Shocker: Pew Poll with = sample of D and R results in...

[OCinBuffalo]

Sorry, must have hit Utah by mistake when going for Nevada. Try this one

http://www.270towin....s.php?mapid=FSc

 

 

The coal part of VA is already solid Romney territory. Battlegrounds here are the urban areas (NOVA, Hampton Roads, Richmond)

 

 

Neither do I. But, if PA did go for Romney then almost every other swing state would as well. It would be a resounding victory, something like this:

http://www.270towin....s.php?mapid=FSj

 

How about this: http://www.270towin....s.php?mapid=FSc

 

As the 5th ring of hell?

 

FL OH CO go Romney, but

NV VA NH do not?

 

Edit: under this, NH is THE swing state. And, I say it goes Romney before IA...which, if it went that way, would still mean Obama by 2.

 

But again, I think both IA and NH go Romney. These people are the most politically tuned in people in the country. I am pretty sure they'd rather get results....from a "liar".

Edited October 10, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[/dev/null]

How about this: http://www.270towin....s.php?mapid=FSc

 

That's the exact same one I posted

 

As the 5th ring of hell?

 

FL OH CO go Romney, but

NV VA NH do not?

 

I think you meant to take my map and put the above onto it for the following:

http://www.270towin....s.php?mapid=FUl

 

Which gives Obama a 270 to 268 victory

 

Now you really want to blow people's minds?

CO FL NC NV IA VA to Romney

NH OH WI to Obama

http://www.270towin....s.php?mapid=FUr

Mayan Crapocalypse

Edited October 10, 2012 by /dev/null

[OCinBuffalo]

That's the exact same one I posted

 

 

 

I think you meant to take my map and put the above onto it for the following:

http://www.270towin....s.php?mapid=FUl

 

Which gives Obama a 270 to 268 victory

 

Now you really want to blow people's minds?

CO FL NC NV IA VA to Romney

NH OH WI to Obama

http://www.270towin....s.php?mapid=FUr

Mayan Crapocalypse

I think this website may have a data caching problem, especially with its generated urls, but am entirely too lazy to test it.

 

Yes, I've seen combinations that can bring about the Crapocalypse....

 

...what happens if the House and Senate stay as is? We would then end up with President Romney, and, VP Biden?

 

Hilarity ensues.

 

Even worse...what if a single elector changes their vote...on the "second Wednesday" or whatever it is...and you thought 2000 was a shitshow?

 

The worst part: these ties are every bit as plausible as anything else.

[/dev/null]

...what happens if the House and Senate stay as is? We would then end up with President Romney, and, VP Biden?

 

I believe each state gets a single vote. That one guy in Wyoming yields considerable more sway than Boner (1 of 16 Ohioans) or Fancy Nancy (1/53 Californians)

 

Would the Congresscritters vote party line? Would they vote the outcome of their district? Would they vote the outcome of their state?

[dayman]

Would the Congresscritters vote party line? Would they vote the outcome of their district? Would they vote the outcome of their state?

 

What kind of question is this? Congresscritters vote for who they represent, their party. As if the constituents in their district want to be represented....lol

[OCinBuffalo]

I believe each state gets a single vote. That one guy in Wyoming yields considerable more sway than Boner (1 of 16 Ohioans) or Fancy Nancy (1/53 Californians)

 

Would the Congresscritters vote party line? Would they vote the outcome of their district? Would they vote the outcome of their state?

Wrong. The House votes for Prez, Senate for VP, just like they would for a bill. So yeah, theoretically, there could be a tie in either house, and nobody to break the tie in the Senate...depending on what the word "immediately" means.

 

The real contention: it is unclear as to which House and Senate, the existing or the newly elected, would vote...because it says "immediately".

 

Immediately could mean:

the day after the elections are certified in all 50 states, and we have a tie...not likely

the day after the electors, provided they don't play games, vote...still this year...more likely

the day after the votes of the electors are received and processed by the archivist...next year...most likely...since the votes are "received" until they are "received"...meaning they are opened and counted etc.

 

Or any further idiotic legal constructs created by whichever side benefits by them.

 

EDIT: Oh, and how could I forget the biggest, hell on earth, feature of this? If they can't figure it out, and somehow the Ds take back the house? Nancy Pelosi would be the interim POTUS...until they did figure it out.

 

Now, if there ever was a reason for those of you in a swing state go out and vote...

Edited October 10, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[/dev/null]

Wrong. The House votes for Prez,

You misunderstood what I said. I guess I could have been a little more concise.

When I said "Each State" I mean each state's Congressional delegation. There aren't 435 votes, there are 50 votes (maybe 51, I dunno if DC gets a vote)

 

EDIT: Oh, and how could I forget the biggest, hell on earth, feature of this? If they can't figure it out, and somehow the Ds take back the house? Nancy Pelosi would be the interim POTUS...until they did figure it out.

 

Now, if there ever was a reason for those of you in a swing state go out and vote...

I always planned on voting. Just haven't decided if I'm going for Romney or Johnson

[OCinBuffalo]

You misunderstood what I said. I guess I could have been a little more concise.

When I said "Each State" I mean each state's Congressional delegation. There aren't 435 votes, there are 50 votes (maybe 51, I dunno if DC gets a vote)

 

 

 

 

I always planned on voting. Just haven't decided if I'm going for Romney or Johnson

Oh ****...you are right. Jesus...that's even bigger chaos. They have to keep voting until a simple majority is achieved....but not if there isn't a 2/3rds quorum.

 

So, if enough of the House stays home, and refuses to report for their friggin duty....we may never get a vote on it. Can you really doubt that House Democrats would hide out in their states, after all of the douchebaggery we've seen in IL, WI, etc. = running and hiding out in neighboring states, etc.?

Edited October 10, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[fjl2nd]

A +8 D turnout...to a 0 turnout. That's a clear change in raw data if I ever saw one. How the F do you explain that, if it's not a method change? Or, do you agree with me that its most likely a reflection of enthusiasm in terms of willingness to answer the phone, in which case the earlier polls told us nothing? Or, do you really think, that 7-13% of people just up and changed their party ID? If that is true, then the party ID MOE is wrong. It has to be more like 10.

 

Seriously. No, usual, typical, annoying, trolling, OCinBuffalo buffoonery here: I want to know how you explain this? George Orwell said "To see what's in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle"

 

What do these numbers, which I have now put in front of your nose, tell you? Are you going to struggle...at all?

 

The MOE on party ID is usually around 4% which means D+8 and D+0 are both within the MOE.

 

Basic example:

First result:

Independents 30%

Democrats 39%

Republicans 31%

 

MOE = 4%

 

The actual number could be Democrats 35% (-4%) and Republican (+4%), but those above are within the margin of error.

[3rdnlng]

You misunderstood what I said. I guess I could have been a little more concise.

When I said "Each State" I mean each state's Congressional delegation. There aren't 435 votes, there are 50 votes (maybe 51, I dunno if DC gets a vote)

 

 

 

 

I always planned on voting. Just haven't decided if I'm going for Romney or Johnson

 

Romney or Johnson still equates to Romney or Obama. I know where you are coming from, and I did vote for whomever the Libertarian candidate was in 1984 but the election was already in the bag. You're on the east coast----don't !@#$ it up!

[TakeYouToTasker]

Shocker!

[OCinBuffalo]

The MOE on party ID is usually around 4% which means D+8 and D+0 are both within the MOE.

 

Basic example:

First result:

Independents 30%

Democrats 39%

Republicans 31%

 

MOE = 4%

 

The actual number could be Democrats 35% (-4%) and Republican (+4%), but those above are within the margin of error.

Margin of error implies an outlier.

 

Where is the outlier, when every single poll before this one was D +6 at least? I'd call that a "standard" not an "error".

 

Again, I am not impugning anyone here. I am merely pointing out the difference between multiple previous sets of data...and this one.

 

Shocker!

 

 

Yes, yes it is.

[/dev/null]

I've time I see this thread title I chuckle

 

Say it out loud: Pew Poll...Poop Hole

[/dev/null]

Ever heard of Suffolk University Research Center?

Yeah, me neither. Googled them and they look like some school in the People's Republic of Massatwosh#ts

 

Anyways, they're already calling FL, VA, and NC for Romney and will no longer poll those states

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/09/suffolk_calls_nc_va_fl_for_romney_will_no_longer_poll_states.html

 

Just last week the debates were a nuisance and the election a formality before Obama's coronation

 

A bit pre-mature to call it for either candidate if you ask me.

[1billsfan]

Ever heard of Suffolk University Research Center?

Yeah, me neither. Googled them and they look like some school in the People's Republic of Massatwosh#ts

 

Anyways, they're already calling FL, VA, and NC for Romney and will no longer poll those states

 

http://www.realclear...oll_states.html

 

Just last week the debates were a nuisance and the election a formality before Obama's coronation

 

A bit pre-mature to call it for either candidate if you ask me.

 

Well according to the liberal media, yes. But unfortunately for them, that darn "Mitt Romney: Unfiltered" presidential debate happened in front of 67 million Americans pulling the curtain open on their fairy tale, wizard of oz-like, completely phony Obama. The president looked and sounded like a loser and Americans don't like having a loser president.

 

I'm not calling it, but it could be that people in the middle are beginning to see it's acceptable human behavior to back Romney and not be seen as a racist. They can now point to the debate as proof beyond reasonable doubt that he's an idiot.

[TheMadCap]

Well according to the liberal media, yes. But unfortunately for them, that darn "Mitt Romney: Unfiltered" presidential debate happened in front of 67 million Americans pulling the curtain open on their fairy tale, wizard of oz-like, completely phony Obama. The president looked and sounded like a loser and Americans don't like having a loser president.

 

I'm not calling it, but it could be that people in the middle are beginning to see it's acceptable human behavior to back Romney and not be seen as a racist. They can now point to the debate as proof beyond reasonable doubt that he's an idiot.

 

just wait until the second debate and Romney gets to talk about the "apology tour". After that one, you will see some serious back tracking by the media...

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/09/politics/polling-hype/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

Washington (CNN) -- Treating presidential polls as gospel is a little like placing political faith in the lifespan of a fruit fly.

 

"People tend to subscribe a more durable nature to polling data," said Russ Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers University. "It's more ephemeral."

[/dev/null]

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t2

 

Washington (CNN) -- Treating presidential polls as gospel is a little like placing political faith in the lifespan of a fruit fly.

 

"People tend to subscribe a more durable nature to polling data," said Russ Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers University. "It's more ephemeral."

 

Just a week ago the polls proved it was all over but the voting

[DC Tom]

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t2

 

Washington (CNN) -- Treating presidential polls as gospel is a little like placing political faith in the lifespan of a fruit fly.

 

"People tend to subscribe a more durable nature to polling data," said Russ Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers University. "It's more ephemeral."

 

Now who's flip-flopping, dumbass.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

Now who's flip-flopping, dumbass.

Dear Clueless Tom, I have said all along the polls don't mean shi+

 

You need to ask -

 

How many early votes have been submitted? What impact migh they have?

 

The Romney "surge" might only affect the undecided voters. Which I believe is a small percentage. And the Republicans that want to vote for Johnson, you have to account for their displeasure in the Centrist Mitt.