gut;1314808 wrote:Read what I wrote several times. +7/8 Obama wins. +2 or less, Romney wins easily. D+3/4 it's a dead toss-up. I pretty much nailed it chief. All those polls having Obama +2, +4 or 5+ were off the mark, like I said.

Yeah, I thought turnout would be more like D+2 and Romney would win. I was wrong in that regard, and so were the polls.

Oh will you stop...you were confident in a Romney win claiming that the polls were a fail and that Ohio was going to show a similar drop like other states. You were wrong and you were basing it on your biased distaste toward Obama. Own. Your. Fail. Can you not be accountable like Obama, as you claim? Can Quakeroats not be accountable for claiming a landslide when Romney actually lost?

The polls were basically right and the folks that claimed they were wrong and Romney would actually win were a super fail. Own it.

gut;1314808 wrote:Read what I wrote several times. +7/8 Obama wins. +2 or less, Romney wins easily. D+3/4 it's a dead toss-up. I pretty much nailed it chief. All those polls having Obama +2, +4 or 5+ were off the mark, like I said.

Yeah, I thought turnout would be more like D+2 and Romney would win. I was wrong in that regard, and so were the polls.

True. The entire election appears to swing on 30,000 votes in 3 different states. So out of 130,000,000 votes the election turns on about 90,000. Can't get any closer than that; and yet it is a massive difference for the future of the nation.

WebFire;1314816 wrote:So it appears every big city is liberal. The rest of the country is overwhelmingly Republican. Looking at the county levels maps is just crazy.

Was thinking about that. I think it makes sense to group by state, on a national level, because federally is there really a difference between Cleveland and Columbus? But what's discouraging is to be in, say, Sandusky, but basically have your vote nullified by the major metropolitans.

I would favor splitting electoral votes along congressional lines (for the House). Problem then is you get too many games with redistricting. Would seem to be a nightmare to strategize a campaign, too (although that's probably a good thing).

This is nothing new. We've been on a path toward increasing socialism for decades. I'm willing to accept that (globally it rarely gets reversed, and socialism does have its merits). I think we need to start finding people that can make socialism work. Good luck with that.

WebFire;1314816 wrote:So it appears every big city is liberal. The rest of the country is overwhelmingly Republican. Looking at the county levels maps is just crazy.

Yeah, it is crazy to even look at the ohio map. Area wise....dominated by republicans, but where the dense population is...all dem.

WebFire;1314816 wrote:So it appears every big city is liberal. The rest of the country is overwhelmingly Republican. Looking at the county levels maps is just crazy.

But remember, out west you have massive counties that could have 100 people, and if 51 voted for Mitt it paints a gigantic red mark on the map, which is misleading. If they skewed the map to have size represent population it would not be as overwhelming

QuakerOats;1314822 wrote:and yet it is a massive difference for the future of the nation.

Yes and no. It's not so much a new direction under Obama as an acceleration. My main problem with Obama is when it comes to economics and business he just doesn't get it. Harry Reid definitely doesn't get it. And that's my main problem with liberals - there's no balance, and they aren't grounded in their approach/execution.

wes_mantooth;1314828 wrote:Yeah, it is crazy to even look at the ohio map. Area wise....dominated by republicans, but where the dense population is...all dem.

Uhh, that is where people live.
It is the 21st century, world wide people are moving to cities. It is human nature. Accept it.

ptown_trojans_1;1314831 wrote:Uhh, that is where people live.
It is the 21st century, world wide people are moving to cities. It is human nature. Accept it.

oh...I know. It I was just surprised with actually seeing it on the tv map...lol

QuakerOats;1314822 wrote:True. The entire election appears to swing on 30,000 votes in 3 different states. So out of 130,000,000 votes the election turns on about 90,000. Can't get any closer than that; and yet it is a massive difference for the future of the nation.

You were wrong. You called...multiple times "Romney Big." Not only was it not Romney Big...it was Romney loss...will you admit that you were not basing your opinions on the evidence but wishful thinking?

Colorado and Washington just legalized marijuana.

Keep on keepin' on!!!!

QuakerOats;1314822 wrote:True. The entire election appears to swing on 30,000 votes in 3 different states. So out of 130,000,000 votes the election turns on about 90,000. Can't get any closer than that; and yet it is a massive difference for the future of the nation.

Come on, you have no room to talk whatsoever Mr. Romney is a blowout and Oh My God the end of the world is near we are at the mercy of a dictator.
What I took from tonight is you and your point if view is horribly wrong and misguided.
Go back and review your talking points and boiler plate arguments. I'm waiting on new buzz words from you.....

MoldyDog;1314835 wrote:Colorado and Washington just legalized marijuana.

Keep on keepin' on!!!!

Maryland legalized gay-marriage by the ballot. The world is going to end!
Oh my God. What are people going to do on here!?

BoatShoes;1314819 wrote:Oh will you stop...you were confident in a Romney win claiming that the polls were a fail and that Ohio was going to show a similar drop like other states.

Yes, I was confident in a Romney win at D+2. It was a little better and threw things into toss-up. I said as much.

And in the end, Ohio DID track the other states - VA, FL, etc... The +4/+5 many polls were showing - and Nate Silver's vaunted poll-of-polls at +2 - were all wrong. Those polls were skewed because they oversampled, and I was dead-on. The question, which I always acknowledged, was how what the real baseline looked like.

I predicted OH +2/3 for Romney. So I missed by about the same amount as Nate silver.

ts1227;1314829 wrote:But remember, out west you have massive counties that could have 100 people, and if 51 voted for Mitt it paints a gigantic red mark on the map, which is misleading. If they skewed the map to have size represent population it would not be as overwhelming

Yeah, but when you have liberal intellectual metropolitan elites controlling 90% of the rest of the land area of the country, those vast areas are dramatically under-represented, and subject to rules and laws that are borne out of urban areas/issues ..... it is not a good situation.

What are those people on in Chicago? It looks like Heaven's Gate in there. I want that shit. It looks delicious.

QuakerOats;1314839 wrote:Yeah, but when you have liberal intellectual metropolitan elites controlling 90% of the rest of the land area of the country, those vast areas are dramatically under-represented, and subject to rules and laws that are borne out of urban areas/issues ..... it is not a good situation.

Really, you do know the world is moving more towards cities? Get with the times......

MoldyDog;1314835 wrote:Colorado and Washington just legalized marijuana.

Keep on keepin' on!!!!

It will likely take for it to take affect, if it ever does. There will be a huge fight with the Federal gov't, to get their piece of the pie.

gut;1314838 wrote:Yes, I was confident in a Romney win at D+2. It was a little better and threw things into toss-up. I said as much.

And in the end, Ohio DID track the other states - VA, FL, etc... The +4/+5 many polls were showing - and Nate Silver's vaunted poll-of-polls at +2 - were all wrong. Those polls were skewed because they oversampled, and I was dead-on. The question, which I always acknowledged, was how what the real baseline looked like.

I predicted OH +2/3 for Romney. So I missed by about the same amount as Nate silver.

Please, look at Silver methodology and stats. Go back to stats 101. You were wrong as were most on here.
I'm waiting on the end of the world is near talk.....

ptown_trojans_1;1314836 wrote:Come on, you have no room to talk whatsoever Mr. Romney is a blowout and Oh My God the end of the world is near we are at the mercy of a dictator.
What I took from tonight is you and your point if view is horribly wrong and misguided.
Go back and review your talking points and boiler plate arguments. I'm waiting on new buzz words from you.....

What are you talking about - we have a 50/50 election. We have a split country: half and half. My views are not horribly wrong nor misguided. I advocate for liberty and fiscal sanity; at least half of us believe in that. I am sorry you don't. Hope you and yours find your way soon; because we can't afford your agenda any longer.

ptown_trojans_1;1314841 wrote:Really, you do know the world is moving more towards cities? Get with the times......

Balance your budgets, quit coming after me to pay for your spending habits.

se-alum;1314842 wrote:It will likely take for it to take affect, if it ever does. There will be a huge fight with the Federal gov't, to get their piece of the pie.

Yeah, no doubt this is going to be a mess. I like that it passed...but the Fed govt is going to want a giant cut...lol

ptown_trojans_1;1314843 wrote:Please, look at Silver methodology and stats. Go back to stats 101. You were wrong as were most on here.
I'm waiting on the end of the world is near talk.....

LOL, I don't need a refresher in stats. Nate's vaunted poll-of-poll averages was at least +2 for OH. The margin was essentially nil. The fact is, those polls WERE skewed because they were all on the high side of the MOE toward Romney. So I was 100% correct. Rasmussen and Gallup were actually outliers for Romney, which is the only reason Nate was as close as he was because the mode of his data was more like +4/5.

Nobody nailed it nuts on, you couldn't because turnout was a bitch. Nate wasn't any closer than me - 30k votes the other direction and I win. Election day turnout was the difference, and that's not in any of the polling data.

In fact, I said Obama's best case scenario if he had good turn-out was eking out a win. I was more optimistic on Romney's turnout, but I pretty much nailed the scenarios and levers.

MoldyDog;1314835 wrote:Colorado and Washington just legalized marijuana.

Keep on keepin' on!!!!

The feds will have something to say about this.

ptown_trojans_1;1314836 wrote:Go back and review your talking points and boiler plate arguments. I'm waiting on new buzz words from you.....

The County GOP chair hasn't told him how he is supposed to think for the next few years yet. Give him a few days to be reprogrammed properly first

gut;1314850 wrote:LOL, I don't need a refresher in stats. Nate's vaunted poll-of-poll averages was at least +2 for OH. The margin was essentially nil. The fact is, those polls WERE skewed because they were all on the high side of the MOE toward Romney. So I was 100% correct. Rasmussen and Gallup were actually outliers for Romney, which is the only reason Nate was as close as he was because the mode of his data was more like +4/5.

Nobody nailed it nuts on, you couldn't because turnout was a bitch. Nate wasn't any closer than me - 30k votes the other direction and I win.

In fact, I said Obama's best case scenario if he had good turn-out was eking out a win. I was more optimistic on Romney's turnout, but I pretty much nailed the scenarios and levers.

Amazing!!! :laugh: