• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Romney, Obama, Rasmussen

Tricky said:
Also true. RandFan and I have had some jolly old fights over the years, but somehow, we found some points we could agree on. Though we've been mad at each other, I don't think we ever lost respect for each other. And that, IMO, is why these boards can sometimes be so very special.

So when someone claims they are unbiased, I claim BS. Everybody is biased. RF wears his on his sleeve, but I never deny being a liberal and having the expected liberal bias. I like to think that I at least recognize it. I know that RF recognizes his. How about you Sir D-A-L? You want to admit your bias?
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
Tricky said:
I doubt that, and I'm not in the "stick a fork in him" camp, but barring a possible-but-unlikely rapid turnaround, it looks like it will be at least comfortable. So much so that we need to wonder how long Obama's coattails are. No, I don't think many voters are going to change who they support, but if Romney looks hopeless, Republicans may stay home in droves.
Click to expand...

Until today, I would have agreed with you, Tricky. But after seeing THIS, I don't see how someone can avoid saying "stick a fork in him"...



 
Meanwhile, over at Intrade, Romney continues to plummet...

Obama 74.9%
Romney 25.7%

And Romney appears to be "holding" at IEM...

Obama 79.7%
Romney 21.9%

While I'm at it, I think I should mention that these two markets are now coming very much in line with the WTA predictions made by Nate Silver's model over at FiveThirtyEight.com...

Obama 81.9%
Romney 18.1%

:popcorn6
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile, the Gallup tracking poll that the Romney campaign and the Daily Fail were pointing to and saying "See! It's all tied up!" a couple days ago now has Obama up by 6. They're running out of cherries to pick.
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
If someone is voting for my candidate, I don't really care if they're doing it for reasons that are different than mine, or if they believe things I don't believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
Click to expand...

And do you extrapolate that to The Party Good? Like the situation in Missouri, for instance? The GOP has basically spun what you posted above around on its ear and said, "Yeah, we know he's an idiot and we're really embarrassed by him and wish he had quit in favor of, say, the guy who sweeps up at night in Branson, but,... Hey, he's a Republican and by gawd, we support our candidates, so now that he won't quit, we're all for him."

If your candidate panders to the uncaring and unyielding, do you support him in that? Or do you know stuff we don't know about what an all around sensitive and swell guy he is?

I, for one, find it rather difficult to think you voted for Obama in the last election and have done such a complete reversal that you'd go over to the dark side and support Mittens. McCain was far less objectionable and while maybe a little wrong-headed at times, was a considerably more sensitive and swell guy than Romney. McCain's candidacy seems to have been an accident of history. He was just in the ascendancy, quite propitiously, when a follow-up election came along and the sitting Veep was a non-candidate. Romney's been gearing up for this, changing opinions, changing lanes, changing his entire history, for six years.
 
Some assessment of Rasmussen from a third party:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/sept-26-could-2012-be-like-2008/

FTA said:
The exception was the Rasmussen Reports tracking poll, which gave Mitt Romney a two-point lead among likely voters. (This was in the version of the poll that included voters who leaned toward a candidate, which is the one that FiveThirtyEight uses for all surveys.)

What to think of the Rasmussen poll? Their surveys usually have a Republican lean, but it seems to have gotten stronger in the last few weeks. It has also been stronger in some years than others. Rasmussen got reasonably good results in years like 2006 and 2008 when their polls were close to the consensus. However, their polls were the least accurate of the major polling firms in 2010, when they had an especially strong Republican house-effect. The same was true in 2000, when they had a three- or four-point statistical bias toward Republican candidates.

This feature is not unique to Rasmussen Reports: a poll that substantially differs from the consensus, whether in a Democratic or Republican direction, is usually not one that you’ll want to bet on. And there is even less reason to do so when a poll is taking a number of methodological shortcuts, while others are being more thorough. But there have been years when the whole polling average has been off in one direction or another, and the “outlier” polls turn out to look good. It’s also the case that a broken clock is right twice a day.
Click to expand...
 
538 has Romney's chance of winning, if the election was held today, at 2.2%. That's insane.

16.1% on November 6 isn't much better.
 
Rasmussen comes through for the GOP yet again. Do they even really do a poll, or just check out the others to determine what number they have to post to bring the RCP average (and other averages) down to semi-believable.

Rasmussen was on Fox the other night (Tue or Wed) and they asked him in closing when he had his next polls coming out. He responded, "We'll have some next week." 36 hours later, they release a poll that prevents the RCP average from climbing above 5%. Where's the Conspiracy sub-forum?

ETA: That Rasmussen piece could've been taped.
 
BenBurch said:
Silver now thinks it possible that 2012 could be a near-clone of 2008 from current polling.
Click to expand...

In the 'predict the electoral college vote' thread, I predicted 332 for Obama and that he would win all the same states as last time except for Indiana and North Carolina. Now even North Carolina looks like it might go Obama's way.
 
Had a visitor today with a bright red cardinal on his shirt. I asked "Not sure, is that the St. Louis or Louisville version...". "Neither - it's Arizona."

We were chatting and he was a transplanted New Jerseyite who went for the golf and sunshine in early retirement. I thought he had moved here, but he was just visiting a friend, here for a month of "cheap golf", as it turns out. I asked if he was going to get back in time to vote, and he said that he wasn't originally planning to because a Democratic vote wasn't going to make a difference in AZ in this day and age, but.... he'd heard from local organizer types that they had figures showing the Presidential race tightening up.

This, I have to say, is a surprise. Did the 47% remark strike that deep a chord with the seniors? Are the "Independents" in AZ actually "independent" and are souring on the campaign or the campaigners?

No one's releasing frequent polls in AZ as it's not considered to be "in play". We have a few 'Zonans here, don't we? What's going on? I don't see Ryan or Romney planning and stops there - which would be the first indication they felt their base was rocky (and they were both in CO last week and could've dropped in, if they perceived a need).

The question this raises is whether the "leans to" states could also come into play?
 
Foolmewunz said:
This, I have to say, is a surprise. Did the 47% remark strike that deep a chord with the seniors? Are the "Independents" in AZ actually "independent" and are souring on the campaign or the campaigners?
Click to expand...

Arizona isn't as uniformly deep red as is commonly believed. It's more like modern Virginia where you have two superposed and politically distinct electorates. Arizona has the "snow birds," Scottsdale and such, who are older, whiter, wealthier, and vote Republican. But it also has the imported working class (my brother among them), strongest in Tucson, who are younger and cosmopolitan, generally blue-collar, solidly Democratic. There are several other, smaller constituencies that can swing depending on what's going on (the young 2A community that might give up on Romney for Johnson, for instance).

Arizona back in play would suggest something about an "enthusiasm rift" appearing in the Republican party, in my uneducated opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom