Adam Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 It can swing either way and back again at any given minute and will swing back and forth like a pendulum over the next few months. The left survived President Bush. The right survived four years of President Obama. The world won't end, regardless of who wins (although in December, it may end, anyways)
DC Tom Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 It can swing either way and back again at any given minute and will swing back and forth like a pendulum over the next few months. Not unlike yourself...
/dev/null Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Not unlike yourself... Yeah but Adam is talking about swinging back and forth over a couple of months. Adam on the hand will swing back and forth within the same thread
OCinBuffalo Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 Who the F are these pollsters...and why do they think they can get over by skewing the data? Or, if we know there's a 7 point Democrat respondent bias in the sample, why can't they weight that bias out? Example: adjust Democrat responses down by 5 points(not 7, account for any non-Obama voting Dems). I mean really, do they think we didn't take statistics in college? There's got to be some way to consistently apply a weight to the raw data, when you KNOW you have an unbalanced sample. I understand that you may end up skewing it the other way, but....that's why you do the weight...properly.
Park Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Who the F are these pollsters...and why do they think they can get over by skewing the data? Or, if we know there's a 7 point Democrat respondent bias in the sample, why can't they weight that bias out? Example: adjust Democrat responses down by 5 points(not 7, account for any non-Obama voting Dems). I mean really, do they think we didn't take statistics in college? There's got to be some way to consistently apply a weight to the raw data, when you KNOW you have an unbalanced sample. I understand that you may end up skewing it the other way, but....that's why you do the weight...properly. How's your crusade to have a recount for the 2008 election going?
Adam Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 How's your crusade to have a recount for the 2008 election going? What about the first election! I want a recount.
/dev/null Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 86% Negative Coverage So how's that Economy looking?
fjl2nd Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 Who the F are these pollsters...and why do they think they can get over by skewing the data? Or, if we know there's a 7 point Democrat respondent bias in the sample, why can't they weight that bias out? Example: adjust Democrat responses down by 5 points(not 7, account for any non-Obama voting Dems). I mean really, do they think we didn't take statistics in college? There's got to be some way to consistently apply a weight to the raw data, when you KNOW you have an unbalanced sample. I understand that you may end up skewing it the other way, but....that's why you do the weight...properly. 538 does this...
DC Tom Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 ? A poll he mentioned earlier, but didn't provide a link to.
Fan in San Diego Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 One poll. In July. Electoral college state-by-state polling is still favoring Obummer. But think back to how Carter was up against Reagan even into the final week. Doesn't the electoral college voting system seem like a betrayal of the whole public voting system? To me it seems to negate my vote.
UConn James Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 A poll he mentioned earlier, but didn't provide a link to. I believe he's refering to the NYT's machinations. Link Altho, seeing that they weight their own/CBS and PPP with the highest regard and discount Purple Strategies and a Rasmussen that IIRC hit it all along in the Wisconsin recall and in most of the primary voting states... this tells me that they think their own stevestojan doesn't stink. One thing they do have right is Ohio being perhaps the most important state in this election. Which makes Romney's selection of Rob Portman very likely both from a standpoint of getting the best person for a running mate and lending some help in the electoral college, given that Portman won there with ~60%. Whether it can boost the numbers is one thing. The VP announcement is when an opposition candidates' campaign really starts. Romney hasn't spent terribly much yet considering his challenger position and Obama has blown a wad. President Obama has spent more campaign cash more quickly than any incumbent in recent history, bettingbthat heavy early investments in personnel, field offices and a high-tech campaign infrastructure will peopel him to victory in November.
fjl2nd Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 Here is a link to his explanation of "house effects" of polling firms. Lays out how each polling agency leans. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/calculating-house-effects-of-polling-firms/
WorldTraveller Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 (edited) ? 538 is a left wing outfit. I tracked it during the primaries just to see how accurate it was. Horrible. Edited August 5, 2012 by WorldTraveller
DC Tom Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 Doesn't the electoral college voting system seem like a betrayal of the whole public voting system? To me it seems to negate my vote. No. Because you don't live in a democracy. You live in a democratic republic.
Adam Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 No. Because you don't live in a democracy. You live in a democratic republic. For the most part, I think switching from electoral college to popular vote, would do little more than change where the candidates do the majority of their campaigning.
Fan in San Diego Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 For the most part, I think switching from electoral college to popular vote, would do little more than change where the candidates do the majority of their campaigning. I'm not so sure about that, but has there ever been a case in history where the electoral college vote differed from the popular vote?
/dev/null Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 I'm not so sure about that, but has there ever been a case in history where the electoral college vote differed from the popular vote? John Quincy Adams who lost by 44,804 votes to Andrew Jackson in 1824 Rutherford B. Hayes who lost by 264,292 votes to Samuel J. Tilden in 1876 Benjamin Harrison who lost by 95,713 votes to Grover Cleveland in 1888 George W. Bush who lost by 543,816 votes to Al Gore in the 2000 election.
Adam Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 I'm not so sure about that, but has there ever been a case in history where the electoral college vote differed from the popular vote? I am pretty sure there has. I'm drawing a blank on when
Recommended Posts