# 5 Point Obama lead in Ohio...Ohio...Ohio



## JimH52 (Oct 23, 2012)

Presidential Polls 2012 - Latest Swing State Polls: Obama Up in Ohio, Can Romney Reap Elections Without It? : Politics : Latinos Post

Newest Polling


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 23, 2012)

JimH52 said:


> Presidential Polls 2012 - Latest Swing State Polls: Obama Up in Ohio, Can Romney Reap Elections Without It? : Politics : Latinos Post
> 
> Newest Polling



I love how all liberals can point to are media polls.


----------



## SniperFire (Oct 23, 2012)

JimH52 said:


> Presidential Polls 2012 - Latest Swing State Polls: Obama Up in Ohio, Can Romney Reap Elections Without It? : Politics : Latinos Post
> 
> Newest Polling




The link you provide has Romney winning 48-45% in Ohio. 


LOL

Q16. There are seven candidates for President listed on your ballot - Stewart
 Alexander Socialist Party, Richard Duncan Independent, Virgil Goode {GOO-d}
 Constitution Party, Gary Johnson Libertarian, Barack Obama Democratic, Mitt
 Romney Republican, and Jill Stein Green Party. At this point, for whom will
 you vote?
 <FOR THOSE YET TO VOTE 1 of 2>
          N=                                                                       480 100%
          ALEXANDER - Socialist ..........................  1                        0   0%
          DUNCAN - Independent ...........................  2                        1   0%
          GOODE - Constitution............................  3                        0   0%
          JOHNSON - Libertarian ..........................  4                        5   1%
          OBAMA - Democrat ...............................  5                      214  45%
          ROMNEY - Republican ............................  6                      231  48%
          STEIN - Green party ............................  7                        4   1%
          Undecided (DO NOT READ) ........................  8                       16   3%
          Refused    (DO NOT READ) .......................  9                        9   2%


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2012/Suffolk_OH_1022.pdf



Oh, and it oversampled Democrats.


----------



## jillian (Oct 23, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Presidential Polls 2012 - Latest Swing State Polls: Obama Up in Ohio, Can Romney Reap Elections Without It? : Politics : Latinos Post
> ...



hi hon.. .you mean as opposed to the fake polls posted by pale rider?  oops... i mean 007?


----------



## JimH52 (Oct 23, 2012)

First, a Suffolk University poll shows Obama and Romney tied at 47 percent support each. While this may look like a dead heat, remember that a* CBS News poll had Obama up by 5 points at the same time this poll was taken, and that matches the trend we've seen lately in Ohio.*

Try again Sniper


----------



## SniperFire (Oct 23, 2012)

JimH52 said:


> First, a Suffolk University poll shows Obama and Romney tied at 47 percent support each. While this may look like a dead heat, remember that a* CBS News poll had Obama up by 5 points at the same time this poll was taken, and that matches the trend we've seen lately in Ohio.*
> 
> Try again Sniper



I gave you the Suffolk University Poll of likely voters in Ohio, asshole 


LOL


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 23, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio]Original Obamaphone Lady: Obama Voter Says Vote for Obama because he gives a free Phone - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Conservative (Oct 23, 2012)

JimH52 said:


> Presidential Polls 2012 - Latest Swing State Polls: Obama Up in Ohio, Can Romney Reap Elections Without It? : Politics : Latinos Post
> 
> Newest Polling



try 1.9 on the RCP average, dumb ass...

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Ohio: Romney vs. Obama


----------



## Conservative (Oct 23, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Presidential Polls 2012 - Latest Swing State Polls: Obama Up in Ohio, Can Romney Reap Elections Without It? : Politics : Latinos Post
> ...



what I love is that libtards like the OP used to whine that a single poll was not a good indicator of reality, and that an average of multiple polls like RCP was a better indicator... 

until of course the RCP average started going Romney's way, now the single polls showing Obama ahead are suddenly a better indicator.

Dumb ass libtards.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 23, 2012)

Conservatives doing their sulky thing warms my little heart. 

They see the writing on the wall. How is Romney supposed to recover from this last catastrophe with the little time he has left? It was his last chance, and he flubbed it. Romney was already a little behind in total, further behind in the swing states, and all the momentum was with Obama. Debate #3 reinforced all that.

Now Obama simply needs to pound it out on the ground and run out the clock. There is no more air time available to be bought. It's all about getting the vote out, and you can read here how demoralized the Republicans are.


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 23, 2012)

jillian said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



I haven't seen those.


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 23, 2012)

Conservative said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



Yeah pretty much.  Ignore the average, ignore the trends, ignore the rest of the polls that show something totally different...just pay attention to this poll right here that shows O+5 and ignore that it's a media poll.  Fucking tools.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 23, 2012)

Have any of you folks read Barack Obama's new "Blueprint" for America?  It's supposedly his long awaited plan to fix the economy and put people back to work.  Barry is now holding it up as "proof" that he actually HAS a plan.

The problem is...when you go and read the thing it's just a rehash of the same old Obama "talking points" that he's been spouting IN PLACE of having a real plan.  I guess the Democrats plan was to wait until the very last moment...print up some glossy pamphlets that contain nothing new...and declare that  "YES WE DO HAVE A PLAN!!!"

This Administration gets more pathetic with each passing day...


----------



## elvis (Oct 23, 2012)

It's tied.


----------



## Trajan (Oct 23, 2012)

JimH52 said:


> Presidential Polls 2012 - Latest Swing State Polls: Obama Up in Ohio, Can Romney Reap Elections Without It? : Politics : Latinos Post
> 
> Newest Polling



got it,  so that poll is good,  and say, Suffolks isn't?





I don't buy either one of them anyway.........but hey, in any event you're the first person I am putting on USMB suicide watch if it looks like Romneys going to win......I will have a Waaambulance standing by.


----------



## Dante (Oct 23, 2012)

Trajan said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Presidential Polls 2012 - Latest Swing State Polls: Obama Up in Ohio, Can Romney Reap Elections Without It? : Politics : Latinos Post
> ...



The President most likely has a small but significant lead in Ohio. Most analysts agree on that. What it is about is the ground game in Ohio -- turn out.

It will be the religious right/evangelicals for the GOP (Ralph Reed and co) versus Unions for the President. Ohio is a strong Union state...but look at 2004'

after the 2000 election Rove met right away with Reed. Evangelical support was down and it caused the Florida count because some believed if the religious right turned out, Bush would not have needed Florida. 

Reed delivered in 2004.


----------



## Dante (Oct 23, 2012)

Trajan said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Presidential Polls 2012 - Latest Swing State Polls: Obama Up in Ohio, Can Romney Reap Elections Without It? : Politics : Latinos Post
> ...



Suffolk University in Boston leans right -- just syain'


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 23, 2012)

Dante, how many free minutes did you get with your Obamaphone?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 23, 2012)

Both sides here love the single poll that loves their candidates.

Pat em on the head, chuckle, and move on down the road.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 23, 2012)

Dante said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



"Romney won the presidential debate by looking presidential. Obama had a painful case of Biden's smile"
Romney won the presidential debate by looking presidential. Obama had a painful case of Biden's smile &#8211; Telegraph Blogs


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 23, 2012)

Dante said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



yeah...and how about PPP showing O+1.  they lean right too?  Jeez


----------



## Liability (Oct 23, 2012)

JimH52 said:


> Presidential Polls 2012 - Latest Swing State Polls: Obama Up in Ohio, Can Romney Reap Elections Without It? : Politics : Latinos Post
> 
> Newest Polling





 Muhlenberg College/ Morning Call doesn't even bother to obtain the party affiliation of the respondents.  http://www.scribd.com/doc/110754880/Oct-22-Muhlenberg-College-Morning-Call-Poll


----------



## RoadVirus (Oct 23, 2012)

Conservative said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Presidential Polls 2012 - Latest Swing State Polls: Obama Up in Ohio, Can Romney Reap Elections Without It? : Politics : Latinos Post
> ...



They don't want to acknowledge *that*!


----------



## Dante (Oct 23, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 23, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



Obama is still winning Ohio in the average.


----------



## tjvh (Oct 23, 2012)

Even if Obama is up by a few points, or tied... He's a sitting President, and that fact doesn't bode well for him at all.


----------



## Dante (Oct 23, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



I am not wedded to any poll organization you are referring to. 

you really need to keep up if you want to play


----------



## RoadVirus (Oct 23, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...



By 2 points according to RCP. Big deal.


----------



## Dante (Oct 23, 2012)

tjvh said:


> Even if Obama is up by a few points, or tied... He's a sitting President, and that fact doesn't bode well for him at all.



It doesn't, but President Obama is loved by the people. Repeating the media narrative of how weak presidents lose on close races is lazy of you. Most media talking heads get talking points from all sides before going on the air. They are force fed a diet before weighing in.

learn to look at things with a critical eye and you may actually have something to say -- something interesting if not original. Then you will find people listening to you in place of falling asleep as you speak


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 23, 2012)

Best tidbit in the Suffolk Ohio poll,

13% of respondents said they'd never heard of John Kasich.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 23, 2012)

RoadVirus said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



Yeah?  He was ahead by 2 points in the polls in Ohio in 2008, 

and won by 4.


----------



## Liability (Oct 23, 2012)

RoadVirus said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



And the RCP AVERAGE incorporates the errors implicit in the polling.  So if one poll uses registered voters while another uses likely voters, the inaccuracy of the former still gets averaged in to the latter.  

And if SOME polls still persist in going with respondents weighted with a Democrat voter overload (unintentionally or intentionally doesn't matter) then the skewing of those polls' results will ALSO be "incorporated into the "average" outcome.

Ohio and PA and Florida and VA are going to go with Romney.

Watch.


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 23, 2012)

Dante said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Nor am I.  You clearly miss the point.  A poll is only useful in context with other polls that either support or refute a given result. The only poll taken after the second debate that supports the CBSNews poll is FoxNews at O+3.  It's no surprise that all the media or media affiliated polls taken since the second debate show a far stronger Obama result.  That's typical of media polls.  The professional polls are all tied or O+1.  So the argument that Suffolk leans right is overshadowed by the fact that the other professional organizations are showing a similar result, even PPP who has an indisputable liberal lean...and trust me....I am happy to play anytime.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 23, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



Most of what you like to call media polls are professional pollsters.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 23, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Best tidbit in the Suffolk Ohio poll,
> 
> 13% of respondents said they'd never heard of John Kasich.



Obama voters, every last one of them


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 23, 2012)

It's odd that there seemed to be little or no objection from the usual suspects on the Right around here when the Gallup poll, aka the outlier, was being singled out to show Romney up by 6.

Suddenly, now, it's a criminal offense, according to those same 'nuts,

to single out the Quinnipiac poll.


----------



## Liability (Oct 23, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> It's odd that there seemed to be little or no objection from the usual suspects on the Right around here when the Gallup poll, aka the outlier, was being singled out to show Romney up by 6.
> 
> Suddenly, now, it's a criminal offense, according to those same 'nuts,
> 
> to single out the Quinnipiac poll.



^ dishonest lib hack is dishonest.


----------



## Dante (Oct 23, 2012)

It isn't difficult to notice how many of Liability's posts are personal attacks on posters. 

poor tool


----------



## UnAmericanYOU (Oct 23, 2012)

The Ohio poll was +9 D, the PA one looks more solid but who knows - either could still go either way two weeks out.




NYcarbineer said:


> RoadVirus said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Not really:



> Ohio opinion polls
> Poll Source Date administered (2008) Democrat % Republican % Lead Margin Others %
> Reuters/Zogby Oct 31  Nov 3 Barack Obama 49.4% John McCain 47.4% 2
> Rasmussen Reports Nov 2 Barack Obama 49% John McCain 49% 0
> ...



two points is well within most MoE, what's hard to believe is a poll is a poll that has Obama up by a larger margin than he won by four years ago.


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 23, 2012)

Let's do some real basic calculations here and compare media and media affiliated to the professionals.

Ohio polls prior to first debate (in september)

*Media Polls
Organization........Obama....Romney....Spread*
NBC/WSJ/Marist......51.........43.............O+8
Columbus Dispatch..51.........42.............O+9
Washington Post.....52.........44.............O+8
CBS/Quinnapiac......53.........43.............O+10
FoxNews................49.........42.............O+7
Ohio Newspapers....51.........46.............O+5
NBC/WSJ/Marist......50.........43............O+7

*Average.................51.........43.28........O+7.72*

*Professional
Organization........Obama....Romney....Spread*
PPP(D)..................49...........45............O+4
Gravis...................45...........44............O+1
Purple Strategies...48...........44............O+4
McLaughlin(R).......47............44...........O+3
Rasmussen...........47............46...........O+1
ARG.....................48............47...........O+1
PPP(D).................50............45...........O+5
Gravis..................47............43...........O+4
Gravis..................44............47...........R+3

*Average...............47.22.......45............O+2.22*

Wow.....a 5.5% difference in Obama's favor by the media polls.  Well what about between the first and second debates?  Let's have a look.

*Media Polls
Organization........Obama....Romney....Spread*
NBC/WSJ/Marist.......51.........45.............O+6
CNN/OR...................51.........47.............O+4

*Average...................51.........46.............O+5*


*Professional
Organization........Obama....Romney....Spread*
SUSA.....................45...........42.............O+3
PPP(D)...................51...........46.............O+5
Rasmussen.............48...........47.............O+1
Gravis.....................45..........46.............R+1
ARG.......................47...........48.............R+1
SUSA.....................45...........44.............O+1
WAA......................46...........47.............R+1
Rasmussen.............50...........49.............O+1

*Average..............47.125....46.125...........O+1*

Well holy shit.....a four point difference in Obama's favor.  Well let's look at since the second debate

*Media Polls
Organization........Obama....Romney....Spread*
CBS/Quinnapiac......50...........45............O+5
FoxNews................46...........43............O+3

*Average.................48............44...........O+4*

*Professional Polls
Organization........Obama....Romney....Spread*
Suffolk...................47...........47..............Tie
PPP(D)...................49...........48..............O+1
Gravis....................47...........47..............Tie
Rasmussen............49............48..............O+1

*Average.................48..........47.5............O+0.5*

Well son of a bitch....a 3.5% difference in Obama's favor

Now....does anyone want to make the argument that media polls are not biased in Obama's favor?  *Really?!?!*

Now let's look at the CBS/Quinnapiac speficically.  Well shit, in every single section they show the highest Obama advantage even over the other media polls that are already showing an Obama bias....and *that's *why we can safely look at this particular poll and toss it over our shoulder.


----------



## jillian (Oct 23, 2012)

UnAmericanYOU said:


> The Ohio poll was +9 D, the PA one looks more solid but who knows - either could still go either way two weeks out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow... The prodigal son has returned.

How ya doing?


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 23, 2012)

Regarding my post immediately below....would anyone care to notice the following trends

*Media*
Before Debates: O+7.71
After 1st Debate: O+5
After 2nd Debate: O+4

*Professional*
Before Debates: O+2.22
After 1st Debate: O+1
After 2nd Debate: O+0.5


Anyone notice anything specific?


----------



## Liability (Oct 23, 2012)

Dante said:


> It isn't difficult to notice how many of Liability's posts are personal attacks on posters.
> 
> poor tool



It is easy to notice how few of Dainty's posts aren't trite or dishonest in one way or another.

But I agree with its sign off.  It is a poor tool.  Surprisingly honest or insightful of it.


----------



## UnAmericanYOU (Oct 23, 2012)

Hey Jillian, tried to pos rep you and I still couldn't. Been working on another textbook and lost focus on politics but hope you and your family are doing well. I remember you, but not your location.



BluePhantom said:


> Regarding my post immediately below....would anyone care to notice the following trends
> 
> *Media*
> Before Debates: O+7.71
> ...



that the gap is narrowing in both? I don't like the way rcp averages all these polls, though - different MoEs. various sample sizes, no differentation between reg v. likely, etc. Media polls are always more unreiliable than the other ones and who cares if it's now a trite thing to say that an incumbent under 50 percent is always vulnerable? It's trite because it's true but then the polls have to be an accurate snapshot as well.


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 23, 2012)

UnAmericanYOU said:


> Hey Jillian, tried to pos rep you and I still couldn't. Been working on another textbook and lost focus on politics but hope you and your family are doing well. I remember you, but not your location.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah I agree, but like I said....I was just using basic calculations in order to make a point regarding the difference between media and pro and this CBS/Quin poll in particular


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 23, 2012)

UnAmericanYOU said:


> what's hard to believe is a poll is a poll that has Obama up by a larger margin than he won by four years ago.



An excellent point, and one I made myself right here a couple weeks ago, however I would disagree on one minor point.  A poll represent's a snapshot of how things are *now*.  Tracking polls like Gallup, Rasmussen, etc are another story, but it's not totally unconceivable for a poll two weeks away from the election to show a bigger Obama lead than his margin of victory in 2008.  This is because the undecided voters are just that...undecided.  But those undecided voters will break for Romney...historically they always break for the challenger and it's crystal clear that this year is no different. They have been breaking for him like crazy. By election day however it will become completely unreasable to accept any projection that has Obama with a stronger lead than in 2008, barring some absolutely massive October surprise that re-creates the perfect storm Obama enjoyed four years ago.


----------



## jillian (Oct 23, 2012)

UnAmericanYOU said:


> Hey Jillian, tried to pos rep you and I still couldn't. Been working on another textbook and lost focus on politics but hope you and your family are doing well. I remember you, but not your location.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I hope your writing is going well. And that you and yours are thriving. Glad to see you. We're doing we'll. Busy!

The location is NYC. I think we have a 100% chance of going blue.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 23, 2012)

Dante said:


> It isn't difficult to notice how many of Liability's posts are personal attacks on posters.
> 
> poor tool



He's never been the same since he lost his shirt betting on Fred Thompson in '08.


----------



## Sarah G (Oct 23, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't difficult to notice how many of Liability's posts are personal attacks on posters.
> ...



HaHaa.. Everybody remembers that.  That was earlier than 2008, it was when we were at that other place.


----------



## elvis (Oct 23, 2012)

no one has a crystal ball.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 23, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Let's do some real basic calculations here and compare media and media affiliated to the professionals.
> 
> Ohio polls prior to first debate (in september)
> 
> ...



Quinnipiac is a university, not a media outlet.

Marist is a college, not a media outlet.

Foxnews polls are  conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R).  Those are professional pollsters.

Your attempts at distinctions are crap.


----------



## JimH52 (Oct 23, 2012)

elvis said:


> no one has a crystal ball.



True, that is why we are relying on science and math at fivethirtyeight.com

But shiny orbs do seem to fascinate some here.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 23, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



No, it was 2008.  Fred started out with a  little bit of potential, but eventually fell asleep one day in a park in Iowa,  and when he awoke,

the note with his name, address, and who to call that was pinned to his jacket had fallen off, no one, including Fred, knew what to do with him,

and he was adrift in limbo for several years until the reverse mortgage people found him and nursed him back to usable condition.


----------



## Sarah G (Oct 23, 2012)

elvis said:


> no one has a crystal ball.



Dems have a Chrystal Ball.  







Second from the right.


----------



## Zander (Oct 23, 2012)

JimH52 said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > no one has a crystal ball.
> ...


C'mon Jim......at least be honest!  You only like 538 because it shows Obama winning.......


----------



## Sarah G (Oct 23, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



After that, he made his TV Drama comeback on The Good Wife.


----------



## paperview (Oct 23, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


----------



## JimH52 (Oct 23, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...



Just another poll

ElectoralVote


----------



## Trajan (Oct 23, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dante, how many free minutes did you get with your Obamaphone?



Sorry, but that's funny


----------



## Conservative (Oct 23, 2012)

Liability said:


> RoadVirus said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Ohio, quite possibly.
Florida, I think that's a lock at this point.
PA... as much as I'd like to see that, since I live in PA, I am not sure Romney will take PA. RCp has Obama by 4.8 right now, and I don't think that is a number that can be overcome here in PA.


----------



## Liability (Oct 24, 2012)

Conservative said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > RoadVirus said:
> ...



I don't buy the polls.  An "average" that incorporates a number of polls that have (for whatever reasons) methodological errors that skew the results to an artificially high figure for the Democratic is not an average that is worthy of much regard.

I agree that it is certainly possible for the incumbent to "take" PA.   But, even so, I suspect it is much closer in PA than Team Obama fathoms.  And even if that turns out to be wrong, I at least hope it causes them some sleepless nights!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 24, 2012)

PA will go Obama, Florida will go Romney, and OH will decide the election for Romney.


----------



## Liability (Oct 24, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> PA will go Obama, Florida will go Romney, and OH will decide the election for Romney.



  Florida will go Romney.  Ohio will (maybe) go Romney although I agree that it is probably a close call.  

I *had* believed that PA may go Romney.

Upon further review, I have to waffle now.  I thought that the "polls" showing the Obama lead in PA were probably infected with Dim oversampling.  But, perhaps not after all.

Look at the PPP poll.  





> Q9 If you are a Democrat, press 1. If a Republican,
> press 2. If you are an independent or identify
> with another party, press 3.
> Democrat ........................................................ 48%
> ...



That's out of 500 LIKELY voters who got interviewed.  So I was thinking it *looked* a bit like Dim oversampling.  

