BoatShoes;1309355 wrote:We can't all offer the grounded, reasoned insight of se-alum I suppose

No, but you could at least try.

gut;1309568 wrote:Let me ask you a simple question. Obama has declined 8-10pts or more in other swing states from 2008. Why would OH be flat, or even UP?!? Why is OH different? Past results don't guarantee future success. Just because averaging polls gave good results once (and Nate has done this for a grand total of one presidential election, so hardly the track record of a Rasmussen or even Gallup) doesn't mean a whole lot. You can't average garbage into a good number, you cannot.

Of course OH is not different or special. Michigan and Indiana - right next door, they're affected by the UAW payoff, too. Very similar, yet the OH numbers don't move from 2008? Do you really need Nate Silver to spell that out for you, or can you think for yourself?

I've been saying all along these polls don't make sense. There's actually a lot of support for it - much of it I've detailed, and which you can readily confirm by thinking and researching for yourself (but that requires you to seek information from places other than the left).

Ohio could be different due to the auto industry and other factors.



Perhaps because the unemployment rate has been falling for about 3 years and is at 7.0% right now.

And if you look at Michigan they still have a higher UE rate:

I Wear Pants;1309601 wrote:Ohio could be different due to the auto industry and other factors.



Perhaps because the unemployment rate has been falling for about 3 years and is at 7.0% right now.

And if you look at Michigan they still have a higher UE rate:

Kasich has done a fantastic job. He took office in 2010, and down the UE rate goes.

I wasn't aware Kasich was the governor of nearly all the states.

Pew and Gallup both show Romney with a 7-point edge nationwide in early voting. In 2008, Obama's advantage in early voting was something like 19 points.

http://www.people-press.org/2012/10/31/in-deadlocked-race-neither-side-has-ground-game-advantage/

In the poll, conducted Oct. 24-28, 19% of likely voters say they have already voted; that is unchanged from the same week in the 2008 campaign (Oct. 23-26, 2008). Currently, Romney holds a seven-point edge among early voters (50% to 43%); because of the small sample, this lead is not statistically significant. At this point four years ago, Obama led John McCain by 19 points (53% to 34%) among early voters.

Maybe this is meaningless and all of Obama's base is holding back til Election Day. Or maybe his base isn't near as fired up as they were in '08.

But why would OH be different from MI? Or IN? or PA? Those states have seen huge swings from 2008. Go take a look at the Real Politics poll, and take not of Obama's losses from 2008, and also look at Bush in 2004 and even 2000 (though 2000 is a rather differenct election). OH stands out like a sore thumb. Even many of those comparative movements still appear undertated - at least two polls now have pulled out of NC and FL pronouncing it over for Obama, eventhough RCP would suggest otherwise.

OH, right now, is at best a complete 50/50 toss-up when you calibrate that number with the others and with the history. It's a state that went with Bush in 2000 and 2004, and saw a large swing in 2008 as the nation rejected the Repub agenda yet is somehow insulated from the movement the rest of the country is seeing in 2012. I don't buy it at all. I expect Obama to lose OH by 2-3pts.

gut;1309617 wrote:But why would OH be different from MI? Or IN? or PA? Those states have seen huge swings from 2008. Go take a look at the Real Politics poll, and take not of Obama's losses from 2008, and also look at Bush in 2004 and even 2000 (though 2000 is a rather differenct election). OH stands out like a sore thumb. Even many of those comparative movements still appear undertated - at least two polls now have pulled out of NC and FL pronouncing it over for Obama, eventhough RCP would suggest otherwise.

OH, right now, is at best a complete 50/50 toss-up when you calibrate that number with the others and with the history. It's a state that went with Bush in 2000 and 2004, and saw a large swing in 2008 as the nation rejected the Repub agenda yet is somehow insulated from the movement the rest of the country is seeing in 2012. I don't buy it at all. I expect Obama to lose OH by 2-3pts.

I agree with you that it's probably going to be close to even. Lost me when you got into the 3 point Romney win territory.

I Wear Pants;1309620 wrote:I agree with you that it's probably going to be close to even. Lost me when you got into the 3 point Romney win territory.

How about I say Romney +1 with a margin of error of 1.5? I think the result shakes out between Romney +2/+3 (with a more even turnout) or Obama in a very very narrow victory (with a turnout similar to 2008, which I think highly unlikely). I could buy turnout is somewhere in between which makes it a complete toss-up, though I'd think still skewed toward Romney.

gut;1309630 wrote:How about I say Romney +1 with a margin of error of 1.5? I think the result shakes out between Romney +2/+3 (with a more even turnout) or Obama in a very very narrow victory (with a turnout similar to 2008, which I think highly unlikely). I could buy turnout is somewhere in between which makes it a complete toss-up, though I'd think still skewed toward Romney.

That works better for me I guess. Though I still think it's more likely to be within +1 for either candidate in Ohio.

gut;1309568 wrote:Let me ask you a simple question. Obama has declined 8-10pts or more in other swing states from 2008. Why would OH be flat, or even UP?!? Why is OH different? Past results don't guarantee future success. Just because averaging polls gave good results once (and Nate has done this for a grand total of one presidential election, so hardly the track record of a Rasmussen or even Gallup) doesn't mean a whole lot. You can't average garbage into a good number, you cannot.

Of course OH is not different or special. Michigan and Indiana - right next door, they're affected by the UAW payoff, too. Very similar, yet the OH numbers don't move from 2008? Do you really need Nate Silver to spell that out for you, or can you think for yourself?

I've been saying all along these polls don't make sense. There's actually a lot of support for it - much of it I've detailed, and which you can readily confirm by thinking and researching for yourself (but that requires you to seek information from places other than the left).

You know the constant deriding of others about how they don't get good information...can't think for themselves...is getting old. There is nothing special about the Nate Silver character...my simple point is that I think it is more biased to try to read something special in one poll or another and that I'm not going to try to divine something from the tea leaves like you're doing...if I had to bet, I'd bet on poll aggregation and not that there's some kind of widespread failure that only conservatives can seemingly figure out.

I mean a simple answer might be that they've campaigned harder in Ohio. I don't know...I'm not going to look at the data and just say "that can't be right."

BoatShoes;1309634 wrote:You know the constant deriding of others about how they don't get good information...can't think for themselves...is getting old.

People not able to think for themselves or get good information gets old. It gets old when people accuse me of being biased, right-wing, or whatever when, in fact, I have education and work experience in the areas I typically comment on. I don't need to get my talking points from ignorant or biased media because I actually know my shit and get paid pretty well for knowing my shit.

The analysis I did is a pretty basic methodology for identifying outliers and where the model appears to be failing. It's very straightforward and unbiased just to look at the general movement from 2008, and OH is the only one (at least among swing states) without significant movement. That smells. And that's without even getting into oversampling.

The simple fact is OH is a toss-up, and your margin of error is 2-3pts. But there is nothing in that data to show it's anything more than a dead heat at the moment (unless we get into oversampling). Aggregating uniformly biased polls does not remove bias from your sample. That's Statistics 101, but I've explained multiple times why pollsters are loath to deviate from the 2008 baseline.

I Wear Pants;1309631 wrote:That works better for me I guess. Though I still think it's more likely to be within +1 for either candidate in Ohio.

Probably, hardly unreasonable - turnout is a huge factor when you consider it could fall anywhere between even and +8 Obama. If it's +4/5 to Obama it will be very tight, if it's even Romney wins by 3pts.

The two places that I think polls just went out the window are NH and Virginia. Not sure what early voting looks like, but to the extent the recovery hampers people on election day I'd tend to think that hurts Romney with what I'd expect to be higher Repub turnout on election day.

gut;1309641 wrote:People not able to think for themselves or get good information gets old. It gets old when people accuse me of being biased, right-wing, or whatever when, in fact, I have education and work experience in the areas I typically comment on. I don't need to get my talking points from ignorant or biased media because I actually know my shit and get paid pretty well for knowing my shit.

The analysis I did is a pretty basic methodology for identifying outliers and where the model appears to be failing. It's very straightforward and unbiased just to look at the general movement from 2008, and OH is the only one (at least among swing states) without significant movement. That smells. And that's without even getting into oversampling.

