Jump to content

Independents don't matter, but only for 2012


Recommended Posts

Some guy at Salon is saying "independents don't matter" http://www.salon.com/2012/11/01/the_independent_illusion/ :lol:

 

It's truly amazing, this independents thing. Apparently, in 2004, when Kerry won them, and won them in Ohio, and in 2008, when Obama won them, Ohio same, we didn't have these "covert" independents at all. No. ALL of them were absolutely independent independents. :rolleyes:

 

Underpants Gnomes Reasoning:

1. Today, nobody who says they are an independent actually is, most of them are lying about being Republican, sneaking past the LV screen, and that's why Romney is winning them by double digits? (giggle :) )

 

2. These Rs are more likely to pull off these shenanigans, because they are more likely to vote? (chuckle :lol:)

 

3. Yes, a race where Ds are less likely to vote than Rs... (pregnant pause + schit eating grin :D)

 

4. ?????

 

5. ....absolutely means that losing INDs doesn't matter. ROFL! :wacko::lol: :lol:

 

Ahhhhhh...hehe...he...he...Ok...I'll settle down. Ahem...Doesn't that sound a little nutty, conspiratorial, and just plain idiotic to you? Does your common sense violation alarm go off...at all?

 

Is that more likely than: Obama has pissed off the center of the country, and, the economy sucks = pretty much why you would lose independents, in ever other race, BUT, apparently, this one.. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some guy at Salon is saying "independents don't matter" http://www.salon.com...ndent_illusion/ :lol:

 

It's truly amazing, this independents thing. Apparently, in 2004, when Kerry won them, and won them in Ohio, and in 2008, when Obama won them, Ohio same, we didn't have these "covert" independents at all. No. ALL of them were absolutely independent independents. :rolleyes:

 

Underpants Gnomes Reasoning:

1. Today, nobody who says they are an independent actually is, most of them are lying about being Republican, sneaking past the LV screen, and that's why Romney is winning them by double digits? (giggle :) )

 

2. These Rs are more likely to pull off these shenanigans, because they are more likely to vote? (chuckle :lol:)

 

3. Yes, a race where Ds are less likely to vote than Rs... (pregnant pause + schit eating grin :D)

 

4. ?????

 

5. ....absolutely means that losing INDs doesn't matter. ROFL! :wacko::lol: :lol:

 

Ahhhhhh...hehe...he...he...Ok...I'll settle down. Ahem...Doesn't that sound a little nutty, conspiratorial, and just plain idiotic to you? Does your common sense violation alarm go off...at all?

 

Is that more likely than: Obama has pissed off the center of the country, and, the economy sucks = pretty much why you would lose independents, in ever other race, BUT, apparently, this one.. :rolleyes:

What are underpants gnomes and where may I find a species to present to my Commander?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are underpants gnomes and where may I find a species to present to my Commander?

Certainly such an advanced culture such as yours can find a way to interface to our primitive information exchanges.

 

Might I suggest you try Google?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly such an advanced culture such as yours can find a way to interface to our primitive information exchanges.

 

Their understanding of our primitive information exchanges is based upon their only contact with it. A mid 90s Macbook that Jeff Goldblum used to upload a virus to the mothership. Which coincidentaly is the only thing a mid 90s Macbook is compatable with

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their understanding of our primitive information exchanges is based upon their only contact with it. A mid 90s Macbook that Jeff Goldblum used to upload a virus to the mothership. Which coincidentaly is the only thing a mid 90s Macbook is compatable with

It's been 124,695,5715 rotations since I have experienced my last guffaw. Then I read this post. You have made the list.

 

Now, if you'll excuse me, I must sacrifice 12 cows in honor of the Commander for my violation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their understanding of our primitive information exchanges is based upon their only contact with it. A mid 90s Macbook that Jeff Goldblum used to upload a virus to the mothership. Which coincidentaly is the only thing a mid 90s Macbook is compatable with

Ah, we didn't consider the "use alien technology" option when we were trying to network said mid 90s Macbooks. How foolish of us.

Why are you reading Salon... that is the big question here....

Because, unlike some posters here, I have no fear of listening to people with whom I disagree. I may even learn something.

 

Besides, listening to idiots, and using their idiocy against them...as in the premise of this thread, is what I pretty much do on this board...and at work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Independents don't matter, but only for 2012

 

 

 

Guess Who Declared Losing Candidates Lose Independents?

by Jim Geraghty

 

A thought from a much-cited voice these days:

In almost every competitive general election, the party that loses the contest has also lost independent voters.
This is because most people (although
in gubernatorial elections) vote strictly along party lines: the Democrat might be all but guaranteed 80 to 90 percent of the Democratic vote, and the Republican 80 to 90 percent of the Republican vote. Except in certain regions of the country where one or another party encompasses a particularly wide range of ideologies (such as NY-23′s Republicans or vestigial “Solid South” Democrats),
it’s independents who swing the vote, since they represent the overwhelming majority of the votes which are up-for-grabs.
This must necessarily be the case.

Nate Silver, November 5, 2009

 

 

Here are some totally irrelevant recent polling numbers:

  • Romney lead among independents in NPR national poll: 51-39
  • Romney lead among independents in CBS/New York Times national poll: 51-39
  • Romney lead among independents in Pew national poll: 48-40
  • Romney lead among independents in Fox News national poll: 46-39

.

Edited by B-Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Independents don't matter, but only for 2012

 

 

 

Guess Who Declared Losing Candidates Lose Independents?

by Jim Geraghty

 

A thought from a much-cited voice these days:

In almost every competitive general election, the party that loses the contest has also lost independent voters.
This is because most people (although
in gubernatorial elections) vote strictly along party lines: the Democrat might be all but guaranteed 80 to 90 percent of the Democratic vote, and the Republican 80 to 90 percent of the Republican vote. Except in certain regions of the country where one or another party encompasses a particularly wide range of ideologies (such as NY-23′s Republicans or vestigial “Solid South” Democrats),
it’s independents who swing the vote, since they represent the overwhelming majority of the votes which are up-for-grabs.
This must necessarily be the case.

Nate Silver, November 5, 2009

 

 

Here are some totally irrelevant recent polling numbers:

  • Romney lead among independents in NPR national poll: 51-39
  • Romney lead among independents in CBS/New York Times national poll: 51-39
  • Romney lead among independents in Pew national poll: 48-40
  • Romney lead among independents in Fox News national poll: 46-39

.

:lol: I wonder then: why oh why Silver is so willing to use an average of polls, whose party ID is consistently ~+6 Democrat...if people vote so strictly on party lines? Why does he down-weight those that do not?

 

Delving deeper into Silver's own article:

Yes: independents went mostly for Republicans in New Jersey and Virginia (we could have inferred this without having to look at the exit poll). Yes, this "caused" the Democratic defeats. But what caused the independents to move against the Democrats? That's what we're really interested in, since that's what will have implications for future elections.

This single question alone...is glaringly absent from Silver's current modeling. If this was baseball, we'd see Obama as batter, and Obamcare, as "how batter does against LHP with men on base" = not so good. But we don't, do we?

 

But, really? None of this matters much compared to: If most of the pollsters are using a flawed demographic model, weighting their raw data accordingly, and then releasing the poll? Silver only gets the poll, not the raw data. So, if the base model is off for all the polls? Silver is screwed. None of the rest of his modeling can tell us anything about anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, we didn't consider the "use alien technology" option when we were trying to network said mid 90s Macbooks. How foolish of us.

 

Because, unlike some posters here, I have no fear of listening to people with whom I disagree. I may even learn something.

 

Besides, listening to idiots, and using their idiocy against them...as in the premise of this thread, is what I pretty much do on this board...and at work.

For work you herd underpants gnomes? I hope this is true because I wish to purchase one if possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...