But, now consider the most recent data of the actual party affiliation of PA:  Information as of 10/22/2012										
County	ID#	Count of Republican Voters		Count of Democratic Voters		Count of No Affiliation Voters		Count of all other voters		Total Count of All Voters
ADAMS	2290	32430		19839		5251		3772		61,292
ALLEGHENY	2291	250279		556820		61461		55792		924,352
ARMSTRONG	2292	20387		17599		1811		2381		42,178
BEAVER	2293	37108		65735		3539		8769		115,151
BEDFORD	2294	19385		10082		1264		1482		32,213
BERKS	2295	93624		120612		20704		15528		250,468
BLAIR	2296	46298		28770		4173		6075		85,316
BRADFORD	2297	23296		12173		2018		3027		40,514
BUCKS	2298	178478		189216		35180		32958		435,832
BUTLER	2299	62833		43970		8459		7473		122,735
CAMBRIA	2300	27960		51227		5535		2332		87,054
CAMERON	2301	1765		1503		139		249		3,656
CARBON	2302	14722		18991		2537		2767		39,017
CENTRE	2303	42406		46246		19410		3236		111,298
CHESTER	2304	150867		128509		24258		34543		338,177
CLARION	2305	12337		9273		1764		741		24,115
CLEARFIELD	2306	23482		22284		2126		3357		51,249
CLINTON	2307	9811		10309		1296		1584		23,000
COLUMBIA	2308	16744		17085		3729		2336		39,894
CRAWFORD	2309	26703		22001		2897		3129		54,730
CUMBERLAND	2310	81249		52869		13962		10255		158,335
DAUPHIN	2311	74185		81778		12654		10424		179,041
DELAWARE	2312	176236		174821		20569		25998		397,624
ELK	2313	7578		10655		787		1323		20,343
ERIE	2314	60221		95514		11542		9678		176,955
FAYETTE	2315	23642		60440		3193		4408		91,683
FOREST	2316	1594		1386		113		140		3,233
FRANKLIN	2317	49606		25730		9001		3069		87,406
FULTON	2318	5434		3028		441		447		9,350
GREENE	2319	6543		14280		974		867		22,664
HUNTINGDON	2320	16208		9670		2124		813		28,815
INDIANA	2321	23826		24811		4690		3865		57,192
JEFFERSON	2322	15297		10327		1245		1675		28,544
JUNIATA	2323	7853		4427		896		368		13,544
LACKAWANNA	2324	39363		97000		9597		3573		149,533
LANCASTER	2325	167188		100125		19042		28478		314,833
LAWRENCE	2326	22758		32956		2374		3627		61,715
LEBANON	2327	43964		26493		6190		4883		81,530
LEHIGH	2328	76495		112949		29347		7665		226,456
LUZERNE	2329	63952		110934		13950		5341		194,177
LYCOMING	2330	35409		24089		4451		4172		68,121
McKEAN	2331	14381		8267		1357		1865		25,870
MERCER	2332	30331		35876		6690		2291		75,188
MIFFLIN	2333	13987		8042		1674		714		24,417
MONROE	2334	35581		52115		11273		9943		108,912
MONTGOMERY	2335	215106		255037		31600		52768		554,511
MONTOUR	2336	6329		5167		1301		732		13,529
NORTHAMPTON	2337	70436		101455		17083		20456		209,430
NORTHUMBERLAND	2338	25532		23221		2595		3632		54,980
PERRY	2339	16742		7341		2278		887		27,248
PHILADELPHIA	2340	130705		838424		81911		23189		1,074,229
PIKE	2341	17852		15399		4262		4342		41,855
POTTER	2342	6693		3218		691		314		10,916
SCHUYLKILL	2343	40790		36550		3202		5778		86,320
SNYDER	2344	13320		5651		1856		723		21,550
SOMERSET	2345	26156		21183		2085		2470		51,894
SULLIVAN	2346	2268		1612		184		179		4,243
SUSQUEHANNA	2347	14205		8756		1513		1689		26,163
TIOGA	2348	15134		7548		2349		963		25,994
UNION	2349	12421		7480		2677		1404		23,982
VENANGO	2350	16966		12050		1576		2161		32,753
WARREN	2351	14016		11124		1511		2502		29,153
WASHINGTON	2352	49282		78001		11245		3916		142,444
WAYNE	2353	17118		10518		3740		1215		32,591
WESTMORELAND	2354	90058		122436		11656		13885		238,035
WYOMING	2355	9345		5990		887		1048		17,270
YORK	2356	135980		101784		33146		9371		280,281
Totals:		*3,130,250		4,250,771*		615,035		491,037		8,487,093 -- Voter Registration Statistics

It turns out that (possibly) there is no intentional or inadvertent Dim oversampling.  The poll may have no Dim oversampling one way or the other at all (and looks like it is not guilty in this case).

So, to the extent the polling is otherwise accurate, it DOES appear that PA is leaning to President Obama.  If the Dim voters are unmotivated, though, the Election Day outcome could still be an unpleasant surprise for Team Obama.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 24, 2012)

Nice analysis, L.  The question, I don't think now, is whether Romney can win: I believe he will.  The worry is a 53 or 54 Democratic majority in the Senate.  If that happens, watch the lame duck season be a wild one as Obama and the Dems push the GOP for everything they can get, with the threat the GOP will get nothing after Romney is inaugurated if they don't deal during the lame duck.


----------



## Dr.House (Oct 24, 2012)

elvis said:


> It's tied.



Not really...

Romney will take OH...  Probably by 2-3 points..  Maybe more...

Turnout in early voting is WAY down from 2008...  Early voting is what gave 0bozo OH in 2008, as McCain won the election day vote totals...

People just aren't excited about the empty chair anymore and will likely sit this one out...


----------



## Zarius (Oct 24, 2012)

Dr.House said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > It's tied.
> ...



This is an out right lie. Proof please


----------



## Liability (Oct 24, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Nice analysis, L.  The question, I don't think now, is whether Romney can win: I believe he will.  The worry is a 53 or 54 Democratic majority in the Senate.  If that happens, watch the lame duck season be a wild one as Obama and the Dems push the GOP for everything they can get, with the threat the GOP will get nothing after Romney is inaugurated if they don't deal during the lame duck.



I have big worries about the Senate even though I am of the belief that it will be a GOP majority.  I hadn't contemplated the lame duck session prospects, but that doesn't concern me too much, since the House can block the Senate.  

As for NEXT term, I foresee a LOT of Dim manipulation including but not limited to procedural choking of the process and filibusters.  They can all be addressed EXCEPT, perhaps, the misuse and overuse of the filibuster.  That could be a problem.  Dims only object to the use of filibusters when the Dims are in the majority.

So I expect them to try it.  But the Dims will then discover that there IS still a price to pay for being the MINORITY Party in both Houses.

If they are going to play chicken, I'd rather do so from the majority position.


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 24, 2012)

Liability said:


> It turns out that (possibly) there is no intentional or inadvertent Dim oversampling.  The poll may have no Dim oversampling one way or the other at all (and looks like it is not guilty in this case).
> 
> So, to the extent the polling is otherwise accurate, it DOES appear that PA is leaning to President Obama.  If the Dim voters are unmotivated, though, the Election Day outcome could still be an unpleasant surprise for Team Obama.



Ahhhh, but you forget that is why RV polls tend to favor Democrats more than LV polls.  There are a lot more registered Democrats in the entire nation (not just PA) than Republicans.  BUT Democrats don't vote with the same consistency as Republicans.  There are a lot of reasons for this.  Age is one.  Lots of those registered Democrats are young voters who have a bad habit of not showing up to cast a ballot while a lot of the registered Republicans are senior citizens who vote religiously. In the end that difference between the total numbers that are registered equal out because of the participation rates.

Now when they change to an LV poll one of the things they are doing is applying a weighting formula to reflect expected turnout. That will vary according to the state.  It stands to reason that the ratio of Dem to GOP who show up in New York will be higher than in...say...Virginia.  The trick then becomes the pollsters skill in correctly predicting the LV formula that represents each state.  This is also why the closer in the pollster "zooms" the more difficult it is to predict. 

So the Dem:GOP ratio PPP shows may or may not be accurate because it's a LV poll and that means it is predictive and not reflective.  It just depends o whether PPP's LV formula is accurate.  Historically.....they are not


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Oct 24, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Presidential Polls 2012 - Latest Swing State Polls: Obama Up in Ohio, Can Romney Reap Elections Without It? : Politics : Latinos Post
> ...


http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=745813


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 24, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



Oh great...here come the nuts.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 24, 2012)

Both parties play bully politics equally well historically.

If the Dems are minority in both Houses, Romney will have a much easier row.

We wil see.



Liability said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Nice analysis, L.  The question, I don't think now, is whether Romney can win: I believe he will.  The worry is a 53 or 54 Democratic majority in the Senate.  If that happens, watch the lame duck season be a wild one as Obama and the Dems push the GOP for everything they can get, with the threat the GOP will get nothing after Romney is inaugurated if they don't deal during the lame duck.
> ...


----------



## Liability (Oct 24, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > It turns out that (possibly) there is no intentional or inadvertent Dim oversampling.  The poll may have no Dim oversampling one way or the other at all (and looks like it is not guilty in this case).
> ...



I agree that a poll of likely voters is preferable and logically destined to be a better predictor of the outcome.   

But the poll I was referencing USED Likely Voters.


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 24, 2012)

Liability said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Right...so the polling sample is *somewhat *irrelevant...at least it *should *be.  Here's what I mean:

Consider a poll for state A of 100 people and according to your projections you expect a breakdown of 50% Dem and 50% showing up on election day (let's forget about Ind for now for simplicity)

So you get 100 people that meet your criteria of a likely voter depending on how they answer a series of questions and 60% of the were registered Dem and 40% are registered Rep. The Dems indicated 85% support for Obama and 15% support for Romney.  The Reps indicated 90% support for Romney and 10% support for Obama.  

Now if you just apply that to the 60/40 sample you got you end up with this:

60 Democrats * 85% Obama = 51 votes
60 Democrats * 15% Romney = 9 votes
50 Republicans * 90% Romney = 36 votes
50 Republicans * 10% Obama = 4 votes

Total Obama = 55
Total Romney = 45

Obama +10

*BUT THAT'S NOT THE RATIO YOU EXPECT TO SHOW UP ON ELECTION DAY*

So instead of applying those to a 60/40 split, you apply it to a 50/50 split that you believe *will *show up on election day as follows:

50 Democrats * 85% Obama = 42.5 votes
50 Democrats * 15% Romney = 7.5 votes
50 Republicans * 90% Romney = 45 votes
50 Republicans * 10% Obama = 5 votes

Total Obama = 47.5 votes
Total Romney = 52.5 votes

Despite the raw numbers showing Obama ahead based on reaching a poll sample that you believe is not reflective of who will show up on election day, your final projection is R+5

When pollsters skip that final step off applying the weighting what they really have is a modified RV poll pretending to be an LV poll.  However they can achieve a different result simply by changing the weighting.  PPP, for example, on average is about 4 points more in Obama's favor than other professional pollsters.  My guess is that they shift the weighting more in Obama's favor than the others do


----------



## Liability (Oct 24, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



I remember now why I never excelled in math!  

Actually, that was pretty informative.

I suppose all the pollsters would be well advised to determine: 
(a) whether their methodology has led to an oversampling of Dims (or Republicans, although for some reason the latter never seems to be a problem),
 (b) identify the actual percentage (as well as can be determined) of Dims vs. Republicans vs. Indys in the relevant electoral population,
(c) Whether the voters sampled are or are not "Likely voters," and
(d) Crunch the numbers Properly.


----------



## Charles_Main (Oct 24, 2012)

Liability said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I don't think it's a deliberate over sampling of Dems in Most Cases. They are simply going by the Last presidential Election Turn out Results, Which was plus 7 Points for Democrats. The Problem is nobody expects turn out to be like it was in 2008. Most estimates are closer to Dems plus 2 or 3 points being the actual Turn out this time around. Meaning the polls are consistently over sampling Dems by 3 to 4 Points compared to what actual turn out is likely to be. 

Which means, the numbers are actually worse for Obama that they show. In most cases.


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 24, 2012)

Liability said:


> I remember now why I never excelled in math!
> 
> Actually, that was pretty informative.
> 
> ...



That's exactly it.  In an RV poll the thing that usually skews the numbers is the sample....whether the ratio of Dem/Rep/Ind accurately reflects actual voter registration in the state.  So for example if we use the example below and in our polling we reached 60% Dem and 40% Rep but we know that the actual voter registration of the state is an even 50/50 split then we also know that the poll sample doesn't accurately reflect the political demographics of the state. This happens all the time and we have seen it over and over this year.

When you get to LV polls, which is what everyone is doing now because the election is so close, what matters is what each pollster projects will be the ratio of who shows up on election day. That information is proprietary. The agencies don't give that information away because it's that formula which seperates them from each other. 

So when we look at PPP for example and we recognize that on average they are about 4 points more favorable to Obama than the rest then what we can assume is that their LV model of who will show up on election day is weighted more toward a stronger Democratic turnout than everyone else. This is probably the case with IBD/TIPP as well as Gallup and Rasmussen generally stay pretty close to each other while IBD/TIPP is usually several points in Obama's favor.


----------



## UnAmericanYOU (Oct 24, 2012)

jillian said:


> I hope your writing is going well. And that you and yours are thriving. Glad to see you. We're doing we'll. Busy!
> 
> The location is NYC. I think we have a 100% chance of going blue.



Thanks, and I'm glad to hear you all have been keeping yourself busy. I could've sworn you lived in the Boston metropolitan area, but you're right there about NYC being solidly blue - off there in less than to months to visit the MMoA for this project. Pretty sure WA state is going to go Obama and re-elect Cant(do nothing but drink)well, but Oregon is another matter.

Predicting Ohio is a nightmare, though . . . still too close to call, still don't like the mix and match methods to find a pattern they're using. LVs at this point only and I can see what that BP person was saying - even if Obama's lead is down significantly nationally, it doesn't have to mean so in Ohio. Obama's programs have focused on that state with all their unions.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 24, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



Thankfully I don't watch that.  He must be really handsome in High Def.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 24, 2012)

Ohio is the only real battleground state.  Romney has no plausible path to winning without Ohio,

unless the world turns upside down, and despite what all the pundits trying to fill time keep saying about 'scenarios'.

Obama has a no-Ohio path that would involve winning NV, NM, and CO.


----------



## AquaAthena (Oct 24, 2012)

Wednesday 24, 2012


R 50% O 46%...
R 50% O 47%...
R 49% O 48%...
R 47% O 46%...


Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports


----------



## RoadVirus (Oct 24, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> RoadVirus said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



That was when he was really popular. That rock star fame has tarnished over the past couple of years.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 24, 2012)

Conservative said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Presidential Polls 2012 - Latest Swing State Polls: Obama Up in Ohio, Can Romney Reap Elections Without It? : Politics : Latinos Post
> ...



2.1, President Obama, at present. 8 polls, three ties, 5 for the President.


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 24, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



Might I suggest re-reading this post


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 24, 2012)

At present the only poll that matters in Ohio is the Rasmussen poll as it was the only one that was begun and finished AFTER the third debate.  The rest are now completely outdated, even the SUSA poll which was taken prior to the final debate but just released today.  We will get more data in a couple days


----------



## Dante (Oct 25, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Best tidbit in the Suffolk Ohio poll,
> 
> 13% of respondents said they'd never heard of John Kasich.



gawd, I love American stupidity. P.T. Barnum would be proud


----------



## Dante (Oct 25, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> At present the only poll that matters..




with these words you parade your imbecility. No one poll matters.


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 25, 2012)

Dante said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > At present the only poll that matters..
> ...



They do when it's the only poll we have that was started and completed after the final debate.  All the rest do not take the effect of the third debate into consideration and are therefore irrelevant.  In the next few days we will see new polling and we can facor that in, but right now anything that took place prior to Monday's debate is outdated.


----------



## Dante (Oct 25, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



and therein lies the case for your being classified as an idiot in need of intervention


----------



## Dante (Oct 25, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Might I suggest...



no you may not. you're an idiot unworthy of consideration


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 25, 2012)

Dante said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Perhaps you can refute my line of argument instead of resorting to smart assed personal attacks.................of course if you *could *you would have done so by now.


----------



## Dante (Oct 25, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



you: "At present the only poll that matters...We will get more data in a couple days"

negation


----------



## Dante (Oct 25, 2012)

next


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 25, 2012)

Dante said:


> next



In other words: "No I can't"


----------



## Dante (Oct 25, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > next
> ...



learn what polls are about -- then get back to us willya wilma?


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 25, 2012)

Dante said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Might I suggest...
> ...



spoken like a man who has no idea how to even *start *approaching my statistical analysis.  Have you met Lakhota and NYCarbineer?  You guys will get along just fine.  Snug as bugs in a rug.


----------



## Dante (Oct 25, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



you're an idiot and not many people take you seriously. Are you a shut in?


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 25, 2012)

Dante said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Uh huh.  *NO ONE* takes me seriously at all. You've been away for a while huh? I am *STILL *waiting for you to refute any point...*ANY *point I have made with something more than a smart assed flame attack.  The fact that you can only come back with bullshit flame war crap is pretty revealing about the depth of your intellect.  Those that can debate do so, those that can't talk shit and watch MSNBC


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 25, 2012)

The poll is Rasmussen after all. it is factored in to RCP, with older polls, and the new polls over the next few days will give us a clearer understanding of what is going on in Ohio,.





BluePhantom said:


> At present the only poll that matters in Ohio is the Rasmussen poll as it was the only one that was begun and finished AFTER the third debate.  The rest are now completely outdated, even the SUSA poll which was taken prior to the final debate but just released today.  We will get more data in a couple days


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 25, 2012)

Dante said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



I understand some sunlight hit him once and he shrivelled...


----------



## Dante (Oct 25, 2012)

oh well, 4 more years.

better get used to hearing "Barack Hussein Obama II, President of the ?United States of America"


----------



## Liability (Oct 25, 2012)

Dante said:


> oh well, 4 more years.
> 
> better get used to hearing "Barack Hussein Obama II, President of the ?United States of America"





Only in the disturbed fantasies of dopes like Dainty and some assorted lolberals.

President Romney will be laughing at you if he ever sees such silly shit as a USMB post by Dainty.


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 25, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> The poll is Rasmussen after all. it is factored in to RCP, with older polls, and the new polls over the next few days will give us a clearer understanding of what is going on in Ohio,.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Right.  So far today there is only polling in Virginia (R+2 Rass), and Florida (R+1 Grav) as far as the real swing states are concerned.  There is info on PA but I don't really consider that in play. Both those states are really Romney's to lose at this point.  Hopefully we will get more data a the day progresses


----------



## AceRothstein (Oct 25, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> At present the only poll that matters in Ohio is the Rasmussen poll as it was the only one that was begun and finished AFTER the third debate.  The rest are now completely outdated, even the SUSA poll which was taken prior to the final debate but just released today.  We will get more data in a couple days



Didn't Rasmussen's final polls skew 3-4 towards the GOP candidates amongst state polling in 2010?  I'm too lazy to look all of them up but I know he was off nearly 6 points in the Ohio Senate race and nearly 2 points in the Ohio Governor race towards the GOP candidate.


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 26, 2012)

AceRothstein said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > At present the only poll that matters in Ohio is the Rasmussen poll as it was the only one that was begun and finished AFTER the third debate.  The rest are now completely outdated, even the SUSA poll which was taken prior to the final debate but just released today.  We will get more data in a couple days
> ...



Every pollster has what is called a "house bias".  That is their results on average tend to favor one party or the other by a given amount. There are no exceptions. But it depends on what you are looking at.  Presidential years are far easier to call than non-presidential years. The reason why is because Presidential years have a far higher turnout and people tend to trend toward the party of their presidential choice.   In other words, it's unusual for a voter to cast a ballot for the presidential candidate of one party and vote for the Senatorial or House candidate of a differing party.  When I say "unusual" I don't mean "rare" I mean it doesn't happen the majority of the time. 

As a rule, the closer you zoom in, the greater the likelihood of error.  National presidential polls are far easier to call than state polls on the presidential level.  Those are in turn easier to call than Senatorial races...the smaller the race and the focus the more difficult it is to call.

Now when you get into averages you have to consider the number of polls each pollster releases.  Rasmussen releases tons of polls and they call damn near every state.  Consider the likelihood of an outlier poll.  If I conduct only three polls it's far less likely that I will encounter an outlier than if I conduct 50 polls.  That's a basic law of probability....for example if I take a randomized deck of cards and shuffle them once what are the odds that they will draw in numerical order and according to suit?  Very low, obviously.  But if you do that exercise over and over *eventually*, that will happen. You may have to do it 10,000 times to get a result that extreme, but eventually it *will *happen. 

Well the same thing happens with outliers in polling.  The more you conduct, the more likely it is that you will experience the freak occurance like a shuffle resulting in the situation I described above.  Well Rasmussen releases an absolute shit ton of polls and because they do so many it's more common for them to experience an outlier than say....Mason-Dixon who does very few. Well when that outlier is factored into the average then it results in a greater variance from the mean.  Again...basic statistics. *What is important is not the mean, it's the mode*...that is the most common variance occuring in their data set. 

Rasmussen's variance expressed as a mode is extraordinarily low, their variance expressed as a mean is higher but that makes perfect sense because they do so many polls, thus they run a higher risk of experiencing an outlier that will negatively affect the mean. This is precisely one of the little tricks that guys like Nate Silver play.  Instead of focusing on the mode, they focus on the mean and that enables them to make the argument that 2+2=10 and people who don't understand statistics and polling are convinced when in reality it's a statistically unsound argument.

So to answer your question directly, Rasmussen has a house lean of about +1.5 to +2 in favor of the GOP.  That's within the margin of error though so it's statistically fine.  Pollsters like PPP who have a house bias of around +4 in the favor of the Democrats should be ignored (at least on a basic level) because their house bias is outside a standard margin of error. Media polls (CNN, WaPo, FOX, etc) have about a +5 house bias as a group in favor of the Democrats...again outside a standard margin of error and thus they are basically useless. 

BTW...yes...Fox polls have a liberal bias believe it or not.  Their polls are usually right in line with the rest of the media polls. Feel free to look it up if you question that. The problem is not the ideaology, it's the methodology....that's an entire thread unto itself...but if you doubt me it's pretty easy to go to RCP and look at Fox polls and make the comparison to other media polls vs. professional polls and you will realize they are a media poll with the same variance just like WaPo, CNN, TIME, or whoever. 

So in short.....yes Rasmussen has a house bias just like every other pollster.  No it's not 3-4 points, it's more like 1-2, yes their mean is roughly 4th or 5th in rank against the major pollsters, but their mode is 1st or 2nd....and *it's the mode that matters.*


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 26, 2012)

IN BP Land, Rasmussen is unbiased and fair... 

No, seriously.


----------



## Sarah G (Oct 26, 2012)

We can do this all day.  Rasmussen is an outliar and Gallup has become so as well.  Also, Real Clear has discovered they can really make any pollster give them any result.  But anyway, Nate Silver has a different opinion of Rasmussen.

From 2010 polling:




> November 4, 2010, 10:41 pm 179 Comments
> 
> Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly
> 
> ...


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 26, 2012)

Just a follow up Ace.  Consider the following scenario.  This is bad statistics but good understanding...I should lay all this out in a data set series but you will get the point...I hope. 

You are going to bet your life savings on the likelihood that one of two dart throwers will hit a bullseye.  Thrower #1 hits a bullseye 75% of the time and when he misses he hits the next ring 25% of the time.  Thrower #2 hits the bullseye 90% of the time but when he misses he doesn't even hit the board. Thrower #1's average score beats Thrower #2.

Thrower #1 scores better according to the *mean*.  But here's the deception...*the mean doesn't matter*.  You don't give a *shit *about the mean..you need a bullseye because anything other than a bullseye and your babies don't have shoes.  Thrower #2 is the guy to place your money on because whether a miss is in the second ring or in another state is irrelevant. Thrower #2 hits the bullseye more often according to the *mode*. 

Rasmussen is Thrower #2.


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 26, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> We can do this all day.  Rasmussen is an outliar and Gallup has become so as well.  Also, Real Clear has discovered they can really make any pollster give them any result.  But anyway, Nate Silver has a different opinion of Rasmussen.
> 
> From 2010 polling:
> 
> ...



Rasmussen Reports	10/22 - 10/24	1500 LV	3.0	50	47	Romney +3
ABC News/Wash Post	10/21 - 10/24	1386 LV	3.0	50	47	Romney +3
IBD/TIPP	10/19 - 10/24	948 LV	3.5	45	47	Obama +2
Gallup	10/18 - 10/24	2700 LV	2.0	50	47	Romney +3
Associated Press/GfK	10/19 - 10/23	839 LV	4.2	47	45	Romney +2
Monmouth/SurveyUSA/Braun	10/18 - 10/21	1402 LV	2.6	48	45	Romney +3


RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

The outlier in that data set is TIPP.  Rasmussen is supported by everyone else.  If you are going to argue that Rasmussen is an outlier then everyone else is also an outlier except for TIPP and that is a total contradiction of what an outlier is.  BTW...Nate Silver is a hack.  Anyone who puts their faith in Silver doesn't understand statistics.


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 26, 2012)

Just a follow up Sarah.....you DO understand that an outlier is a poll way out of whack with what everyone else is saying right? I mean...you call Rasmussen an outlier....it would be the first time in history that an outlier said exactly what everyone else said.  Stop listening to Silver...he's rotting your brain.


Oh and Dante...I am *STILL *fucking waiting.


----------



## Sarah G (Oct 26, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Just a follow up Sarah.....you DO understand that an outlier is a poll way out of whack with what everyone else is saying right? I mean...you call Rasmussen an outlier....it would be the first time in history that an outlier said exactly what everyone else said.  Stop listening to Silver...he's rotting your brain.



I have followed Real Clear reporting of the polsters every year until this one.  They are way off in updating polls for one thing.  It's skewed reporting has lost me and I am not giving them one more minute of my time.

Rasmussen has been an outliar for years, I have always discounted their methodolgy and now Gallup.  The other polsters are reporting alright but it is Real Clear that is not updating much at their site in a timely manner.  That EC map, for instance is way off.

Your brain power has never been of interest to many here, I wouldn't count on anyone other than you being too impressed with it.


----------



## Saigon (Oct 26, 2012)

These are from Wednesday:

Ohio: Romney vs. Obama	Time	Obama 49, Romney 44	     Obama +5
Ohio: Romney vs. Obama	Rasmussen Reports	Obama 48, Romney 48	    Tie
Ohio: Romney vs. Obama	SurveyUSA	Obama 47, Romney 44	    Obama +3

RealClearPolitics - Latest Election Polls


----------



## Sarah G (Oct 26, 2012)

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map


RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama


This is on the homepage.  I always looked at the results and electoral map daily.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 26, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> The outlier in that data set is TIPP.  Rasmussen is supported by everyone else.  If you are going to argue that Rasmussen is an outlier then everyone else is also an outlier except for TIPP and that is a total contradiction of what an outlier is.  BTW...Nate Silver is a hack.  Anyone who puts their faith in Silver doesn't understand statistics.



Silver called 49 out of 50 states right in 2008.   

But don't let that little tidbit get in your way, man.


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 26, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > The outlier in that data set is TIPP.  Rasmussen is supported by everyone else.  If you are going to argue that Rasmussen is an outlier then everyone else is also an outlier except for TIPP and that is a total contradiction of what an outlier is.  BTW...Nate Silver is a hack.  Anyone who puts their faith in Silver doesn't understand statistics.
> ...



So did everyone else, Joe.  Jesus.  The 2008 election was such a blowout a monkey could have called that election. Silver follow a very specific pattern and if you go back to 2010 and watch his day by day calls you can see it vey clearly.  He will call it heavy for the Democrats until 2-3 days before the election and then SUDDENLY his model will start to show a stronger GOP performance.  Calling an election the day before it occurs isn't real hard


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 26, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map
> 
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama
> ...



I am not sure what your point is.  It supports every single thing I have been saying


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 27, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> [
> So did everyone else, Joe.  Jesus.  The 2008 election was such a blowout a monkey could have called that election. Silver follow a very specific pattern and if you go back to 2010 and watch his day by day calls you can see it vey clearly.  He will call it heavy for the Democrats until 2-3 days before the election and then SUDDENLY his model will start to show a stronger GOP performance.  Calling an election the day before it occurs isn't real hard



Pssst.... pssst... don't look now. RCP has put Colorado back in Obama's column... 

Shhhhh..... nothing to see here.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Oct 27, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



The expression .. "Pissing in the wind comes to mind"... at least you tried...


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 27, 2012)

Lumpy 1 said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



pissing in the wind is putting the same idiots back in charge who created the mess to start with.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Oct 27, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



Or keeping the ones that made it far, far worse...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 27, 2012)

If obama is re-elected America is done, obama will finish the job he started in 2009.


----------



## Liability (Oct 27, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map
> ...



Evidently, Sarah's proposition boils down to:  "I disagree with you because you're right."


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 27, 2012)

Saigon said:


> These are from Wednesday:
> 
> Ohio: Romney vs. Obama	Time	Obama 49, Romney 44	     Obama +5
> Ohio: Romney vs. Obama	Rasmussen Reports	Obama 48, Romney 48	    Tie
> ...



Obama War On Coal Key To Mitt Romney's Ohio Hopes, Electoral Win - Investors.com


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 27, 2012)

Lumpy 1 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...



Except it really isn't.  

The Stock Market is back.  

Unemployment is off its highs.

GDP is growing, not shrinking. 

Even gasoline prices are coming down.  

Point is, cutting taxes and deregulating industry is what got us into this mess.  And Romney totally wants to do more of that shit.


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 27, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Point is, cutting taxes and deregulating industry is what got us into this mess.  And Romney totally wants to do more of that shit.



And you have finally shown your true colors Joe...all this shit before about you being a disgruntled Republican is now history.  You have just proven with your own words you are an unapologetic liberal.  You my friend have just exposed yourself


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 27, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



You're joking, I said months ago unemployment would be down around election time and not surprised to see gas prices doing the same thing at the same time. I would not be using that as an argument for obama the one who has control on gas prices and controls the department who collects the unemployment data.
IT'S ELECTION TIME STUPID OF  COURSE THOSE NUMBERS WILL DROP.


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 27, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IT'S ELECTION TIME STUPID OF  COURSE THOSE NUMBERS WILL DROP.



Your error here Big is using logic with a liberal tool like Joe. He doesn't care about actually arguing points, he cares about his liberal agenda.  The man just exposed himself like an 80 year old New Yorker at a bus stop with a trench coat on.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 27, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Point is, cutting taxes and deregulating industry is what got us into this mess.  And Romney totally wants to do more of that shit.
> ...



Not at all.  Let's just concentrate on taxes for now. 

Just because Grover  "Drown the Baby in a bathtub" Norquist has hijacked the party ideaologically doesn't make anyone less of a Republican. 

Ike had the top rate for the rich at 93%. Nixon was happy with a top rate of 70%. 

This crazy talk that Romney should only pay 13% tax on eight figures, that's just fucking crazy talk.  

Used to be the right wing used to say bullshit about Laffer Curves and Supply side and how that would get us to prosperity, but that never really happens, so now they just say the Rich are better than us and deserve to pay a lower tax rate than we do.  

Republicans also USED to stand for fiscal responsibility.    

Before Ronald Reagan, the national debt was a mere 900 Billion dollars.  When Bush left, it was 11 Trillion, and most of the additional five trillion added is because of these tax cuts and such. 

I'm not seeing how that is fiscal responsibility.  

As a matter of fact, low taxes actually make government BIGGER.  If you get all this stuff from government, and no one has to actually pay for it, you totally want more of that shit.


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 27, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Joe shut up...you have exposed yourself.



JoeB131 said:


> Point is, cutting taxes and deregulating industry is what got us into this mess.  And Romney totally wants to do more of that shit.



Welcome to the Democratic party, Joe.  I am sure TM and rDean will welcome you with open arms.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 27, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > IT'S ELECTION TIME STUPID OF  COURSE THOSE NUMBERS WILL DROP.
> ...



True 
note to self: stop trying to use logic against stupid liberals.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 27, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



So you can't refute the point, then?  

You know, once upon a time, Republicans used to be PRAGMATISTS. When something didn't work, they stopped supporting it. 

Deregulation doesn't work. 
Supply Side doesn't work. 

And this is the problem with the GOP.  They've tripled down on the Crazy.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 27, 2012)

Did Eisnehower like 3%

Did Nixon and Ford and Goldwater accept 70%


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 27, 2012)

The problem is Blue Phantom is that you are attempting to speak for the GOP, when in fact you are on the far extreme right.

I know the CEO of Aetna and dozens of CEOs of other companies in America are calling for government cuts and tax hikes, particularly on the wealthy.  You know this,too.

You do not speak for the GOP, only for the sentiment of its far extremist wing.


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 27, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Welcome to the Democratic Party, Joe.  I have no idea why you continue to maintain you are anything else. The only person you are fooling is you.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 27, 2012)

Welcome to our GOP, BP.  You don't speak for it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 27, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> [
> 
> Welcome to the Democratic Party, Joe.  I have no idea why you continue to maintain you are anything else. The only person you are fooling is you.



nope, we need to take the GOP back from the crazies.... 

When Romney loses, the Establishment and the Teabaggers will go into full out civil war, and it will be fun to watch.  

Eventually, the GOP will return to sanity.  Just like the Dems returned to Sanity after the crazy years of Mondale and Dukakis.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 27, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> The problem is Blue Phantom is that you are attempting to speak for the GOP, when in fact you are on the far extreme right.
> 
> I know the CEO of Aetna and dozens of CEOs of other companies in America are calling for government cuts and tax hikes, particularly on the wealthy.  You know this,too.
> 
> You do not speak for the GOP, only for the sentiment of its far extremist wing.



The GOP elitist want dumb asses like starkey to support them, the elitist of the GOP want so badly to go liberal.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 27, 2012)

Oh, and why do you use the Klingon Symbol for Romney, guy? 

