1billsfan Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 I think that the rampant polling methods of oversampling dems was because there was so much stock put into Obama that they had to make it appear it was close even when it never was really close. Their 2008 vs 2012 math was so far off. They just didn't care. They just covered their ears and said "Na na na na,..I can't hear you...na na na na." Why did they do this? I think it was to save as much face as possible. I think there are many people in the heavy liberal bubble places of NYC and DC who really do think Obama will win. Outside of the bubble cities though, I think the majority of Americans know it's Romney's day. The polls leading up to today were always a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanM.D. Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 I think that the rampant polling methods of oversampling dems was because there was so much stock put into Obama that they had to make it appear it was close even when it never was really close. Their 2008 vs 2012 math was so far off. They just didn't care. They just covered their ears and said "Na na na na,..I can't hear you...na na na na." Why did they do this? I think it was to save as much face as possible. I think there are many people in the heavy liberal bubble places of NYC and DC who really do think Obama will win. Outside of the bubble cities though, I think the majority of Americans know it's Romney's day. The polls leading up to today were always a joke. Yet there are folks that defend them....vigorously. I'm no expert.... But I've tried to learn what I can and it doesn't make sense based on the math/projected turnout. I've read OC's stuff here and, frankly, its made more sense than any other 'description' I've read elsewhere. Both in terms of the folly inherent in these poll sampling and the fact that the "top" of them doesn't make sense with the breakouts/internals. I'm not sure about the administration wagging the dog on this one but it is plausible. It creates pseudo enthusiasm/concern and may 'get out the vote.' But I can't imagine the turnout will be as D+ as these polls suggest. good news is....we find out soon enough. I'm with you...I think Romney wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 I like how you guys are talking like the election is over or something. It's funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 I like how you guys are talking like the election is over or something. It's funny. This election has prompted some of the weirdest responses that I've ever seen. What I'm doing is noting responses, posters, pollsters, and pundits, both here and in the media, so that I can find out post-election who ends up being entirely wrong. That way I can discount everything that they have to say going forward and have an articulable reason for doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanM.D. Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Romney 285-253. He gets FL,NC, VA, OH, CO and IA. http://www.270towin.....php?mapid=bcpt certainly nothing definitive. I think Romney wins. I like how you guys are talking like the election is over or something. It's funny. really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 You ignore the fact of lots of Rs and Is that were disenchanted with the mealy old man candidate (albeit a war hero) and his MILF running mate's seeming less-than-prepared for prime time (of course we didn't know the real Jokin' Joe then either) and either didn't vote and/or didn't get others to vote or contribute to the campaign. Lots of people voted for BO because they were enthralled with the concept of racial equality and were impressed that the country was at a place where they could actually vote for a black man for President. A similar phenomenon will occur when the first woman is nominated by her party as candidate for that office. Obama's been a disappointment on too many levels to deserve a second term as the most powerful man in the world. He held the baton and the country diminished under his watch. We have to let him go. I was thinking fundraising for his Presidential library. It's almost like you didn't even read what I wrote. Juror#8: I agree with your thoughts about the 'weird responses'. It's almost like a bizarro universe in here. In general, to me, it seems silly to think that this election will have a turnout that looks like it did in 2008 when you had an historical election, with extreme enthusiasm on the D side. It doesn't seem reasonable, to me, to predict a turnout that is similar to that. At the same time, people who (theoretically, at least) get paid to be right are telling me that my 'feeling' about that point is wrong. It's a weird spot to be in -- things that don't seem possible to me are, according to the experts, not only possible, but likely. I'm fascinated by what the turnout numbers are, and am extremely excited to find out. I will be very impressed with people who got it right, when it didn't seem to make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 155 to 2 By Jay Nordlinger You’ll love this. The Daily Princetonian reports that 157 members of Princeton University’s faculty or staff have donated to the two presidential candidates. One hundred fifty-five donated to Obama; two donated to Romney. The two who donated to Romney were a visiting lecturer in engineering and a janitor. A psychology professor told the paper that “professors in general are engaged in creating knowledge, so you have to be open to uncertainty and open to things being complicated.” She also said, in the paper’s words, that “there is even research that the speeches of liberal politicians are more cognitively complex.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanM.D. Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 (edited) 155 to 2 Jay Nordlinger You’ll love this. The Daily Princetonian reports that 157 members of Princeton University’s faculty or staff have donated to the two presidential candidates. One hundred fifty-five donated to Obama; two donated to Romney. The two who donated to Romney were a visiting lecturer in engineering and a janitor. A psychology professor told the paper that “professors in general are engaged in creating knowledge, so you have to be open to uncertainty and open to things being complicated.” She also said, in the paper’s words, that “there is even research that the speeches of liberal politicians are more cognitively complex.” Yes. Three letter words are used. J-O-B-S. Very complex. Both parties have people who butcher the language and the delivery. These professors need to get off their intellectual....ummm....horse. Interestingly, my dad was a janitor. Probably a lot smarter than some of those jackazzes. Edited November 6, 2012 by BillsFanM.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 155 to 2 Jay Nordlinger You’ll love this. The Daily Princetonian reports that 157 members of Princeton University’s faculty or staff have donated to the two presidential candidates. One hundred fifty-five donated to Obama; two donated to Romney. The two who donated to Romney were a visiting lecturer in engineering and a janitor. A psychology professor told the paper that “professors in general are engaged in creating knowledge, so you have to be open to uncertainty and open to things being complicated.” She also said, in the paper’s words, that “there is even research that the speeches of liberal politicians are more cognitively complex.” Will & Sean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 A really good appraisal around interpreting these polls: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/06/2012_a_close_race_with_a_high_degree_of_uncertainty.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 It's almost like you didn't even read what I wrote. Juror#8: I agree with your thoughts about the 'weird responses'. It's almost like a bizarro universe in here. In general, to me, it seems silly to think that this election will have a turnout that looks like it did in 2008 when you had an historical election, with extreme enthusiasm on the D side. It doesn't seem reasonable, to me, to predict a turnout that is similar to that. At the same time, people who (theoretically, at least) get paid to be right are telling me that my 'feeling' about that point is wrong. It's a weird spot to be in -- things that don't seem possible to me are, according to the experts, not only possible, but likely. I'm fascinated by what the turnout numbers are, and am extremely excited to find out. I will be very impressed with people who got it right, when it didn't seem to make sense. Needless to say, I'm impressed. They got it right and that's why they get paid and I don't! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts