User Tag List

View Poll Results: How will the popular vote and electoral college be split?

Voters
31. You may not vote on this poll
  • Obama wins both.

    17 54.84%
  • Romney wins both.

    2 6.45%
  • Obama wins the electoral college and Romney wins the popular vote.

    11 35.48%
  • Romney wins the electoral college and Obama wins the popular vote.

    1 3.23%
First 5678917 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 424

  1. #61
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    I tried googling different polls, and some have Romney in the lead while others have Obama. How can anyone be sure which of these polls is accurate? (Or maybe they are all accurate, but their margin of error is too wide?)

    This may seem odd, but in the end I trust the verdict of Intrade more than the polls. Currently the prediction market has Obama to win at a 66.3% chance. So Obama has a 2 in 3 chance while Romney has a 1 in 3 chance.
    Most statistical analysts of the election don't pick a poll to trust, instead they factor all the polls together.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  2. #62
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Is Nate Silver supposed to be an aggregator of the polls?
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  3. #63
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    Presidential policies aside, a part of me really wants to see an Obama victory next week. Not just any victory, but a victory consistent with polling data. The reason is quite simple: a Romney victory that flies in the face of polling data will, to some, be proof of a massive conspiracy by the media and pollsters in favor of a liberal candidate. It isn't that I would be resistant to believing the polling data is wrong, only that I believe the implications aren't tied with fraud or partisanship, but with the difficulty that comes with predicting uncertain events. I'm tired of hearing about people rejecting information because 1) it isn't consistent with what they want to believe; and 2) they've had their ability to think critically clouded by paranoia and prejudice.

    Fox news and the conservative establishment have done an excellent job of painting most media sources as liberal propaganda, and although I'm not going to waste time arguing with them over MSNBC, I find the charges being levied against other outlets such as CNN or Nate Silver's political blog to be entirely baseless. I don't see how, as a society, we benefit from spreading vitriolic propaganda and burying our heads in the sand.
    I'm not saying Nate Silver is wrong; he very well could be spot on. We won't know until the votes come in, and I, for one, want to see the exact opposite of what you want to see (although, as I voted, and as I told you via rep, I don't exactly expect this to happen [I think the odds are somewhere between In-trade's 2:1 and Silver's 3:1 {my exact number right now would be between 70:30 and 71:29 Obama}]). I want to see a 2-3% swing in favor of Romney in many of the states, which would essentially lead to a Romney landslide (he already has NC, Florida, and Virginia, based on current polling data; this could potentially bring him Colorado [which he's recently lost], Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, Nevada, and even Michigan [Wisconsin used to be in play, and Michigan not, but apparently that's switched recently]). That being said, Nate Silver does have left-leaning political biases (whether they taint his election analysis is a whole nother question, tho). If his model is as accurate as he thinks it is, I hope he threw a lot of money down on In-trade, cuz I don't have all the polling data in spreadsheets on my computer, and when I saw Romney at 20% last December, I was screaming buy, when I saw him at ~45% over the summer, I was screaming sell, and when I saw him back at 20% in September, I was screaming buy again -- something tells me this is not the case (but who knows, I could be wrong -- he did get his start in online poker).

    As for the media, though: CNN is still biased to the left (they do try to be the centrist among the three cable channels, but they still undeniably lean left [see: Soledad O'Brien]), as are almost all the broadcast channels. MSNBC and Fox are so blatantly biased, there's not even a question about it. The others are more subtle, but it's still undeniably there, if you're truly capable of being objective. And this is coming from someone who is an independent, who leans moderately libertarian, and thus tends to vote Republican, who listens to NPR when he wakes up, and in the car, because he thinks NPR, while still undeniably (albeit lightly) left-leaning, provides the most neutral perspective of them all (they do try to stay balanced, but they can't help themselves at times [twice in this election cycle, the first time I've ever felt this way, after many years of listening to NPR, I've felt like writing an angry letter for their blatantly biased coverage {first, after the nomination of Paul Ryan, when they immediately ran a blatantly biased hit job on him; and second, after, I think, the first debate, but possibly another one}]), and listens to it specifically to balance out his own slightly "right"-leaning perspective. I also read the NYTimes, Washington Post and Daily Beast each morning (all left-leaning, but WaPo is by far the least egregious about it, and is actually a very good paper), follow up throughout the day with the WSJ, RealClearPolitics and Drudge (all right-leaning, although it's the least egregious with RealClearPolitics, and they do give voice to all sides of the issues), read The Week, The Economist, Time, Barron's, CalculatedRisk, Mauldin and LATimes on the weekends, and subscribe to the youtube channels of every major think tank, regardless of political alignment. As such, and as someone whose commitment to objectivity, impartiality, and neutrality is stronger than almost anybody else's, I feel very justified in saying that if you do not understand the fundamental, underlying left-leaning bias in our media (even among CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS [and almost every major paper]), then you're simply unaware of it because it's tilted in the same direction that you are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    If the polls do turn out to be wrong, which I am entirely willing to accept, I am of the belief that it will be due to the difficulties inherent in prediction, and not because of any conspiracy or bias.
    You do realize this is a preconceived biased position, right?

