AM  

whidbey: FuturePastNow: Brit Hume looks so tired and sad in that picture. I hope he cries poops Tuesday night.


He does look like he needs some fleet. I'm sure Megyn Kelly can hook him up.
 
2012-11-05 12:05:17 AM  

shower_in_my_socks: Smeggy Smurf: November 3, 1980 the polls had Carter winning. Reagan won with 489. 2012 is imitating 1980 in economy, gas prices, shortages and a middle east in turmoil. History repeats itself with regularity when people don't learn from it.


Polls are a hell of a lot more accurate now than they were in 1980, so that's a laughable talking point. State polls were practically brand new at that time, and they were shiatty. But if you want to hang your hat on that flimsy comparison to get you through the next 36 hours, that's cool, I guess.


It's also a lie. Carter was below Reagan from before the national conventions.
 
2012-11-05 12:07:46 AM  

randomjsa: I'm not puzzled at all.

As stated, if the media and the entertainment industry hadn't been covering for this presidentthe GOP 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.they wouldn't even be a national party anymore, and their players would have jumped ship to the LP.


Fixed.
 
2012-11-05 12:34:11 AM  
Don't lie, some of you super liberals actually thought there was a chance BO would lose as recently as a week ago.

There was never any question. Not yesterday, not a week ago, not a month ago, not four years ago. Math can't lie. Don't listen to the news, they're not in the business of disseminating facts. Once upon a time they were, but no longer.

The more fun part now is, do the Republicans have a snowball's chance in 2016, regardless of who the candidates are? I think we'll save the predictions until the the election day thread.
 
2012-11-05 12:34:15 AM  

Surool: Fox: You've been making sh*t up against Obama and lying campaigning for Mitt Romney 24/7 since he became the presumptive nominee... What did you do wrong? You colossal f*ck ups!


Oh darn. They accidentally got the result that leads to more profit. Heck!
 
2012-11-05 12:46:27 AM  
imgs.xkcd.com
 
2012-11-05 12:48:54 AM  

justtray: Don't lie, some of you super liberals actually thought there was a chance BO would lose as recently as a week ago.


People got a bit jittery when it looked as if the American public had gone insane or something. Understandable
 
2012-11-05 01:10:10 AM  

rynthetyn: Yeah. And Rick Scott and the Florida Republicans deliberately changed early voting so that it ended the Saturday before the election to minimize turnout by black voters who historically would carpool to go vote after church on Sunday.


This will backfire. The Republicans don't seem to appreciate the fact that America is a Christian nation, and that we will not vote for a party that is so blatantly anti-Christian.
 
2012-11-05 01:19:57 AM  

TheBigJerk: randomjsa: I'm not puzzled at all.

As stated, if the media and the entertainment industry hadn't been covering for this president the GOP 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.they wouldn't even be a national party anymore, and their players would have jumped ship to the LP Peter Pinguid Society..

Fixed.


Improved.

/Fallopian 2016!
 
2012-11-05 01:21:39 AM  
Elizabeth Warren: 2016
 
2012-11-05 01:24:51 AM  

coeyagi: Phins: Altitude5280: The Freeper threads on the polls are quite amusing.

They're going to have some sort of psychotic break when Obama wins. They isolate themselves in a right wing media bubble where they only hear news that says what they want to hear. They truly believe Romney is ahead in all the polls. How are they going to react when reality breaks through?

Second amendment solutions tempered with religion and bitterness. Oh, and bigotry, can't forget that.


"WHY DO AMERICAN VOTERS HATE AMERICA?"
 
2012-11-05 01:30:19 AM  

netringer: WHY DO AMERICAN VOTERS HATE AMERICA?"


Because the "good" America costs too much.

While the shiatty America does have its incredible downsides, cheap land, labor and goods are favorable offsets.
 
2012-11-05 02:06:15 AM  

whidbey: netringer: WHY DO AMERICAN VOTERS HATE AMERICA?"

Because the "good" America costs too much.

While the shiatty America does have its incredible downsides, cheap land, labor and goods are favorable offsets.


Sounds kind of like China.
 
2012-11-05 02:16:14 AM  

Cornelius Dribble: TheBigJerk: randomjsa: I'm not puzzled at all.

As stated, if the media and the entertainment industry hadn't been covering for this president the GOP 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.they wouldn't even be a national party anymore, and their players would have jumped ship to the LP Peter Pinguid Society..

Fixed.

Improved.

/Fallopian 2016!


I don't get it.

Possibly because I've been up too long.
 
2012-11-05 02:48:39 AM  
I believe Brit Hume is puzzled by shoelaces and roller coasters.
 
2012-11-05 02:50:38 AM  

Cornelius Dribble: rynthetyn: Yeah. And Rick Scott and the Florida Republicans deliberately changed early voting so that it ended the Saturday before the election to minimize turnout by black voters who historically would carpool to go vote after church on Sunday.

This will backfire. The Republicans don't seem to appreciate the fact that America is a Christian nation, and that we will not vote for a party that is so blatantly anti-Christian.


Oh, it's definitely going to backfire. People were making sure to early vote just to stick it to Rick Scott. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if in the end Rick Scott accidentally delivered the state to Obama just because his suppression efforts were so obvious and hamfisted. Nate Silver's forecast still has Florida as a slight Romney lead, but I don't think Florida's polling is picking up just how much the hate-Rick-Scott factor is motivating turnout.
 
2012-11-05 02:57:26 AM  

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.

[ICP.jpg]

Electoral votes, how the fark do they work?