I don't see Klingons going to France when there's a war on.  

Maybe you need to use THIS symbol for Romney... It's more appropriate..


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 27, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Oh, and why do you use the Klingon Symbol for Romney, guy?
> 
> I don't see Klingons going to France when there's a war on.
> 
> Maybe you need to use THIS symbol for Romney... It's more appropriate..



Ok Joe.....I don't know how many times I have to say this.  The Klingon symbol is for ME, not Romney.  The Klingon logo represents MY attitudes and personality...hence the reason why I had the logo on my signature for a good three months before I added the Romney Logo. 

Ok let me speak to you in a tone that you liberals can relate to.  I learned this from Obama in debate III.  There are these things called logos...and these logos can be used to identify many things, affiliations, attitudes, memberships.  But just because I post two logos does not mean I associate one with the other because I have this thing called logic.  And with logic I don't have to rely on bullshit strawmen arguments like you do.  

BTW...nice attempt to deflect by attacking my logos.  You know you have really fucked someone up when the only thing they have left is to attack your logos. Now change that "Eisenhower Republican" bullshit to "flaming liberal", accept your place and stop thinking you are fooling anyone.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 27, 2012)

So "I know the CEO of Aetna and dozens of CEOs of other companies in America are calling for government cuts and tax hikes, particularly on the wealthy.  You know this,too" means all these CEOs are GOP elitists?




bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is Blue Phantom is that you are attempting to speak for the GOP, when in fact you are on the far extreme right.
> ...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 27, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> So "I know the CEO of Aetna and dozens of CEOs of other companies in America are calling for government cuts and tax hikes, particularly on the wealthy.  You know this,too" means all these CEOs are GOP elitists?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Which doesn't detract from the GOP elitist wanting liberal dumb asses like you in the party so they can swing to the liberal side of the political spectrum


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 27, 2012)

Anyone to the left of Barry Goldwater is a liberal elitist.  

You are not mainstream, you are not part of the historical narrative, George Washington and Robert E. Lee would not piss on you if you were on fire.

It is what it is.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 27, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Ok Joe.....I don't know how many times I have to say this.  The Klingon symbol is for ME, not Romney.  The Klingon logo represents MY attitudes and personality...hence the reason why I had the logo on my signature for a good three months before I added the Romney Logo.
> 
> Ok let me speak to you in a tone that you liberals can relate to.  I learned this from Obama in debate III.  There are these things called logos...and these logos can be used to identify many things, affiliations, attitudes, memberships.  But just because I post two logos does not mean I associate one with the other because I have this thing called logic.  And with logic I don't have to rely on bullshit strawmen arguments like you do.
> 
> BTW...nice attempt to deflect by attacking my logos.  You know you have really fucked someone up when the only thing they have left is to attack your logos. Now change that "Eisenhower Republican" bullshit to "flaming liberal", accept your place and stop thinking you are fooling anyone.



Yeah, again, don't see Klingons running to france, and my guess is, you couldn't produce a DD214, either.  

Oh, by the way, Star Trek sucks.  Has for a very long time now.  

Anyway, just because the GOP has been taken over by greedy assholes fooling religious crazies into voting against their own economic interest, doesn't mean that will last forever.  A few more losses, and we'll purge your sort out, and be better off for it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 27, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Anyone to the left of Barry Goldwater is a liberal elitist.
> 
> You are not mainstream, you are not part of the historical narrative, George Washington and Robert E. Lee would not piss on you if you were on fire.
> 
> It is what it is.


You do not dictate what is and is not. you are just what the GOP elitist are looking for in a base, stupid and willing.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 27, 2012)

I dictate to you because you cannot think.  You are not a true conservative, you hate American values, and the patriots would despise the likes of you.

Just so.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 27, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> I dictate to you because you cannot think.  You are not a true conservative, you hate American values, and the patriots would despise the likes of you.
> 
> Just so.



You don't dictate to anyone you're just what the GOP elite are looking for stupid and willing. 



> You are not a true conservative,


Your post show to be true that you are a left wing liberal, and you saying I'm not a conservative is laughable.




> you hate American values



Your values are not America's values.



> and the patriots would despise the likes of you


.
They would tar and feather your slimy ass.


----------



## Dante (Oct 27, 2012)




----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 27, 2012)

Yup, bigrebnc would get his slimy ass tarred and feathered by the Patriots.


----------



## sitarro (Oct 27, 2012)

dante said:


> trajan said:
> 
> 
> > jimh52 said:
> ...



2004?


----------



## Dante (Oct 27, 2012)

sitarro said:


> dante said:
> 
> 
> > trajan said:
> ...




Ohio and evangelicals.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 27, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yup, bigrebnc would get his slimy ass tarred and feathered by the Patriots.


obama and starkey are going trick or treating this year together.
obama will be dressed as the pirate that he is and starkey will be on his shoulder as a parrot


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 27, 2012)

Romney is going to win, and then the leading and sensible GOP leadership will destroy the power of the TP and far right wacks. 





bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, bigrebnc would get his slimy ass tarred and feathered by the Patriots.
> ...


----------



## jillian (Oct 27, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Romney is going to win, and then the leading and sensible GOP leadership will destroy the power of the TP and far right wacks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



jake, when romney's closest campaign surrogates and allies are all teatards, including his VP pick, what on earth would make you think he would suddenly govern as 'moderate mitt'?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 27, 2012)

Jillian, you are just talking.  Almost all of them are moderates, who have known Mitt a long time.  They put up with the Akins, Mordoushes, Rudzikas, etc, for right now because they will deliver votes.  After the election, watch Mitt reach to the right wing of your party to create a new centrist coalition.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 27, 2012)

jillian said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Romney is going to win, and then the leading and sensible GOP leadership will destroy the power of the TP and far right wacks.
> ...



Jillian right of you is far right to the parrot. Hell he may just call you far right.
OH and jake 
obama is looking for his parrot


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 27, 2012)

bigrebnc is melting again.  P'wnd.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 27, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc is melting again.  P'wnd.



jakes drinking again has to be, because he's talking stupid shit.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 27, 2012)

CaliforniaGirl is right with bigrebnc.  The difference is that she has some $$$ but does not know really what it is all about.  bigrebnc is what he appears, from the back hills of NC.

What a pair of dooshi.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 27, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> CaliforniaGirl is right with bigrebnc.  The difference is that she has some $$$ but does not know really what it is all about.  bigrebnc is what he appears, from the back hills of NC.
> 
> What a pair of dooshi.



Are you being a whinny little bitch? Why are you mentioning California Girl? I don't recall her posting in this thread.
OH and have you seen a poor plumber?


----------



## RoadVirus (Oct 27, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Not according to the RCP average, which has it "tied". So technically, it's in no one's column.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 27, 2012)

bigrebnc, I know you don't get it, so I will tell you again: this is not about you.

We don't want to know about your loser hood.  Or CG's for that matter.


----------



## RoadVirus (Oct 27, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Unemployment is off its highs.



And it only took *3* years!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 27, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc, I know you don't get it, so I will tell you again: this is not about you.
> 
> We don't want to know about your loser hood.  Or CG's for that matter.



Here's your post dumb ass you made it about me



JakeStarkey said:


> CaliforniaGirl is right with bigrebnc.  The difference is that she has some $$$ but does not know really what it is all about.  *bigrebnc is what he appears, from the back hills of NC.*
> 
> What a pair of dooshi.


Lying sack of shit
I'll ask you again have you seen a poor plumber?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 27, 2012)

So what?  Losers like you and CG are of no interest.  Move along.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 27, 2012)

RoadVirus said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Unemployment is off its highs.
> ...



No it's not the numbers have be manipulated. I said months ago unemployment would be below 8% before election time, anyone with a brain should have seen this coming.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 27, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> So what?  Losers like you and CG are of no interest.  Move along.



You're lying again.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 27, 2012)

How?  You are a loser and of no interest.

That's why you post on this Board and others.


----------



## jillian (Oct 27, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> RoadVirus said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



i suppose that's true in the world of black helicopters and tinfoil hats.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 27, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> How?  You are a loser and of no interest.
> 
> That's why you post on this Board and others.



Have you read anything that you post too me? LIAR


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 27, 2012)

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > RoadVirus said:
> ...


All I know is when over a million people dropped from the unemployment rolls back in January I said unemployment would be below 8% just before election time. Call it what you want in your dream world. I call it like I see it.
And I was right.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 28, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Jillian, you are just talking.  Almost all of them are moderates, who have known Mitt a long time.  They put up with the Akins, Mordoushes, Rudzikas, etc, for right now because they will deliver votes.  After the election, watch Mitt reach to the right wing of your party to create a new centrist coalition.



So once again, Jake, you are fighting for a guy you think is dishonest. 

I'm not sure how that works, exactly.  

Besides the fact that these guys will cost him votes, do you really want to vote for a guy who will get into bed with the most nasty characters in order to win?  What's to keep him from getting into bed with them to actually govern?


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 28, 2012)

RoadVirus said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



It's only "tied" because they are retaining 10 day old polls in Romney's favor. 

Pssst...psst... VA is "tied" again, too.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 28, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Damn just read this post starkey made to jilian he did call her a right winger.



JakeStarkey said:


> Jillian, you are just talking.  Almost all of them are moderates, who have known Mitt a long time.  They put up with the Akins, Mordoushes, Rudzikas, etc, for right now because they will deliver votes.  After the election, watch Mitt reach to the* right wing of your party *to create a new centrist coalition.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 28, 2012)

You are not sure of anything, JoeB, but this: You are an atheist, a bigot, and a Mormon hater.l  What you think means nothing.



JoeB131 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Jillian, you are just talking.  Almost all of them are moderates, who have known Mitt a long time.  They put up with the Akins, Mordoushes, Rudzikas, etc, for right now because they will deliver votes.  After the election, watch Mitt reach to the right wing of your party to create a new centrist coalition.
> ...


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 28, 2012)

quit trying to change the subject, Jake. 

What you are saying is that you are voting for Romney on the hope he has been lying through his teeth for the last four years when he's been genuflecting at the altar of Norquist and Limbaugh.  

Which makes me wonder about your personal integrity.  




JakeStarkey said:


> You are not sure of anything, JoeB, but this: You are an atheist, a bigot, and a Mormon hater.l  What you think means nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 28, 2012)

An atheist, a bigot, and an antiMormon has nothing of worth to say about these matters.

Way it is.

Blather on.  No one cares.


----------



## BluePhantom (Oct 28, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> An atheist, a bigot, and an antiMormon has nothing of worth to say about these matters.
> 
> Way it is.
> 
> Blather on.  No one cares.



An athiest, a bigot, and a moron walk intoa bar.  The bartender looks up and says "what'll it be Joe?"


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 28, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> An atheist, a bigot, and an antiMormon has nothing of worth to say about these matters.
> 
> Way it is.
> 
> Blather on.  No one cares.



Jake, you keep avoiding the subject. 

Why do you support a man you hope to God is lying?


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 28, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > An atheist, a bigot, and an antiMormon has nothing of worth to say about these matters.
> ...



A Liar, a hack and a scumwad walk into a bar, and the bartenders says, "Get the fuck out of my tavern, BP, we only serve decent working folks here..."


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 28, 2012)

You are a hater of God, a liar, a bigot, so we are not concerned what you think about anyone else and his or her supposed failings.  The way it is.  Blathe on.



JoeB131 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > An atheist, a bigot, and an antiMormon has nothing of worth to say about these matters.
> ...


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 29, 2012)

So to recap. 

Jake thinks that Romney is lying about being a right wing conservative.  

And that he'll have the integrity to finally be a liberal when he gets into office. 

And that either party will let him get away with it.  

And he thinks this is a character point.  

Explains much about Jake, who doesn't know if he's trolling the left or the right here.  




JakeStarkey said:


> You are a hater of God, a liar, a bigot, so we are not concerned what you think about anyone else and his or her supposed failings.  The way it is.  Blathe on.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Conservative (Oct 29, 2012)

New poll shows Romney, Obama appear tied in Ohio | Fox News


> A late surge by Mitt Romney has made the contest between him and President Obama to win Ohio too close to call, according to a poll released Sunday.
> 
> *Romney and Obama appear tied at 49 percent among likely voters*, according to an Ohio News Organization poll. The margin of error in the poll is 3.1 percentage points.
> 
> ...


----------



## JimH52 (Oct 29, 2012)

Conservative said:


> New poll shows Romney, Obama appear tied in Ohio | Fox News
> 
> 
> > A late surge by Mitt Romney has made the contest between him and President Obama to win Ohio too close to call, according to a poll released Sunday.
> ...



And of course FOX is impartial.  Yet, Obama's chances of winning increase...

Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com

I would expect over half of the voting has already taken place in Ohio.  With the looming storm, I expect most of the voting will take place before next Tuesday.  Obama can win without Ohio, although I think he will win the state.  Willard MUST have Ohio.


----------



## JimH52 (Oct 29, 2012)

Conservative said:


> New poll shows Romney, Obama appear tied in Ohio | Fox News
> 
> 
> > A late surge by Mitt Romney has made the contest between him and President Obama to win Ohio too close to call, according to a poll released Sunday.
> ...



Just heard on CNN that Obama maintains a 3 point lead with likely voters in Ohio.  It seems that little attention is being paid to the FOX numbers.  I guess may it is because it is the Official GOP Flagship News Network?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 29, 2012)

To recap: JoeB puts words in my mouth I did not say.

He accuses MR of what JoeB did all through the primaries of falsifying.

That explains much about JoeB and his character.

We are 8 days out and almost nothing will change between now and Election Tuesday.

I wish you all the best as Americans, and I will pray that you remember that which unites us more than divides us.


----------



## Amazed (Oct 29, 2012)

Ohio is at 1.9 and trening down...Virginia is a statistical tie.


----------



## Dr.House (Oct 29, 2012)

Romney +2 now...

Election 2012: Ohio President - Rasmussen Reports


----------



## Liability (Oct 29, 2012)

Dr.House said:


> Romney +2 now...
> 
> Election 2012: Ohio President - Rasmussen Reports



But The ONE himself DID manage to climb over 47%.


----------



## Dante (Oct 29, 2012)

keep it all in one place...



Dante said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> ...



Ahem........................



> If Romney were to carry the state, he would need just four more votes. Winning New Hampshire, which has exactly four votes, or any of the other battlegrounds, would put him across the line. But increasingly, it is looking like Obama will hold onto Ohio. On Friday, three new polls were published, and they all showed the President ahead. American Research Group and Purple Strategies both put his lead at two points; CNN/Opinion Research put it at four points: 50-46. Sources tell me that the two campaigns internal polling also have Obama ahead, with Romneys vote seemingly stalled in the mid-to-high forties.
> 
> Read more Cassidy's Count: Can Romney Win Without Ohio? : The New Yorker



...


----------



## Dr.House (Oct 29, 2012)

Liability said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > Romney +2 now...
> ...



Going to be a LOT of red-eyed libs crying through the night wondering how the polls could be so wrong...

Can't wait...


----------



## Dante (Oct 29, 2012)

Dr.House said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...




can't wait?


----------



## sitarro (Oct 29, 2012)

Dante said:


> keep it all in one place...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



HAHAHAHA  Pathetic


----------



## Dr.House (Oct 29, 2012)

Dante said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 29, 2012)

fAiL s0n.................




Election 2012: Ohio President - Rasmussen Reports


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 29, 2012)

Dr.House said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...




Laugh my balls off...............dude, you're outdoing my GAY MSPAINT Photobucket Classic stuff............


----------



## AceRothstein (Oct 29, 2012)

You all do realize Rasmussen and Mason-Dixon were the only pollsters to get Ohio wrong in 2008, right?


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 29, 2012)

AceRothstein said:


> You all do realize Rasmussen and Mason-Dixon were the only pollsters to get Ohio wrong in 2008, right?





Well, I apologize. Not everybody can be a genius like you!!!!


s0n.....nobody cares.


Anyway......for months, Ive been going with these guys!!!!!!!!

Updated election forecasting model still points to Romney win, University of Colorado study says | University of Colorado Boulder



Do you realize they have a 100% success rate???


----------



## AceRothstein (Oct 29, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> > You all do realize Rasmussen and Mason-Dixon were the only pollsters to get Ohio wrong in 2008, right?
> ...



They have a 0% success rate and a 0% failure rate as this will be the first time their model is actually tested.

Do you beat off thinking about the UC model?  You post about it so often that it has to be on your mind all of the time.


----------



## Liability (Oct 29, 2012)

A few weeks dated, now.

But worth considering.

W.A. Root is -- simply said -- right:

Romney wins in a landslide -- Las Vegas oddsmaker doubles down on prediction | Fox News


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 29, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> To recap: JoeB puts words in my mouth I did not say.
> 
> He accuses MR of what JoeB did all through the primaries of falsifying.
> 
> ...



Not at all.  YOu've been trolling the Wingnuts taunting them that Romney's going to show them when he throws teh NeoCons and TeaBaggers out and governs as a moderate.  

Which means he was lying throughout the entire primary season all the way up to the debates by acting like a Teabagger and a NeoCon... 

So was he lying then, or is he lying now?  

And how could we ever trust him?  

It's a very simple proposition, really. 

Character matters.   What you are saying is that Romney is a less artful Bill Clinton.  

And we all know how that turned out.


----------



## Amazed (Oct 29, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > To recap: JoeB puts words in my mouth I did not say.
> ...



Too funny...you two are two peas in a pod, and neither of you matters at all.


----------



## Dante (Oct 29, 2012)

Liability said:


> A few weeks dated, now.
> 
> But worth considering.
> 
> ...



Worth considering...

The Source is Suspect...

Supreme Court Finds Health Care Individual Mandate Unconstitutional | FOX News Credibility


dD


----------



## Trajan (Nov 3, 2012)

NBC/WSJ/Marist has obama at +6 in Ohio,,,,


well, their present sample is- D/R/I =  38/29/32.

in 2008- it was D/R/I 39/31/30, in 2010, 36/37/28, so I would not put a lot of faith in their poll.


----------



## Zander (Nov 3, 2012)

Trajan said:


> NBC/WSJ/Marist has obama at +6 in Ohio,,,,
> 
> 
> well, their present sample is- D/R/I =  38/29/32.
> ...



that is irrelevant. Nate Silver has Obama winning Ohio @84% likely. Nate Silver is god. He's a boy genius. He is providing succor and relief for millions of Democrats this weekend. Let them enjoy their weekend will ya?


----------



## Zander (Nov 3, 2012)

Liability said:


> A few weeks dated, now.
> 
> But worth considering.
> 
> ...



Best quote from that article:



> This is Carter/Reagan all over again. The same horrible economy. The same economically ignorant fool in the White House bringing misery to Americans. The same economic collapse under the weight of socialist, pro union, soak the rich, demonize the business owners, policies.
> 
> I predict the same result on election day. Mitt Romney in a landslide.
> 
> And If I'm wrong- God help the United States of America.



I agree.


----------



## Trajan (Nov 3, 2012)

Zander said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > NBC/WSJ/Marist has obama at +6 in Ohio,,,,
> ...




yea well, a silver hang over is a biiotch....


----------



## AbrahamLincoln (Nov 3, 2012)

AbrahamLincolntime to stop this Obamination (Baby-Killing (3 times vote of this man for partial-birth-abortion), rejection of talks with the Prime Minister of Israel several times, crippling & destruction of the economy of the US and worldwide, destruction of the moral and biblical foundations of America (cancelling the day of prayer while celebrating Ramadan in the white house...) & denouncing in his Homeland-Security-Papers people, who made the US great as terrorists (bible-believing Christians, 2nd amendment-groups & Veterans(!)) & then insulting candidate Romney, calling him a a "bullshitter" etc.; oh Bummer, this primitivity has got 2 stop...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 3, 2012)

Trajan said:


> NBC/WSJ/Marist has obama at +6 in Ohio,,,,
> 
> 
> well, their present sample is- D/R/I =  38/29/32.
> ...



Something I noticed from an MSNBC poll 
The sample is D/R/I /O =38/29/32/1  Nov. 3 likely voters
but on October 11, 2012 the sample was 40/29/29/1 likely voters
Now what I notice was this in the Oct 11 poll obama had 49% to Romney's 45%
Compared to Nov3 poll obama with 48% to Romney's 46% 
MEANING 
obama is losing support 

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/ohio_poll.pdf


----------



## mamooth (Nov 3, 2012)

AbrahamLincoln said:


> AbrahamLincolntime to stop this Obamination (Baby-Killing (3 times vote of this man for partial-birth-abortion), rejection of talks with the Prime Minister of Israel several times, crippling & destruction of the economy of the US and worldwide, destruction of the moral and biblical foundations of America (cancelling the day of prayer while celebrating Ramadan in the white house...) & denouncing in his Homeland-Security-Papers people, who made the US great as terrorists (bible-believing Christians, 2nd amendment-groups & Veterans(!)) & then insulting candidate Romney, calling him a a "bullshitter" etc.; oh Bummer, this primitivity has got 2 stop...



Seriously, don't drink and post. It never turns out well.


----------



## JimH52 (Nov 3, 2012)

Nate Silver has Obama with a 80%+ chance of winning Ohio.  That appears to be the ball game...3 days and it will be over.


----------



## Charles_Main (Nov 3, 2012)

JimH52 said:


> Presidential Polls 2012 - Latest Swing State Polls: Obama Up in Ohio, Can Romney Reap Elections Without It? : Politics : Latinos Post
> 
> Newest Polling



wow shocker, the Sample is 38% Dem, 29% Republican and 31% Ind.

No way in hell Dems are going to enjoy that kind of Advantage this time around. But feel free to keep banking on it.


----------



## RoadVirus (Nov 4, 2012)

Trajan said:


> NBC/WSJ/Marist has obama at +6 in Ohio,,,,
> 
> 
> well, their present sample is- D/R/I =  38/29/32.
> ...



RCP's average has him ahead only +2.8. Not much of a lead overall if you ask me.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 4, 2012)

RoadVirus said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > NBC/WSJ/Marist has obama at +6 in Ohio,,,,
> ...



Given that every poll EXCEPT Ratmuffin have him ahead by some margin, on average, it's pretty good.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 4, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> RoadVirus said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



Romney and Obama are running even in national polls, yet the president has steady, if small, leads in surveys of most of the nine battleground states targeted by both camps as the best bets to assemble the 270 electoral votes needed.

In short, the contest is too close to call.

In final weekend, a fight to the finish


----------



## Liability (Nov 4, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > RoadVirus said:
> ...



*yet the president has steady, if small, leads in surveys of most of the nine battleground states targeted by both camps*

That would be concerning if one believed the polls.


----------



## Sarah G (Nov 4, 2012)

Talkin' shit..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIe23C1NvU4&feature=player_embedded]LeBron James Is A Bitch Song - YouTube[/ame]

Not gonna work on Tuesday.


----------



## Trajan (Nov 4, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> RoadVirus said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



What is the sample data of the 'every' poll?


----------



## Liability (Nov 4, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> Talkin' shit..
> 
> LeBron James Is A Bitch Song - YouTube
> 
> Not gonna work on Tuesday.



It doesn't "work" today or yesterday or ever.

However, come Wednesday, you *should* finally see just how absurd your faith in assholes like "Nate" is.  Then, maybe you'll talk  less smack.


----------



## Sarah G (Nov 4, 2012)

Liability said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Talkin' shit..
> ...



I may reevaluate on Wednesday but at least I'll be here to take the smack talk if need be.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 4, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Romney and Obama are running even in national polls, yet the president has steady, if small, leads in surveys of most of the nine battleground states targeted by both camps as the best bets to assemble the 270 electoral votes needed.
> 
> In short, the contest is too close to call.
> 
> In final weekend, a fight to the finish



No, it really isn't.  

I think the problem is, you are mistaking hype for fact.  This isn't going to even be a contest in the end.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 4, 2012)

Trajan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > RoadVirus said:
> ...



Decent enough size to be accurate.  

Now, if you want to argue one or two polls are off, that's fine. 

But ALL of them?  

Seriously?


----------



## Amazed (Nov 4, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Romney and Obama are running even in national polls, yet the president has steady, if small, leads in surveys of most of the nine battleground states targeted by both camps as the best bets to assemble the 270 electoral votes needed.
> ...



Pure projection.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 4, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Romney and Obama are running even in national polls, yet the president has steady, if small, leads in surveys of most of the nine battleground states targeted by both camps as the best bets to assemble the 270 electoral votes needed.
> ...



Dumb ass if you had read any part of the link what I posted came directly from it. The NEW YORK TIMES.


----------



## ThirdTerm (Nov 4, 2012)

In all-important Ohio, Obama leads Romney, 50 percent to 48 percent, according to a Columbus Dispatch poll released on Sunday. Some surveys suggest Obamas leads have disappeared altogether. In New Hampshire, for instance, a WMUR poll published on Saturday showed Obama and Romney tied at 47 percent. The president led by 15 points in the same poll in early October. In Pennsylvania, a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review poll released on Sunday also showed a 47-47 draw. Multiple polls had Obamas advantage at or near double digits in Pennsylvania in late September.

Obama, Romney campaigns both confident as polls continue to show tight race - Boston.com


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 4, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I don't read your links, because most of them are pretty dumb.  Romney could even win the national vote, and still lose... 

Because he doesn't have the electoral votes to win right now.


----------



## Amazed (Nov 4, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Oh Joey you goof, NOBODY has the EV's to win right now...what a kidder!!!!!


----------



## Charles_Main (Nov 4, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Size? What is the Party Affiliation break down in the poll. Most of the polls showing Obama up all have one thing in common. They all poll 5 to 7% more Dems than Republicans. When all the Data points to a turn out closer to what happened in 2004.

Basically all these polls are counting on a repeat of the Dems 2008 Wave election where they had the biggest advantage in turn out they had, had in a Generation. 

Sorry, But if that is what he needs to run a couple points ahead in a poll? He has lost, Even in Ohio, Ohio, Ohio. 

Turn out will be very close to even, with even possibly a slight Republican Advantage.

Calculate that into all those polls, and Obama isn't even up in any of them.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 4, 2012)

Amazed said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Except that probabilities say that Romney won't break 270, no matter how many votes he gets in the country as a whole.  

If anything, the polls are probably undercounting the Obama vote, as people with Cell Phones and minorities are less likely to be polled.


----------



## Amazed (Nov 4, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Oh Joey....you mean the "probabilities" YOU choose to believe 

We're going to know fairly quickly, when Ohio is called the election will be over.

Ohio is well within the MOE, so don't bother with your silly lefty polls.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 4, 2012)

Amazed said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Amazed said:
> ...



The problem is ALL the polls show Obama leading in Ohio.  

Now, yeah, ONE poll can be wrong.  Two or three of them can be wrong.  

All of them being wrong? Fairly improbable.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 4, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Your calling what I post dumb but you claim your only reason to support obama is because Romney is a Mormon? That is beyond truth don't matter stupid and Lohkota ignorant shit in just a few short weeks you have surpassed all the left stupid with your reason for support obama over Romney.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 4, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Guy, I told you idiots if you nominated the Mormon, I was voting for Obama. 

I'm true to my word. 

You all screwed up by nominating him, the weakest candidate the GOP has feilded since Barry "Deep down you know he's nuts" Goldwater.   

After Romney loses (and he will) on Tuesday, maybe you'll want to have sensible discussions about how the GOP avoids becoming a regional party.  

Maybe. Kind of doubt it, though.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 4, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Which all the more reason makes you the most ignorant bastard of all times.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 4, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Correct. 

The polls in Ohio and other BG states have also be taken over several weeks, scores of polls have been taken, the majority showing the president ahead. 

Polling data are at their most accurate when as many polls as possible are analyzed, over the longest periods possible, showing the same consistent results.


----------



## Amazed (Nov 4, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



We'll see little Joey


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 4, 2012)

Ohio   President Obama  2.8   12 polls, 11 for Obama  one tie

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Ohio: Romney vs. Obama

*Ohio is going for Obama, simple fact.*


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 4, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



The ignorant thing was nominating Romney in 2012 when it was demonstrated he was an awful candidate when he came in third in 2008.  

Nominating the "Next in Line" is an awful idea, which is why the GOP hasn't won doing it since 1988.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 4, 2012)

Amazed said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Amazed said:
> ...



Oh, no, we won't.  You'll hide in some corner after he loses Ohio and pretend you never had the discussion...


----------



## elvis (Nov 4, 2012)

​


Old Rocks said:


> Ohio   President Obama  2.8   12 polls, 11 for Obama  one tie
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Ohio: Romney vs. Obama
> 
> *Ohio is going for Obama, simple fact.*



Many of those polls listed are within the margin of error, which means tie.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 4, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Ohio   President Obama  2.8   12 polls, 11 for Obama  one tie
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Ohio: Romney vs. Obama
> 
> *Ohio is going for Obama, simple fact.*



This is what I find amazing.  

You conduct 12 tests.  11 show a positive result, one shows a result that is unclear, and you know that the person who conducted that test wanted to find a negative result.  

In any Six Sigma, statistical, analytical environment, you'd go with the 11 tests that showed the positive result.


----------



## elvis (Nov 4, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Ohio   President Obama  2.8   12 polls, 11 for Obama  one tie
> ...



Fuck off, bigot.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 4, 2012)

elvis said:


> ​
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> ...



No, it doesn't.  

Statistics are obviously one of those things you didn't get in Home Skule, Cleetus. 

If six tests show a negative result, and six show a positive one, then you have an argument that there is a margin of error.  

if 11 Tests show a positive result, and only one shows an ambigous result, THEN you have an argument that the majority is probably correct in its assessment.


----------



## Amazed (Nov 4, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



See this is the problem with people who have an overblown ego....they get all self righteous and shit for no good reason....and frankly...you don't have a good reason to think ur shit don't stink....you will never be enough to make me run...or hide.

My ego isn't wrapped up in this like yours


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 4, 2012)

Amazed said:


> [
> See this is the problem with people who have an overblown ego....they get all self righteous and shit for no good reason....and frankly...you don't have a good reason to think ur shit don't stink....you will never be enough to make me run...or hide.
> 
> My ego isn't wrapped up in this like yours



Yawn... it ain't about you.


----------



## Amazed (Nov 4, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



My point exactly...but Joey thinks EVERYTHING is about Joey.....grow up kid.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 4, 2012)

Amazed said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Amazed said:
> ...



Where do you even get that?  

Frankly, I talk about what interests me, point things out, and you guys get upset when I point out that the GOP made a huge mistake lettnig the Mormon Cult hijack your party because you all hate the black guy so much you can't see straight. 

Not to worry, the few of you who don't scurry away will be telling us all how Romney "wasn't a real conservative" and how the Teabaggers will "save us" from "socialism" and otherwise avoiding an adult conversation on what is wrong with this country and how to fix it.


----------



## Dr.House (Nov 4, 2012)

Libs like Joey will be crying rivers of tears, wondering how the polls could be so wrong...  How could the media misleads us so?....

I'll be here to rub his nose in it...


----------



## Liability (Nov 4, 2012)

Dr.House said:


> Libs like Joey will be crying rivers of tears, wondering how the polls could be so wrong...  How could the media misleads us so?....
> 
> I'll be here to rub his nose in it...



My feelings exactly.


----------



## Amazed (Nov 4, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



(smile) Your lack of self awareness should be a major red flag for you 

Kid, everything you type says you think your shit doesn't stink....the fact that YOU can't see that in no way makes it untrue 

Nobody cares what you think about Romney or anyone else.....your opinions are only opinions, no more relevant than anyone elses 

The polls don't reflect anything you say...cherry picking is simply the cowards way of over compensating for something one lacks.

The polls make it clear it is a horse race....assuming that the methods are equitable.

You simply are NOT as cool and intellectually superior as you seem to need to believe you are.

Frankly Joey, your bigotry is a major blind spot for you....


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 5, 2012)

Dr.House said:


> Libs like Joey will be crying rivers of tears, wondering how the polls could be so wrong...  How could the media misleads us so?....
> 
> I'll be here to rub his nose in it...



Except the polls aren't wrong.  

They usually never are.  

The ironic thing is I won't be rubbing anyone's nose in it when Romney loses. 

I won't even mock you all when you try to claim that Romney lost because he "wasn't a real conservative", which is what a lot of you are going to claim as soon as Limbaugh gives you permission to say so.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 5, 2012)

Amazed said:


> You simply are NOT as cool and intellectually superior as you seem to need to believe you are.
> 
> Frankly Joey, your bigotry is a major blind spot for you....



Nope, I don't consider despising Mormonism to be bigotry.  

Joseph Smith wasn't talking to God. 

He was conning less smart people out of their money and sleeping with their teenage daughters.  He was Orginal to David Koresh's Extra Krispy.  

Nothing about it is admirable... and I can feel VASTLY superior to someone who is so brainwashed that they can't figure out what is fairly obvious.  

That the rest of you sold out is what I find sort of disturbing.  It shows a party in its death throes...


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 5, 2012)

Oh, RCP now has Obama pulling ahead of Romney in Virginia.  

Electoral count- 303 to 235... just like predicted. 

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map No Toss Ups


----------

