I'm calling the election: Romney will win (Page 5)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() gerald12 - 2012-11-01 6:13 PM I think Romney wins the popular vote but loses the election 281-257. tuwoods electoral college prediction R/R 308 O/B 230 (aka blowout) |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tuwood - 2012-11-01 10:06 PM gerald12 - 2012-11-01 6:13 PM I think Romney wins the popular vote but loses the election 281-257. tuwoods electoral college prediction R/R 308 O/B 230 (aka blowout) Please tell me you're willing to place a wager on that projection. Romney 308? I'll take the under...and I'll give you 5 to 1 odds. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tuwood - 2012-11-01 10:06 PM gerald12 - 2012-11-01 6:13 PM I think Romney wins the popular vote but loses the election 281-257. tuwoods electoral college prediction R/R 308 O/B 230 (aka blowout) You've got Obama winning South Dakota? You seem to have picked Romney in all the states he is leading in the polls...and Romney in all of the states President Obama is leading by up to 5 points. We shall see...ya never know! |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ChineseDemocracy - 2012-11-01 9:23 PM tuwood - 2012-11-01 10:06 PM gerald12 - 2012-11-01 6:13 PM I think Romney wins the popular vote but loses the election 281-257. tuwoods electoral college prediction R/R 308 O/B 230 (aka blowout) You've got Obama winning South Dakota? You seem to have picked Romney in all the states he is leading in the polls...and Romney in all of the states President Obama is leading by up to 5 points. We shall see...ya never know! oh haha, that's funny. I think RCP has a bug in their system. I saved my electoral map the other day and most definitely had SD red, but when I restore it it keeps making SD blue. Must be a conspiracy. tuwoods updated electoral college prediction R/R 321 O/B 217 Edited by tuwood 2012-11-01 9:55 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tuwood - 2012-11-01 9:46 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2012-11-01 9:23 PM tuwood - 2012-11-01 10:06 PM gerald12 - 2012-11-01 6:13 PM I think Romney wins the popular vote but loses the election 281-257. tuwoods electoral college prediction R/R 308 O/B 230 (aka blowout) You've got Obama winning South Dakota? You seem to have picked Romney in all the states he is leading in the polls...and Romney in all of the states President Obama is leading by up to 5 points. We shall see...ya never know! oh haha, that's funny. I think RCP has a bug in their system. I saved my electoral map the other day and most definitely had SD red, but when I restore it it keeps making SD blue. Must be a conspiracy. tuwoods updated electoral college prediction R/R 311 O/B 227 Dude....Obama couldn't carry Missouri in the LAST election....let the landslide roll! |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ChineseDemocracy - 2012-11-01 9:17 PM tuwood - 2012-11-01 10:06 PM gerald12 - 2012-11-01 6:13 PM I think Romney wins the popular vote but loses the election 281-257. tuwoods electoral college prediction R/R 308 O/B 230 (aka blowout) Please tell me you're willing to place a wager on that projection. Romney 308? I'll take the under...and I'll give you 5 to 1 odds. I'm not confident enough to wager on it, but I do think it's a real possibility. Romney is in the margin of error in almost every swing state I switched Red with 2008 D turnout models. The early numbers do not support that model so I figure he has at least 3-5 points over what the polls are showing in those states. I could be wrong, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it. I think it would be fun to see everyone's electoral college predictions and see whose closest next Wednesday. Perhaps another thread is in order. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Left Brain - 2012-11-01 9:48 PM tuwood - 2012-11-01 9:46 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2012-11-01 9:23 PM tuwood - 2012-11-01 10:06 PM gerald12 - 2012-11-01 6:13 PM I think Romney wins the popular vote but loses the election 281-257. tuwoods electoral college prediction R/R 308 O/B 230 (aka blowout) You've got Obama winning South Dakota? You seem to have picked Romney in all the states he is leading in the polls...and Romney in all of the states President Obama is leading by up to 5 points. We shall see...ya never know! oh haha, that's funny. I think RCP has a bug in their system. I saved my electoral map the other day and most definitely had SD red, but when I restore it it keeps making SD blue. Must be a conspiracy. tuwoods updated electoral college prediction R/R 311 O/B 227 Dude....Obama couldn't carry Missouri in the LAST election....let the landslide roll! Dam, stupid RCP it keeps changing my states. MO is most definitely red. Updated the last one. I give up. OK, Romney wins >300 |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tuwood - 2012-11-01 8:50 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2012-11-01 9:17 PM tuwood - 2012-11-01 10:06 PM gerald12 - 2012-11-01 6:13 PM I think Romney wins the popular vote but loses the election 281-257. tuwoods electoral college prediction R/R 308 O/B 230 (aka blowout) Please tell me you're willing to place a wager on that projection. Romney 308? I'll take the under...and I'll give you 5 to 1 odds. I'm not confident enough to wager on it, but I do think it's a real possibility. Romney is in the margin of error in almost every swing state I switched Red with 2008 D turnout models. The early numbers do not support that model so I figure he has at least 3-5 points over what the polls are showing in those states. I could be wrong, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it. I think it would be fun to see everyone's electoral college predictions and see whose closest next Wednesday. Perhaps another thread is in order. I just did my map and I'm going 271 - 267 Obama. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() JoshR - 2012-10-31 8:33 AM TriRSquared - 2012-10-31 8:27 AM JoshR - 2012-10-31 10:16 AM I have no real reason for this, but my hunch is that Obama will remain in office. I think he might get a small boost from the storm damage and some of the positive reports on his handling of it by people like Chris Christie. Also, if there is a halfway decent jobs number out on Friday, that would help too. ETA: My absentee ballot also said Gary Johnson. Based on this thread he has 100% of the vote so far! Not sure how that could happen considering the initial "good one" in September was corrected to include "the biggest one-week percentage increase in jobless claims over the last five years". But that wasn't front page news now was it?
In the other thread that was easily explained by CA not reporting their jobs one week then the report jumped significantly the next to include them. That report however, is not the same as the NFP report that is for the month of Oct coming out on Friday. If it shows 125k+ jobs created in Oct, that would be a boost to Obama, IMO.
171K today. That will help him IMO. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() JoshR - 2012-11-02 9:22 AM JoshR - 2012-10-31 8:33 AM TriRSquared - 2012-10-31 8:27 AM JoshR - 2012-10-31 10:16 AM I have no real reason for this, but my hunch is that Obama will remain in office. I think he might get a small boost from the storm damage and some of the positive reports on his handling of it by people like Chris Christie. Also, if there is a halfway decent jobs number out on Friday, that would help too. ETA: My absentee ballot also said Gary Johnson. Based on this thread he has 100% of the vote so far! Not sure how that could happen considering the initial "good one" in September was corrected to include "the biggest one-week percentage increase in jobless claims over the last five years". But that wasn't front page news now was it?
In the other thread that was easily explained by CA not reporting their jobs one week then the report jumped significantly the next to include them. That report however, is not the same as the NFP report that is for the month of Oct coming out on Friday. If it shows 125k+ jobs created in Oct, that would be a boost to Obama, IMO. 171K today. That will help him IMO. If this alone sways your vote you do not need to be voting... |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tuwood - 2012-11-01 8:55 PM Left Brain - 2012-11-01 9:48 PM tuwood - 2012-11-01 9:46 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2012-11-01 9:23 PM tuwood - 2012-11-01 10:06 PM gerald12 - 2012-11-01 6:13 PM I think Romney wins the popular vote but loses the election 281-257. tuwoods electoral college prediction R/R 308 O/B 230 (aka blowout) You've got Obama winning South Dakota? You seem to have picked Romney in all the states he is leading in the polls...and Romney in all of the states President Obama is leading by up to 5 points. We shall see...ya never know! oh haha, that's funny. I think RCP has a bug in their system. I saved my electoral map the other day and most definitely had SD red, but when I restore it it keeps making SD blue. Must be a conspiracy. tuwoods updated electoral college prediction R/R 311 O/B 227 Dude....Obama couldn't carry Missouri in the LAST election....let the landslide roll! Dam, stupid RCP it keeps changing my states. MO is most definitely red. Updated the last one. I give up. OK, Romney wins >300 You guys should really investigate the poll aggregators more. Those outfits that take all of the individual state polls, aggregate them, and then use them to predict electoral college numbers have been very accurate over the last several elections. It could be that ALL of them are wrong, but that is not likely. The most accurate aggregator over the last several elections has been Sam Wang's Princeton Election Consortium. http://election.princeton.edu/perverse-media-incentives-cillizza-2nov2012.php. His prediction is Obama with 318 electoral votes. The 538 Blog has Obama with 303 EVs, and RCP has Obama with 290 EVs. NV, MI, WI, and PA don't really appear to me to be that close. All favor Obama. IA and OH are closer but still favor Obama. Add those states to those that clearly favor Obama, and he is over 270. I think CO also goes Obama, but it is pretty close, and VA is a real toss up. NC and FL lean Romney, but are by no means solid It is possible that Romney will still win, but it is unlikely. A Romney electoral landslide approaches fantasy. BTW, I am just looking at the data. I am voting Johnson. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() JoshR - 2012-11-02 8:22 AM JoshR - 2012-10-31 8:33 AM TriRSquared - 2012-10-31 8:27 AM JoshR - 2012-10-31 10:16 AM I have no real reason for this, but my hunch is that Obama will remain in office. I think he might get a small boost from the storm damage and some of the positive reports on his handling of it by people like Chris Christie. Also, if there is a halfway decent jobs number out on Friday, that would help too. ETA: My absentee ballot also said Gary Johnson. Based on this thread he has 100% of the vote so far! Not sure how that could happen considering the initial "good one" in September was corrected to include "the biggest one-week percentage increase in jobless claims over the last five years". But that wasn't front page news now was it?
In the other thread that was easily explained by CA not reporting their jobs one week then the report jumped significantly the next to include them. That report however, is not the same as the NFP report that is for the month of Oct coming out on Friday. If it shows 125k+ jobs created in Oct, that would be a boost to Obama, IMO.
171K today. That will help him IMO. Unemployment rate goes up to 7.9% Will that help Obama too? Even so, I'm calling it 277 - 261 Obama. Edited by scoobysdad 2012-11-02 8:39 AM |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() JoshR - 2012-11-02 8:22 AM 171K today. That will help him IMO. I'm sure most of those jobs are P/T or seasonal though. Retailers ramping up for holiday shopping, floor sets, returns, etc. Black Friday through a week or so after Christmas to handle the influx of gift card spending and returns then these people will be dumped. Happens every year..... (Just using your quote Josh....not ripping you) |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() TriRSquared - 2012-11-02 7:29 AM JoshR - 2012-11-02 9:22 AM JoshR - 2012-10-31 8:33 AM TriRSquared - 2012-10-31 8:27 AM JoshR - 2012-10-31 10:16 AM I have no real reason for this, but my hunch is that Obama will remain in office. I think he might get a small boost from the storm damage and some of the positive reports on his handling of it by people like Chris Christie. Also, if there is a halfway decent jobs number out on Friday, that would help too. ETA: My absentee ballot also said Gary Johnson. Based on this thread he has 100% of the vote so far! Not sure how that could happen considering the initial "good one" in September was corrected to include "the biggest one-week percentage increase in jobless claims over the last five years". But that wasn't front page news now was it?
