Real Clear Politics Poll-of-polls: Mitt takes electoral collage lead

#2
First of all, RCP is just a poll of polls. Not that accurate.

You need someone who actually ANALYZES data and is not politically affiliated like Nate Silver at www.fivethirtyeight.com.

And Gallup, according to Fordham University was the 20th most accurate pollster (out of 25) last election.



Anyhow, national polls don't matter. This is like 2004. It will likely come down to Ohio.

Even this model, under an Obama disaster where he loses EVERY swing state except Iowa (where he has always lead) and Ohio (where he has kicked ass in early voting and 19% have already voted early), he still wins the Presidency with 271 electoral votes:



Why do you think he is spending way more money there, with more Union people and students working polls and registering voters, and challenging voting laws in the SCOTUS? Why do you think Bill Clinton and Springsteen are there? Obama has 120 offices in Ohio for getting out the vote. Some have been open since 2008.

Plus Ohio has lots of colleges, and out of state kids who go to school there give vote in Ohio. Ohio state has 56,000 students alone. Why do you think 50% of the newly registered voters in Ohio are under 30? (More than any state). They registered 10,000 in one week in September when Obama had a huge rally. Obama has really focused on urban blacks, women, union workers and students to win Ohio again.

If he wins it he's in.
 
Last edited:

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#3
Half of the threads HHD starts are polls. Then a poll comes up that makes his boy look bad, and suddenly polls aren't accurate. Priceless.
 
#4
Half of the threads HHD starts are polls. Then a poll comes up that makes his boy look bad, and suddenly polls aren't accurate. Priceless.
Unlike you I have actually read and studied this shit. Not just followed numbers like a retard.

Some history from statistician Nate Silver on Gallup sucking:


"Usually, when a poll is an outlier relative to the consensus, its results turn out badly.

You do not need to look any further than Gallup’s track record over the past two election cycles to find a demonstration of this.

In 2008, the Gallup poll put Mr. Obama 11 points ahead of John McCain on the eve of that November’s election.

That was tied for Mr. Obama’s largest projected margin of victory among any of the 15 or so national polls that were released just in advance of the election. The average of polls put Mr. Obama up by about seven points.

The average did a good job; Mr. Obama won the popular vote by seven points. The Gallup poll had a four-point miss, however.

In 2010, Gallup put Republicans ahead by 15 points on the national Congressional ballot, higher than other polling firms, which put Republicans an average of eight or nine points ahead instead.

In fact, Republicans won the popular vote for the United States House by about seven percentage points — fairly close to the average of polls, but representing another big miss for Gallup.

Apart from Gallup’s final poll not having been especially accurate in recent years, it has often been a wild ride to get there. Their polls, for whatever reason, have often found implausibly large swings in the race.

In 2000, for example, Gallup had George W. Bush 16 points ahead among likely voters in polling it conducted in early August. By Sept. 20, about six weeks later, they had Al Gore up by 10 points instead: a 26-point swing toward Mr. Gore over the course of a month and a half. No other polling firm showed a swing remotely that large.

Then in October 2000, Gallup showed a 14-point swing toward Mr. Bush over the course of a few days, and had him ahead by 13 points on Oct. 27 — just 10 days before an election that ended in a virtual tie.

In 1996, Gallup had Bill Clinton’s margin over Bob Dole increasing to 25 points from nine points over the course of four days.

After the Republican convention in 2008, Gallup had John McCain leading Mr. Obama by as many as 10 points among likely voters. Although some other polls also had Mr. McCain pulling ahead in the race, no other polling firm ever gave him larger than a four-point lead.

It’s not clear what causes such large swings, although Gallup’s likely voter model may have something to do with it.

Even its registered voter numbers can be volatile, however. In early September of this year, after the Democratic convention, Gallup had Mr. Obama’s lead among registered voters going from seven points to zero points over the course of a week — and then reverting to six points just as quickly. Most other polling firms showed a roughly steady race during this time period.

Because Gallup’s polls usually take large sample sizes, statistical variance alone probably cannot account these sorts of shifts. It seems to be an endemic issue with their methodology.

To be clear, I would not recommend that you literally just disregard the Gallup poll. You should consider it — but consider it in context.

The context is that its most recent results differ substantially from the dozens of other state and national polls about the campaign. It’s much more likely that Gallup is wrong and everyone else is right than the other way around."
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#5
How much longer are we going to have to put up with your dishonest shilling?
 

OccupyWackbag

Registered User
Dec 12, 2011
3,416
188
98
#6
How much longer are we going to have to put up with your dishonest shilling?
Hey remember the thread where he posted an article after editing out the part that didnt conform to his agenda.