The simple fact is OH is a toss-up, and your margin of error is 2-3pts. But there is nothing in that data to show it's anything more than a dead heat at the moment (unless we get into oversampling). Aggregating uniformly biased polls does not remove bias from your sample. That's Statistics 101, but I've explained multiple times why pollsters are loath to deviate from the 2008 baseline.

You're betting on state polling being uniformly biased against Mitt Romney, There's no good reason, other than your "gut" feelings to suggest that Ohio must reasonably have a larger shift toward Romney because other rust belt states do and consequently come to the conclusion that the polls showing the Obama firewall in Ohio are biased. Your argument is ultimately based on your gut feelings and appeals to your own authority and masquerading it as careful, evidence based analysis.

In the apparent unlikely event that Obama wins Ohio, what are we to think of your gut feelings from here on out?

se-alum;1309580 wrote:No, but you could at least try.

T'would be futile I'm afraid

BoatShoes;1309648 wrote:You're betting on state polling being uniformly biased against Mitt Romney, There's no good reason,

One more time. They are using 2008 turnout as their baseline. I disagree it's anywhere near that (which, uhhh, would makes the polls uniformly biased against Romney and isn't necessarily intentional just a flaw). Yes, the polls will probably be within the margin of error if Obama gets the turnout he did in 2008. But even most of the koolaid drinkers recognize that isn't going to be the case.

And there's plenty of reason and evidence to think Obama doesn't hit anything close to his 2008 turnout when there was almost record enthusiasm and an extremely impressive number of new and first-time voters. A lot of those aren't coming back after 4 years of disillusionment, and plenty of other data is suggesting turnout/registration is much more even than in 2008.

So, no, it's a lot more than a gut feeling. You would appear to be the one with a "gut" feeling in absence of rational and reasonable understanding/analysis.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21565623-america-could-do-better-barack-obama-sadly-mitt-romney-does-not-fit-bill-which-one

Ty Webb;1309953 wrote:http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21565623-america-could-do-better-barack-obama-sadly-mitt-romney-does-not-fit-bill-which-one

Pretty well sums up my feelings of this election.

Ty Webb;1309953 wrote:http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21565623-america-could-do-better-barack-obama-sadly-mitt-romney-does-not-fit-bill-which-one

LMAO. They pretty well lay out the case why Obama should be fired and why you should vote for Romney. Then regurgitate the liberal BS about "the ever-changing Romney", amongst other lies/deceptions, and go on to basically say "fuck it, vote for the guy who's a proven failure".

Yeah, the Economist is such a liberal rag :rolleyes:

This election is over. Obama is going to win in a landslide. I took a shit today and it was a darn brown color so it obvious Obama is going to win.
/gibby

2kool4skool;1310091 wrote:Yeah, the Economist is such a liberal rag :rolleyes:

Didn't say it is. But sometimes an editor or owner is. I'd give it a lot more credibility if it didn't regurgitate the same bunk about "tax cuts for the wealthy and massive expansion of the deficit". That's not remotely honest when compared with Obama. Anyone that pretends deficits won't be significantly higher under Obama is pushing an agenda.

There's a way to make an objective case, but here again they can't defend Obama so they create a fiction about Romney to give the nod to Obama by default. Kind of perverse, in a way, that it takes the perspective of Obama as a challenger and Romney as the incumbent because the challenger is not usually held to a much higher standard than the guy with an actual record to review.

Heck, if we lower the goal posts any further for Obama we're going to need to dig a trench.

gut;1310078 wrote:LMAO. They pretty well lay out the case why Obama should be fired and why you should vote for Romney. Then regurgitate the liberal BS about "the ever-changing Romney", amongst other lies/deceptions, and go on to basically say "fuck it, vote for the guy who's a proven failure".

Romney changing his opinion to suit whatever audience he's talking to isn't BS though. It's what he's done.

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/democrats-crushing-republicans-sporadic-fla-voters-early-voting#comments

Not looking good for Romney/Ryan

Ty Webb;1310276 wrote:http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/democrats-crushing-republicans-sporadic-fla-voters-early-voting#comments

Not looking good for Romney/Ryan

Lol this guy

I Wear Pants;1310230 wrote:Romney changing his opinion to suit whatever audience he's talking to isn't BS though. It's what he's done.

The brilliance continues, unabated.