In the other thread that was easily explained by CA not reporting their jobs one week then the report jumped significantly the next to include them. That report however, is not the same as the NFP report that is for the month of Oct coming out on Friday. If it shows 125k+ jobs created in Oct, that would be a boost to Obama, IMO. 171K today. That will help him IMO. If this alone sways your vote you do not need to be voting... I don't have a lot of faith in the average voter. For anyone who is still undecided somehow, this could sway them. The number is meaningless, but that is a whole new thread. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() JoshR - 2012-11-02 9:41 AM TriRSquared - 2012-11-02 7:29 AM JoshR - 2012-11-02 9:22 AM JoshR - 2012-10-31 8:33 AM TriRSquared - 2012-10-31 8:27 AM JoshR - 2012-10-31 10:16 AM I have no real reason for this, but my hunch is that Obama will remain in office. I think he might get a small boost from the storm damage and some of the positive reports on his handling of it by people like Chris Christie. Also, if there is a halfway decent jobs number out on Friday, that would help too. ETA: My absentee ballot also said Gary Johnson. Based on this thread he has 100% of the vote so far! Not sure how that could happen considering the initial "good one" in September was corrected to include "the biggest one-week percentage increase in jobless claims over the last five years". But that wasn't front page news now was it?
In the other thread that was easily explained by CA not reporting their jobs one week then the report jumped significantly the next to include them. That report however, is not the same as the NFP report that is for the month of Oct coming out on Friday. If it shows 125k+ jobs created in Oct, that would be a boost to Obama, IMO. 171K today. That will help him IMO. If this alone sways your vote you do not need to be voting... I don't have a lot of faith in the average voter. For anyone who is still undecided somehow, this could sway them. The number is meaningless, but that is a whole new thread. My point exactly... |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 9:37 AM JoshR Unemployment rate goes up to 7.9% Will that help Obama too? Even so, I'm calling it 277 - 261 Obama. 171K today. That will help him IMO. You're calling it for Obama? Take the shotgun out of your mouth and step away from the window... |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() moneyman - 2012-11-02 8:35 AM BTW, I am just looking at the data. Here's the thing to remember: your analysis is only as good as your DATA. If the data is unreliable, so is the analysis. From what I've seen, for a variety of reasons (including IMO shaky expectations of turnout and oversampling of Democrats), the poll data is flawed. Look at the ACTIONS of the candidates as well. If either side believed WI and PA were both solidly for Obama, why are both candidates making these states high-priority campaign stops in these final days? |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() TriRSquared - 2012-11-02 8:44 AM scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 9:37 AM JoshR Unemployment rate goes up to 7.9% Will that help Obama too? Even so, I'm calling it 277 - 261 Obama. 171K today. That will help him IMO. You're calling it for Obama? Take the shotgun out of your mouth and step away from the window... I always expect the worst, so occasionally I can be pleasantly surprised. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 8:45 AM moneyman - 2012-11-02 8:35 AM BTW, I am just looking at the data. Here's the thing to remember: your analysis is only as good as your DATA. If the data is unreliable, so is the analysis. From what I've seen, for a variety of reasons (including IMO shaky expectations of turnout and oversampling of Democrats), the poll data is flawed. Look at the ACTIONS of the candidates as well. If either side believed WI and PA were both solidly for Obama, why are both candidates making these states high-priority campaign stops in these final days? Ditto, Obama's campaign has been in full on "we're behind" mode for a few weeks now which completely contradicts the polls that are out there. Romney's been kicking back as if he's riding a strong lead. |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 7:45 AM moneyman - 2012-11-02 8:35 AM BTW, I am just looking at the data. Here's the thing to remember: your analysis is only as good as your DATA. If the data is unreliable, so is the analysis. From what I've seen, for a variety of reasons (including IMO shaky expectations of turnout and oversampling of Democrats), the poll data is flawed. Look at the ACTIONS of the candidates as well. If either side believed WI and PA were both solidly for Obama, why are both candidates making these states high-priority campaign stops in these final days? I have seen the claims that the polling data is flawed, but I have yet to see it come from an unbaised source. There is no doubt that each polling organization has its own quirks and biases. For example, if a state has multiple polls at the same time, Rasmussen always has higher numbers for Romney and Quinnipiac generally has higher numbers for Obama. The polls may all be biased, but the don't all have the same biases and I think it is likely that the biases cancel each other out. Besides, I hear this claim that the polls are wrong every election, but the aggregated state polls have been quite accurate over the last several elections. As for actions, I would guess that both of the campaigns have purchased as much air time as they can in states like CO. There will be at least one Obama ad and at least one Romney ad in EVERY commercial break in CO. I think the campaigns each have enough money that they have saturated the toss up states and they are spreading the money around to other states as well. I hear that both campaigns are spending money in FL as well. If Romney doesn't hold FL, it will be a landslide. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tuwood - 2012-11-02 8:53 AM scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 8:45 AM moneyman - 2012-11-02 8:35 AM BTW, I am just looking at the data. Here's the thing to remember: your analysis is only as good as your DATA. If the data is unreliable, so is the analysis. From what I've seen, for a variety of reasons (including IMO shaky expectations of turnout and oversampling of Democrats), the poll data is flawed. Look at the ACTIONS of the candidates as well. If either side believed WI and PA were both solidly for Obama, why are both candidates making these states high-priority campaign stops in these final days? Ditto, Obama's campaign has been in full on "we're behind" mode for a few weeks now which completely contradicts the polls that are out there. Romney's been kicking back as if he's riding a strong lead.
Historically polls always favor incumbants. I'd guess the two campaigns probably have a better handle on the real numbers than the polls do |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() moneyman - 2012-11-02 10:20 AM scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 7:45 AM moneyman - 2012-11-02 8:35 AM BTW, I am just looking at the data. Here's the thing to remember: your analysis is only as good as your DATA. If the data is unreliable, so is the analysis. From what I've seen, for a variety of reasons (including IMO shaky expectations of turnout and oversampling of Democrats), the poll data is flawed. Look at the ACTIONS of the candidates as well. If either side believed WI and PA were both solidly for Obama, why are both candidates making these states high-priority campaign stops in these final days? I have seen the claims that the polling data is flawed, but I have yet to see it come from an unbaised source. There is no doubt that each polling organization has its own quirks and biases. For example, if a state has multiple polls at the same time, Rasmussen always has higher numbers for Romney and Quinnipiac generally has higher numbers for Obama. The polls may all be biased, but the don't all have the same biases and I think it is likely that the biases cancel each other out. Besides, I hear this claim that the polls are wrong every election, but the aggregated state polls have been quite accurate over the last several elections. As for actions, I would guess that both of the campaigns have purchased as much air time as they can in states like CO. There will be at least one Obama ad and at least one Romney ad in EVERY commercial break in CO. I think the campaigns each have enough money that they have saturated the toss up states and they are spreading the money around to other states as well. I hear that both campaigns are spending money in FL as well. If Romney doesn't hold FL, it will be a landslide. You can go to each of the poll sites themselves and view their sampling data. Just about every one shows that they oversample Democrats because they are assuming a turnout on par with 2008. I don't think that's going to happen. I do think there is an enormous difference in enthusiasm among Democrats and Republicans for their respective candidates this election compared to 2008. Regarding actions, I'm not talking about campaign spending. I am talking where PHYSICALLY the candidates are spending their last precious moments of their campaign time. Both are spending significant time in WI and PA, which tells me that both candidates think those states are very much in play. Mitt Romney is here in Wisconsin at this moment, speaking about 10 miles from where I sit. The event is at at an auditorium that can hold 3500. About 15K showed up and they were turning away lots of disappointed folks who drove from all corners of the state to see him. Biden is also here at this moment. Pictures of the event show a couple hundred people at most at the event. In 2008, these turnouts would have been probably exactly the opposite in 2008. |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 9:47 AM moneyman - 2012-11-02 10:20 AM You can go to each of the poll sites themselves and view their sampling data. Just about every one shows that they oversample Democrats because they are assuming a turnout on par with 2008. I don't think that's going to happen. I do think there is an enormous difference in enthusiasm among Democrats and Republicans for their respective candidates this election compared to 2008. Regarding actions, I'm not talking about campaign spending. I am talking where PHYSICALLY the candidates are spending their last precious moments of their campaign time. Both are spending significant time in WI and PA, which tells me that both candidates think those states are very much in play. Mitt Romney is here in Wisconsin at this moment, speaking about 10 miles from where I sit. The event is at at an auditorium that can hold 3500. About 15K showed up and they were turning away lots of disappointed folks who drove from all corners of the state to see him. Biden is also here at this moment. Pictures of the event show a couple hundred people at most at the event. In 2008, these turnouts would have been probably exactly the opposite in 2008. scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 7:45 AM moneyman - 2012-11-02 8:35 AM BTW, I am just looking at the data. Here's the thing to remember: your analysis is only as good as your DATA. If the data is unreliable, so is the analysis. From what I've seen, for a variety of reasons (including IMO shaky expectations of turnout and oversampling of Democrats), the poll data is flawed. Look at the ACTIONS of the candidates as well. If either side believed WI and PA were both solidly for Obama, why are both candidates making these states high-priority campaign stops in these final days? I have seen the claims that the polling data is flawed, but I have yet to see it come from an unbaised source. There is no doubt that each polling organization has its own quirks and biases. For example, if a state has multiple polls at the same time, Rasmussen always has higher numbers for Romney and Quinnipiac generally has higher numbers for Obama. The polls may all be biased, but the don't all have the same biases and I think it is likely that the biases cancel each other out. Besides, I hear this claim that the polls are wrong every election, but the aggregated state polls have been quite accurate over the last several elections. As for actions, I would guess that both of the campaigns have purchased as much air time as they can in states like CO. There will be at least one Obama ad and at least one Romney ad in EVERY commercial break in CO. I think the campaigns each have enough money that they have saturated the toss up states and they are spreading the money around to other states as well. I hear that both campaigns are spending money in FL as well. If Romney doesn't hold FL, it will be a landslide. Once again, I have to disagree. I ignore the national polls, but I have looked closely at the state polls in the battleground states. I think that there are a couple of pollsters than probably do over sample democrats a bit, but there are a couple that under sample dems as well. I see no evidence that the polls in the aggregate are off, and it is the aggregate polling data that I base my conclusions on. I am not excited by the idea of 4 more years of Obama. I won't be voting for him. But I do think he will comfortably win the electoral college, probably with either 290 EVs or 303 EVs, depending on which way VA goes. |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 10:47 AM moneyman - 2012-11-02 10:20 AM You can go to each of the poll sites themselves and view their sampling data. Just about every one shows that they oversample Democrats because they are assuming a turnout on par with 2008. I don't think that's going to happen. I do think there is an enormous difference in enthusiasm among Democrats and Republicans for their respective candidates this election compared to 2008. Regarding actions, I'm not talking about campaign spending. I am talking where PHYSICALLY the candidates are spending their last precious moments of their campaign time. Both are spending significant time in WI and PA, which tells me that both candidates think those states are very much in play. Mitt Romney is here in Wisconsin at this moment, speaking about 10 miles from where I sit. The event is at at an auditorium that can hold 3500. About 15K showed up and they were turning away lots of disappointed folks who drove from all corners of the state to see him. Biden is also here at this moment. Pictures of the event show a couple hundred people at most at the event. In 2008, these turnouts would have been probably exactly the opposite in 2008. scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 7:45 AM moneyman - 2012-11-02 8:35 AM BTW, I am just looking at the data. Here's the thing to remember: your analysis is only as good as your DATA. If the data is unreliable, so is the analysis. From what I've seen, for a variety of reasons (including IMO shaky expectations of turnout and oversampling of Democrats), the poll data is flawed. Look at the ACTIONS of the candidates as well. If either side believed WI and PA were both solidly for Obama, why are both candidates making these states high-priority campaign stops in these final days? I have seen the claims that the polling data is flawed, but I have yet to see it come from an unbaised source. There is no doubt that each polling organization has its own quirks and biases. For example, if a state has multiple polls at the same time, Rasmussen always has higher numbers for Romney and Quinnipiac generally has higher numbers for Obama. The polls may all be biased, but the don't all have the same biases and I think it is likely that the biases cancel each other out. Besides, I hear this claim that the polls are wrong every election, but the aggregated state polls have been quite accurate over the last several elections. As for actions, I would guess that both of the campaigns have purchased as much air time as they can in states like CO. There will be at least one Obama ad and at least one Romney ad in EVERY commercial break in CO. I think the campaigns each have enough money that they have saturated the toss up states and they are spreading the money around to other states as well. I hear that both campaigns are spending money in FL as well. If Romney doesn't hold FL, it will be a landslide. You can't compare a pres candidate appearance to a VP candidate. Yesterday, Obama spoke to 10,000 in Colorado, Ryan spoke to 600 in Reno. The big name always draws the bigger crowds. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() kevin_trapp - 2012-11-02 1:42 PM scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 10:47 AM moneyman - 2012-11-02 10:20 AM You can go to each of the poll sites themselves and view their sampling data. Just about every one shows that they oversample Democrats because they are assuming a turnout on par with 2008. I don't think that's going to happen. I do think there is an enormous difference in enthusiasm among Democrats and Republicans for their respective candidates this election compared to 2008. Regarding actions, I'm not talking about campaign spending. I am talking where PHYSICALLY the candidates are spending their last precious moments of their campaign time. Both are spending significant time in WI and PA, which tells me that both candidates think those states are very much in play. Mitt Romney is here in Wisconsin at this moment, speaking about 10 miles from where I sit. The event is at at an auditorium that can hold 3500. About 15K showed up and they were turning away lots of disappointed folks who drove from all corners of the state to see him. Biden is also here at this moment. Pictures of the event show a couple hundred people at most at the event. In 2008, these turnouts would have been probably exactly the opposite in 2008. scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 7:45 AM moneyman - 2012-11-02 8:35 AM BTW, I am just looking at the data. Here's the thing to remember: your analysis is only as good as your DATA. If the data is unreliable, so is the analysis. From what I've seen, for a variety of reasons (including IMO shaky expectations of turnout and oversampling of Democrats), the poll data is flawed. Look at the ACTIONS of the candidates as well. If either side believed WI and PA were both solidly for Obama, why are both candidates making these states high-priority campaign stops in these final days? I have seen the claims that the polling data is flawed, but I have yet to see it come from an unbaised source. There is no doubt that each polling organization has its own quirks and biases. For example, if a state has multiple polls at the same time, Rasmussen always has higher numbers for Romney and Quinnipiac generally has higher numbers for Obama. The polls may all be biased, but the don't all have the same biases and I think it is likely that the biases cancel each other out. Besides, I hear this claim that the polls are wrong every election, but the aggregated state polls have been quite accurate over the last several elections. As for actions, I would guess that both of the campaigns have purchased as much air time as they can in states like CO. There will be at least one Obama ad and at least one Romney ad in EVERY commercial break in CO. I think the campaigns each have enough money that they have saturated the toss up states and they are spreading the money around to other states as well. I hear that both campaigns are spending money in FL as well. If Romney doesn't hold FL, it will be a landslide. You can't compare a pres candidate appearance to a VP candidate. Yesterday, Obama spoke to 10,000 in Colorado, Ryan spoke to 600 in Reno. The big name always draws the bigger crowds. Your point is correct. But my point is more that there is no way that John McCain would have drawn 15K, nor would Joe Biden have drawn only several hundred in 2008. |
|