Betcha he wasn't puzzled back in 2000 when Gore actually won the popular vote and lost because Florida.


If Gore had won his home state, or Ohio or Indiana, he wouldn't have needed Florida.
 
2012-11-05 03:26:55 AM  

Lorelle: 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.

Given the number of Teabagging nutjobs out there, I wouldn't be surprised if a few of them completely go off the deep end after the election. It's more than a little scary.


Excuse me, but as someone who gets teabagged on a regular basis, I am seriously off.....

Oh you meant the Tea Party. Nevermind.
 
2012-11-05 04:54:16 AM  

Mrtraveler01: eddiesocket: It's weird how the north is almost always more liberal than the south, pretty much everywhere.

Florida is the only exception to this rule.


Not to mention California and Hawaii. On the opposite extreme, Alaska is above the arctic circle, and it's as Derpy as hell. (DESPITE sharing a border with Canada.)

Nope. The regions of derp are generally sparsely populated. Virginia is NOVA with Mississippi in the back yard. Pennsylvania is Philadelphia and Pittsburg with Alabama in between.

The South was more or less uninhabitable on a dense scale until the advent of air conditioning. In fact air conditioning was invented just so the weather in the summer wouldn't screw up their cotton processing. The only densely populated areas of the South are on coastlines, because the ocean keeps the air cool enough to be tolerable to our species.
 
2012-11-05 04:55:18 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Well, I have to hand it to the stupid farking press - they managed to turn this into a horse-race after all, when it should have been over months ago because of Romney's repeated efforts to shoot himself in the foot.

I'm completely disgusted with my country and its election process.


Good. You are paying attention.
 
2012-11-05 05:25:41 AM  

quatchi: mainstreet62: quatchi: 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

Cool beans.

For what it's worth, I just heard David Frum call it for Obama on the Patrick Duffy show onna CBC radio.

Wait a minute here..........

Patrick Duffy has a show?!

Oh, FFS. I didn't say Patrick did I?

No, this guy. Mike Duffy.

[www.mikeduffy.ca image 404x272]

You can see how one can easily mix the two up though. Right?


Good lord, that's Trump with his toupee off.
 
2012-11-05 05:39:28 AM  

anfrind: DamnYankees: anfrind: south of San Diego

Mexico?

I was actually thinking of the Escondido area (where my grandparents lived until about 15 years ago), but after checking Google Maps I realized that it's between Los Angeles and San Diego. Oops.

/no reason for me to visit Escondido now that I don't have family living there


I live in Escondido. (Yes, it's North San Diego.) It's very, very white bread/soccer mom/hedge fund manager/retiree here in the south part. In 2008, my neighborhood was plastered with high end McCain signs and banners. Every yard and tree covered.

Funny thing, though... This year, I've only seen two very small Romney yard signs, and a big laminated 20' Ron Paul banner. I don't doubt that Esco will go red again, but it sure doesn't seem like anyone here is excited about it.

As for me, I'm hoping for a sip of those sweet TP/neocon tears on Wednesday, but like many of you I'm not letting myself get too excited. Once I see 270, that bish is getting uncorked.
 
2012-11-05 05:48:25 AM  
Ah, the 24 hour cable news network, where people get upset when clarity pokes its head out of the torture chamber in the cellar.
 
2012-11-05 06:28:28 AM  

randomjsa: I'm not puzzled at all.


It's the economy, stupid.
 
2012-11-05 07:18:11 AM  
On "Election HQ 2012" last night, they had Wallace and Hume giving fair and balanced assessments.

1. Romney might win because leadership values experience apple pie real change America wants.
2. Obama might win because he's such a good liar.

Pretty funny to recall Wallace making angry statements that Faux's news coverage really is fair and balanced and not be confused with punditry shows.
 
2012-11-05 07:19:42 AM  
Brace yourself, catch that hat, and hold onto it for dear life..

/or don't

//I'm a nice guy, but you are such assholes, that watching you lose your shiat completely, will please me to no end.
 
2012-11-05 07:20:47 AM  
3.bp.blogspot.com

html fail


it's 4 in the morning. Give me some slack lol
 
2012-11-05 07:38:14 AM  
Everytime I see romneys smug self satisfied face on tv I am so thankful it will only be for a few more precious hours before he gets relegated to the dust bin of history. At least, I pray to god that is what will happen. He probably wont listen because im athiest though.
 
2012-11-05 11:41:23 AM  

Smelly McUgly: DamnYankees: PUBLICPOLICYPOLLING
Our final Virginia poll finds Barack Obama leading Mitt Romney 51-47 4 minutes ago

Their last poll had Obama up 3.

Yep, the president is up 1-2 points there. Good to know.

I still don't know how VA became Democratic the last two years. I guess maybe it is a state more like fellow Mid-Atlantic state Maryland than it is like the Carolinas, Georgia, etc.?


If you haven't already seen it, 538 is wrapping up their 50 states breakdown today, with Virginia. Short version: the north and coastal areas of the state are becoming more ethnically diverse, middle class, college educated, and liberal. Also the population in these areas is exploding, from 30% of the state's total population in just a few years.
 
2012-11-05 04:32:08 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: Pennsylvania is Philadelphia and Pittsburg with Alabama in between.


i've heard of this phenomenon described as "Pennsyltucky".
 
2012-11-05 06:04:39 PM  

thenewmissus: Here are my predictions.

Obama
Idaho


Now that's something I've not seen before...

/notsureifserious
 
Displayed 348 of 348 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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