    If that does happen -- which I'm hoping, but by no means certain, it will -- you should be open to either interpretation.

    Your current position would run against Socrates' exhortation to follow the evidence where it leads.

  4. #64
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    I recommend you check out this book, written by UCLA professor Timothy Groseclose: Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind

    This interview from the (right-leaning [also, Stanfurd-based]) Hoover Institution gives a good summary of the book:


  5. #65
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    I also change my vote.

    I don't think Romney's gunna win the popular vote anymore.

    Sandy gave Obama the clear edge, being able to (legitimately) use the power of the Presidency on an important issue right before the election.

    That, combined with the remembrance of Bush's failure over Katrina, and how this aligns with the idiotic, dumbed-down, excessive, anti-government, anti-regulation Republican ideology most notable during the 2000s, and Christie's embrace/praise of Obama over his handling of the disaster, has killed any momentum Romney still might have had from proving he'd be a capable President in the first debate (which, at this point, if it existed at all, had already slowed to a near stall speed, like an air hockey puck that last moment before it halts its slowly fading glide across the table).

    It's all gunna come down to turn out, and I still hope Romney takes it, but I don't think it's gunna happen at this point.

    I'd started settling myself into this likelihood before the first debate.

    I'm just starting to get comfortable with it again.

    Chris Christie 2016!!!

  6. #66
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    You do realize this is a preconceived biased position, right?

    If that does happen -- which I'm hoping, but by no means certain, it will -- you should be open to either interpretation.

    Your current position would run against Socrates' exhortation to follow the evidence where it leads.
    Yes, I do. Everyone, to some extent, has preconceptions; it's human nature. The question is whether they are willing to revise those preconceptions in the face of new evidence, which I am.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  7. #67
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    Yes, I do. Everyone, to some extent, has preconceptions; it's human nature. The question is whether they are willing to revise those preconceptions in the face of new evidence, which I am.
    Cool.

    This is all true.

    Well, with one slight qualifier: I think you should consider a Romney victory (which, essentially, would require the polls to be wrong, and my above-mentioned 2-3% shift to occur) evidence that the polls were wrong, that Rasmussen (and perhaps Gallup) had the most accurate methodology, and that many of the other polls not only had the wrong methodology, but did so, at least in part, because of their left-leaning sympathies.

    You want to be able to shove it down the righties' throats if the polls turn out correct.

    Only fair that you accept the same if it turns out they are wrong.

  8. #68
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,486

    Default

    Oh, I don't want to shove it down anybody's throat, and at first thought I find the notion of a Romney blowout exciting. The issue I have is with the implications and fallout of such a divergence; e.g. people using the results as justification for disbelieving other things based upon statistical evidence and analysis. I'm all for healthy skepticism. That said, I pretty much agree with everything you've said above
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  9. #69
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,486

    Default

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  10. #70
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    Oh, I don't want to shove it down anybody's throat, and at first thought I find the notion of a Romney blowout exciting. The issue I have is with the implications and fallout of such a divergence; e.g. people using the results as justification for disbelieving other things based upon statistical evidence and analysis. I'm all for healthy skepticism. That said, I pretty much agree with everything you've said above
    Wouldn't it give them pretty good reason to view statistical evidence with a bit of skepticism? I mean, personally, I think all evidence, including statistical evidence, needs to be looked at with as much skepticism as is proper (and yes, I understand that's a sliding signifier). The thing is, all models are garbage-in, garbage-out. I'd much rather have a populace that looks at the methodology behind a statistical analysis, and questions its assumptions, than one that simply blindly believes whatever a particular statistical analysis tells them.

Similar Threads

  1. United States of America, 2012 Political Positions of Two Major Parties
    By Beargryllz in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-22-2012, 08:16 PM
  2. US Presidential Election statistics
    By Take Five in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-07-2009, 10:59 PM
  3. In honor of today's presidential elections
    By Giggly in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 11-13-2008, 02:47 AM
  4. U.S.E (United states of Europe)
    By Virtual ghost in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 09-27-2008, 01:14 PM
  5. Vote Match quiz (american presidential election)
    By tovlo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-20-2008, 06:44 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO