2012 US Presidential Election Superthread - Page 12 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-31-2012, 11:11 PM   #166
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 05:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
I voted!
Me too!
In the same state. :-)
__________________

__________________
indra is offline  
Old 11-01-2012, 01:27 PM   #167
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 03:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
You're the one making the unsubstantiated claim that early voting favors Romney.
Karl Rove is generally detestable but not known for spewing bullshit on the air like Dick Morris. That said, Rove gave the Ohio stats on O'Reilly last night.

He said (paraphrased) that votes are not specifically counted for either candidate (in other words, there is not an early 'leader') but that the votes are categorized as Republican or Democrat by voter. In other words, if you are a registered Republican voting for Obama (or vice versa - a registered Dem voting for Romney) you are only being counted in the early voting tallies as what you are registered as. X Republican and Y Democrats have voted...

Early voting in Ohio has shown that Democrats are down about 170K from 2008 and that Republican are up about 70K from 2008 (comparisons of early voting in 2008 vs 2012) meaning the difference between the early voting (in those raw comparisons) is about 230-240K and the margin with which Obama won Ohio by in 2008 was around 250K. Whatever the case, I remember Rove spinning that they were about even. So he was using facts but just how significant those facts are is the question.

So to sum it up, they are saying that early Republican turnout is smashing early Dem turnout in Ohio. I don't know about the other states but this is really the one that matters. And these numbers are general (only my recollection after seeing it said once by Rove on the air) but you get the idea.
__________________

__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 11-01-2012, 01:42 PM   #168
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 03:00 AM
The real question is - and I think this is legitimate - is something else Rove was talking about. Once again, I want to remind people how much I detest Karl Rove but that doesn't mean that the man isn't reliable when it comes to this sort of stuff. He's not known as a liar on these sort of things, he's just an immoral liar and mudslinger and character assassin on those sort of things.

But the question is - the voting sampling. Forget Dickhead Morris and "landslides"...that's keying in on the wrong issue. Rove used the new CBS/NYT poll as an example.

The poll takers are using 2008 data to frame their 2012 polls.
Democrat turnout was up 8 points in Ohio, just say 54-46, in 2008. When we know that Dem turnout (self-described Dems) was/were at an all-time high. So when CBS/NYT do their polls in Ohio in 2012, they are sampling 54% Democrats and 46% Republicans based on the 2008 results. And all of the polling agencies are doing this sort of thing. And Rove (and unfortunately Dick Morris) and most Republicans are saying that this is why the polls (not only in Ohio but in other swing states) are going to be so off the mark.

And you have to admit - there is some logic to that idea.
How much significance will it have? I have no idea.
But if Romney wins, I won't be shocked at all.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 11-01-2012, 01:54 PM   #169
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 03:00 AM
Lastly, I know it rankles the feathers of the more ideological Left among us - but check Rasmussen this close to election day. Romney +2. And look at the margin for the three Presidents that lost the popular vote but won the electoral college.

In 2000, Bush lost the popular vote by 0.5% in 2000 but won the electoral college.
In 1888, Cleveland lost the popular vote by less than 1% but Harrison won the EC.

If Romney wins by a full 1% or 2% or even 3% there is little precedent (it happened once) for a candidate that lost the popular vote by 1% or greater to be elected President. Hayes beat Tilden in the 1876 EC but lost the popular vote by 4%.

All I'm saying is - this election is a toss up. Don't believe anyone that tells you different.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 11-01-2012, 02:06 PM   #170
Blue Crack Addict
 
mikal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Black Lodge
Posts: 24,900
Local Time: 03:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
Lastly, I know it rankles the feathers of the more ideological Left among us - but check Rasmussen this close to election day. Romney +2. And look at the margin for the three Presidents that lost the popular vote but won the electoral college.

In 2000, Bush lost the popular vote by 0.5% in 2000 but won the electoral college.
In 1888, Cleveland lost the popular vote by less than 1% but Harrison won the EC.

If Romney wins by a full 1% or 2% or even 3% there is little precedent (it happened once) for a candidate that lost the popular vote by 1% or greater to be elected President. Hayes beat Tilden in the 1876 EC but lost the popular vote by 4%.

All I'm saying is - this election is a toss up. Don't believe anyone that tells you different.
Agreed, but I wouldn't use Rasmussen as the best example. Most polls show either a tie or 1% difference either way, while Obama is still looking very strong in the swing state polls, especially in the last two days.
__________________
mikal is offline  
Old 11-01-2012, 02:08 PM   #171
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
The poll takers are using 2008 data to frame their 2012 polls.
Democrat turnout was up 8 points in Ohio, just say 54-46, in 2008. When we know that Dem turnout (self-described Dems) was/were at an all-time high. So when CBS/NYT do their polls in Ohio in 2012, they are sampling 54% Democrats and 46% Republicans based on the 2008 results. And all of the polling agencies are doing this sort of thing. And Rove (and unfortunately Dick Morris) and most Republicans are saying that this is why the polls (not only in Ohio but in other swing states) are going to be so off the mark.
RCP has a pretty good summary of how much this is actually relevant:

CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac Swing State Polls & Party ID | RealClearPolitics
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 11-01-2012, 03:43 PM   #172
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Mayor Bloomberg just endorsed Obama. Two of the reasons he cited were Sandy response and climate change.

Rather late in the game so that's kind of strange. He also mentioned Romney having the health care in MA then being against Obamacare.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 11-01-2012, 03:45 PM   #173
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:00 AM
that new map has NH for Obama putting him at 290, meaning he could lose Ohio and still win

if Colo, VI do go for Obama, this will not be remembered as a close election


we will end up in re-counts and perhaps the courts on some congressional seats, and perhaps a senate race, too.
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 11-01-2012, 03:49 PM   #174
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
Mayor Bloomberg just endorsed Obama. Two of the reasons he cited were Sandy response and climate change.

Rather late in the game so that's kind of strange. He also mentioned Romney having the health care in MA then being against Obamacare.
ah, one of those undecideds I keep hearing about
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 11-01-2012, 04:04 PM   #175
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 04:00 AM
i think it will be less close than people think.

if the polls are wrong, then Romney runs the table and gets over 300EV.

if the polls are right, Obama repeats 2008 without Indiana and maybe Florida.

i don't see a squeaker like 2000 or 2004. my prediction is the winner will get over 300 EV.

and i know that because i feel it in my gut. i don't need anything else.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-01-2012, 04:10 PM   #176
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 04:00 AM
I'm with you Irvine. I think there are a lot of people with all sorts of motivations to make this sound like it's closer than it is - look no further than the media.

Though I think NC will also go to Romney.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 11-01-2012, 04:14 PM   #177
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:00 AM
300 + or - means the election will not be argued very much

I hate the EC so much, it is stupid and flawed from its inception.
I hope Obama wins EC and loses the popular vote by 2-3,000,000.
I know that would make his second term more difficult, but does it matter? A vocal minority labels him a Kenyan born, sworn communist, and many of these people are elected officials.

I would just like to see the EC go the hell away. There is no credible, rational argument for it.
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 11-01-2012, 04:28 PM   #178
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
I would just like to see, the nut jobs, saying the EC is a communist plot to keep an honestly elected American out of the white house.
This would immediately be muzzled by the GOP. I think it would be an interesting outcome but no way would they allow their people to rail against the EC. It's the only way that they still have any chance of getting elected.

Get rid of the EC and the GOP wouldn't get elected to the presidency for a generation, or two? Short of completely changing their platform.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 11-01-2012, 04:41 PM   #179
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:00 AM
That has been the GOP thinking since the 2000 election.

But if Obama can lose by 3.000,000 votes and still win the EC by getting narrower wins in EC vote rich states, especially with the growing Latino vote, they may rethink that concept. Which state or states deliver the most GOP votes every election cycle? Those states can be mined for even more votes. You can't really get any more votes from Utah or Wyoming.
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 11-01-2012, 05:15 PM   #180
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Obama will likely lose NC, agreed. and i think the popular vote will be closer than the EC suggests.

but i think he wins VA and OH. already, 3 Obama people have knocked on my door to ask me if i've voted yet and i pass by people handing out fliers on where to vote and what day and what you will need. they seem *very* well organized.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com