I had to scroll, scroll, scroll to find it. Hes been absent from it for some reason...
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,424
22,058
398
Northern California
#7
Hey remember the thread where he posted an article after editing out the part that didnt conform to his agenda.

I had to scroll, scroll, scroll to find it. Hes been absent from it for some reason...
He was also noticeably absent from the thread regarding the polling official who "jokingly" guaranteed a Democrat the election.

But of course there's no reason to worry about that... the polling official wasn't a stupid 16 year old girl outside Costco, who is much more likely to steal an election.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#8
Remember the thread where he was a total faggot? Oh wait. That's every thread.
 

ruckstande

Posts mostly from the shitter.
Apr 2, 2005
15,011
4,523
693
South Jersey
#9
He was also noticeably absent from the thread regarding the polling official who "jokingly" guaranteed a Democrat the election.

But of course there's no reason to worry about that... the polling official wasn't a stupid 16 year old girl outside Costco, who is much more likely to steal an election.
He involves himself in things like Al Sharpton.
 

ruckstande

Posts mostly from the shitter.
Apr 2, 2005
15,011
4,523
693
South Jersey
#11
What's dishonest about what I wrote up there, board op?
I think he's basing that on your previous dishonesty of editing out information on a former article that you posted because you didn't find the information positively weighed in your favor and how when called out on said dishonesty you conveniently ignored said thread.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,441
8,607
693
Silverdale, WA
#12
I just want to say I thoroughly enjoy how HHD makes Don lose his shit every time he posts. It takes quite a bit of back-and-forth for me to ever evoke the dreaded "Dishonest Jizzbag" insult from Mr. Thetrucker. :action-sm
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
78,636
27,395
898
Seattle
#13
I just want to say I thoroughly enjoy how HHD makes Don lose his shit every time he posts. It takes quite a bit of back-and-forth for me to ever evoke the dreaded "Dishonest Jizzbag" insult from Mr. Thetrucker. :action-sm
You have to be a real retard to out retard a libtard. :)
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#15
First of all, RCP is just a poll of polls. Not that accurate.

You need someone who actually ANALYZES data and is not politically affiliated like Nate Silver at www.fivethirtyeight.com.

And Gallup, according to Fordham University was the 20th most accurate pollster (out of 25) last election.



Anyhow, national polls don't matter. This is like 2004. It will likely come down to Ohio.

Even this model, under an Obama disaster where he loses EVERY swing state except Iowa (where he has always lead) and Ohio (where he has kicked ass in early voting and 19% have already voted early), he still wins the Presidency with 271 electoral votes:



Why do you think he is spending way more money there, with more Union people and students working polls and registering voters, and challenging voting laws in the SCOTUS? Why do you think Bill Clinton and Springsteen are there? Obama has 120 offices in Ohio for getting out the vote. Some have been open since 2008.

Plus Ohio has lots of colleges, and out of state kids who go to school there give vote in Ohio. Ohio state has 56,000 students alone. Why do you think 50% of the newly registered voters in Ohio are under 30? (More than any state). They registered 10,000 in one week in September when Obama had a huge rally. Obama has really focused on urban blacks, women, union workers and students to win Ohio again.

If he wins it he's in.
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
17,919
5,330
838
Wilmington, NC
#16
Hack Hawk Down said:
What's dishonest about what I wrote up there, board op?
I'll do the research for you, Don.

Here ya go, HHD...a rather comprehensive sample of your posts from the previous 30 days pumping up these same polls you're claiming don't matter, in this thread:

Hack Hawk Down said:
Are you fucking kidding me?

Romney had a President with low approval ratings and a mess with congress and poor economic reports coming out to go up against, and he's still losing in every swing state poll!!!!

He sucks at politics. No matter how much you like him. If he loses to McCain, and then Obama...he will go down as one of the worst ever.

Hack Hawk Down said:
Romney is no Reagan. Not even fucking close. His favorability numbers are almost a record low at this point in the campaign for a challenger.
Hack Hawk Down said:
This is the strongest he's been polling since May. There ain't no careening
Hack Hawk Down said:
Can somebody who ascribes to the voter fraud theory explain to me why Obama is leading in 4 of the 5 whitest states in the country?
This is my favorite because it's in response to something I posted...and it COMPLETELY contradicts the post in this thread (PS the first sentence is sarcastic, BTW):

Hack Hawk Down said:
Yes, every polling firm in America will be proven wrong on election night.

If you took a statistics course in college, you would understand the methodologies better, and that polls have been pretty accurate throughout history in terms of Presidential elections. That's why both parties pay these exact firms lots of money for their services.

This is the best article yet explaining the polls. This guy is not a fan of Obama, but its pretty accurate: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...ack-obama-is-beating-mitt-romney-in-the-polls
Hack Hawk Down said:
There is no scenario in which Romney wins by 100 electoral votes.

Even the most republican pollster, Scott Rasmussen has Obama leading, likely or safe for 247 electoral votes on his electoral college scorecard, with Romney leading, likely or safe for 196.
The following two posts were an attempt at making a bet with me on who would win the election, because you were so sure Obama would win due to the polling data and the polling history during the Reagan-Carter race:

Hack Hawk Down said:
It would help if you were not a complete fucking idiot...but let me try to explain basic shit to you AGAIN...

The trouble with that argument is Reagan was ahead of Carter in the poll of polls from May that year onwards. In the summer Reagan had a 20-point lead at one stage. In mid-September he was ahead of Carter by a few points, but the race blew open after the last debate to give Reagan a landslide. Romney is not in that position as of today.
Hack Hawk Down said:
How about this....If Romney wins, I will never post on Wackbag ever again. If Obama wins, you donate $500 to wackbag? I'm that sure of the outcome. Deal?
Hack Hawk Down said:
That's precisely my point.​
Drudge will post links to economists or military supporting Romney, but Conservatives ignore the face that Latinos are supporting Democrats in greater numbers.​
By the way, in the CNN survey, just 9 of 17 economists picked Romney.
That's a tiny sample, and a tiny margin for an "economy" guy.​
Hack Hawk Down said:
I didn't see the debate but it appears that Obama got his ass kicked.

If this doesn't move the polls for Romney, nothing will.
Hack Hawk Down said:
Smart move by Romney.

Obama is 70-75% with Latinos in polls right now.

If Romney brings it closer to 60-65% he wins.
Hack Hawk Down said:
Polls are not skewed. They use methodologies, dummy. They have always gotten it pretty fucking close for a reason.
Hack Hawk Down said:
Anyway, there were two main polls taken after the debate...

Here's all you need to know about them:

A CBS News-Knowledge Networks poll of undecided voters who watched the debate found 50 percent giving the advantage to Mr. Biden, 31 percent to the Republican, Representative Paul D. Ryan, and 19 percent calling the debate a tie.

A CNN poll of debate-watchers, however, had 48 percent giving the debate to Mr. Ryan, and 44 percent to Mr. Biden.
The surveys are not directly comparable: the CBS News poll was conducted among undecided voters only, while the CNN poll was among all debate viewers.
Hack Hawk Down said:
CBS poll of undecideds went to Biden: 50-31 (19 called a tie)
Hack Hawk Down said:
Remember: PPP found 2 days ago that that 19 % of Ohio's registered voters have already voted. Among them, the President won 76% to 24%. That means Romney needs to win by a 12% margin of the remaining voters to win the state. (.19 * .52 = .81 * x, x = 12 %.)
Now beat it troll.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#17
How about this....If Romney wins, I will never post on Wackbag ever again. If Obama wins, you donate $500 to wackbag? I'm that sure of the outcome. Deal?
I'm sure you'll be gone anyway after the election. I would imagine your internship on the Committee to Re-elect the President will cease to exist. But there's always Hillary 2016!
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#18
I just want to say I thoroughly enjoy how HHD makes Don lose his shit every time he posts. It takes quite a bit of back-and-forth for me to ever evoke the dreaded "Dishonest Jizzbag" insult from Mr. Thetrucker. :action-sm
Have you tried posting smarmy-captioned funny pictures? Works for me. :cool:
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,441
8,607
693
Silverdale, WA
#19
Nate Silver has a message for all the haters (Probably applies to a couple here that tend to use this word as well ;))

 

Psychopath

Plata O Plomo
Dec 28, 2008
17,717
3,352
393
hell
#20
Begbie, did you post his shitty attempt at passing an edited story?
 

Chino Kapone

Yo, whats wrong wit da beer we got?
Jun 10, 2005
16,959
2,196
608
#21
[mammy]What's goin on in this thread?


OH LAWD![/mammy]
 

jnoble

Lingering longer for a longering linger
Dec 4, 2005
8,515
4,218
566
New Jersey
#22
I have a gut feeling that Romney is going to win pretty much every swing state and maybe even Michigan. And maybe possibly my own New Jersey which isn't quite as solid blue for Obama as previousy assumed. Imagine that.

If Romney wins big I'm looking forward to seeing all the lib heads explode both on cable TV and the ones I know on FB.
 

Neckbeard

I'm Team Piggy!
Donator
Oct 26, 2011
24,899
15,281
303
#24
Electoral collage? How is he with decoupages?
LINGIDY LONGIDY
Double arts and crafts!