2012 = 2008 via Gallup

AlpsStranger

AlpsStranger

Jump jump on the tiger!
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
5,820
The Godlike, omniscient truth-tellers at Gallup ( Romney +7 Yo! ) have just confirmed what anyone who didn't have a partisan axe to grind knew all along: 2012 is far more like 2008 than 2010. It's for a very, very simple reason: off-year elections are older, more male, and whiter than presidential elections. It's just one of those things.

dq2Jw.gif


It's not such good news for Obama backers, though. The fact that Gallup is still showing Obama so far behind means that this is bittersweet for us.

Still, it means that the butt sniffing monkey behind www.unskewedpolls.com was completely and utterly full of <bleep>. That's almost worth it even of Obama loses.

If Gallup goes +Obama again and some joker wants to "unskew" it for you then I suggest you tell him to go "unskew" himself.
 
AlpsStranger said:
Still, it means that the butt sniffing monkey behind www.unskewedpolls.com was completely and utterly full of <bleep>. That's almost worth it even of Obama loses.

If Gallup goes +Obama again and some joker wants to "unskew" it for you then I suggest you tell him to go "unskew" himself.
Click to expand...

After spending a few minutes browsing that site, I'd like my money back.
 
Haha, "unskewed polls" is my new "fair and balanced".
 
None of the national polls matter. The state polls are all that matter.
 
Regarding the OP: I'm not too surprised here--off-year elections always have a lower turnout.

Regarding UP: Their definitive presidential prediction is pretty funny. So not only is Mittens winning Pennsylvania in a "big time upset", but he's getting Nevada and Minnesota, which "will surprise many" and Oregon in a "major surprise"! But don't worry, the real surprise of the night is Michigan, which will go against Obama because Romney has family ties there. I kid you not, those are the actual explanations he gives.

EDIT:
Murky said:
I prefer the forecast to polls. Polls are too easy to manipulate for political advantage.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
Click to expand...

Are you sure you don't have that backwards?
 
Obama has this election in the bag. He may lose the popular vote, but he will get to 270, not Romney. Romney needs to win Ohio (which he's polling behind in), or he needs to win 7 other states including Nevada (and I can guarantee Romney won't win Nevada). Romney has no chance in hell of winning this election, even if he gets the popular vote which he may. He screwed himself with Ohio.
 
Antilogic said:
Regarding the OP: I'm not too surprised here--off-year elections always have a lower turnout.

Regarding UP: Their definitive presidential prediction is pretty funny. So not only is Mittens winning Pennsylvania in a "big time upset", but he's getting Nevada and Minnesota, which "will surprise many" and Oregon in a "major surprise"! But don't worry, the real surprise of the night is Michigan, which will go against Obama because Romney has family ties there. I kid you not, those are the actual explanations he gives.

EDIT:


Are you sure you don't have that backwards?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure. The media loves a tight race. Saying Obama has a 75% chance of winning reelection takes a lot of the excitement out of it. Of course, an upset could happen but that's unlikely. Romney screwed up by his Op-Ed "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt." He can't win without Ohio. One in Eight people in Ohio are employed by the auto-industry. I'm sure he's regretting that now.

They might try to go with election fraud but that could backfire in a big way. If the exit polls have Obama winning then the official polls report something entirely different I would strongly suspect fraud.
 
I hope for a 269-269 split that the Republicans simply award to themselves in the House ( that's how it would work, right? ) followed by a ground war with Iran within six months.

That would actually do far, far, far more damage to the Republican brand than losing the election.

Of course, I don't actually wish for these things, but that's what my bitter partisan gland kinda hopes for.
 
Fallen Angel Lord said:
Why isn't POTUS based on popular vote again? Does this really have something to do with states' rights?
Click to expand...

It's a vestige, which means that people who dream of a return to strong state's rights will fight to the death for it. Understandably as well, since the end of the EC is pretty much the last nail in to coffin for states-as-mini-nations.

If Romney loses the EC and wins the popular vote it would leave a huge opening for switching to a national popular vote. I'm conflicted about whether or not pursuing such an opening would be a good idea.
 
Fallen Angel Lord said:
Why isn't POTUS based on popular vote again? Does this really have something to do with states' rights?
Click to expand...

A few historical reasons created the outdated system that there is simply too much inertia to remove.

Historically, there were two big reasons for the introduction of the electoral college:

First and foremost was to give the South representation based on population including slaves without granting them the right to vote.

Second, there was no (Federal) requirement for there to be a general election at all. The power to select electors was given to state legislatures, not the people. As far as I am aware state legislatures are still legally entitled to appoint electors however they want and an argument was made to do that in Florida in 2000.
 
I'm okay with the EC, both systems will have their advantages and disadvantages. I'm sure the liberals would love a straight popular vote, although like I mentioned above, it is possible Romney will win the popular vote, but lose the EC seeing as he's ahead in most polls, but has no chance to win Ohio or Nevada.

With a straight popular vote, the politicians would then completely ignore "middle America" and rural areas and concentrate strictly in the big cities. Yes I realize it's messed up now that politicians ignore the big cities (except big cities in Ohio and Florida), and concentrate on less populated states. Either way, someone is getting a lot of attention, and someone is getting ignored.
 
Disgustipated said:
With a straight popular vote, the politicians would then completely ignore "middle America" and rural areas and concentrate strictly in the big cities. Yes I realize it's messed up now that politicians ignore the big cities (except big cities in Ohio and Florida), and concentrate on less populated states. Either way, someone is getting a lot of attention, and someone is getting ignored.
Click to expand...

Politicians ignore big cities because they universally vote democrat. Likewise politicians tend to ignore rural areas unless they're trying to foster some kind of "regular guy" or "likes american farms" image. Elections are won and lost in the suburbs, and, unless the politicians are chasing donors, that is invariably where they will be.

Popular vote would be better in the sense that you'd see politicians actually visit states that are typically considered "solid" in electoral terms, and you'd probably see more efforts by democrats to get minorities and youths out to vote across the board, rather than just in the battleground states (imagine if bigger attempts were made to get latinos to vote in Texas, for example.)
 
Murky said:
Pretty sure. The media loves a tight race. Saying Obama has a 75% chance of winning reelection takes a lot of the excitement out of it. Of course, an upset could happen but that's unlikely. Romney screwed up by his Op-Ed "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt." He can't win without Ohio. One in Eight people in Ohio are employed by the auto-industry. I'm sure he's regretting that now.

They might try to go with election fraud but that could backfire in a big way. If the exit polls have Obama winning then the official polls report something entirely different I would strongly suspect fraud.
Click to expand...

Huh, didn't think of it that way.

AlpsStranger said:
I hope for a 269-269 split that the Republicans simply award to themselves in the House ( that's how it would work, right? ) followed by a ground war with Iran within six months.

That would actually do far, far, far more damage to the Republican brand than losing the election.

Of course, I don't actually wish for these things, but that's what my bitter partisan gland kinda hopes for.
Click to expand...

For the love of Christ, don't tempt them. Given that Iran has something like 4 times the land area and more than twice the population, it would be an even bloodier mess. Might even require a draft to get the necessary manpower.

Disgustipated said:
I'm okay with the EC, both systems will have their advantages and disadvantages. I'm sure the liberals would love a straight popular vote, although like I mentioned above, it is possible Romney will win the popular vote, but lose the EC seeing as he's ahead in most polls, but has no chance to win Ohio or Nevada.

With a straight popular vote, the politicians would then completely ignore "middle America" and rural areas and concentrate strictly in the big cities. Yes I realize it's messed up now that politicians ignore the big cities (except big cities in Ohio and Florida), and concentrate on less populated states. Either way, someone is getting a lot of attention, and someone is getting ignored.
Click to expand...

Small 'l' liberals, meaning Enlightenment-style believers in free elections and free markets? Sure thing. I'm not convinced that the Democratic party would want it, though.

As Owen mentioned, the current crop of parties ignore big cities and the really rural areas because they are basically guaranteed votes for one party or another--what matters there is the volunteers getting people to the polls to turn out the vote. But I think that a switch to a national popular vote method would lead to the major parties, especially the Republicans, to reorganize themselves to appeal more to a broader base of potential voters, including urban dwellers.
 
Antilogic said:
As Owen mentioned, the current crop of parties ignore big cities and the really rural areas because they are basically guaranteed votes for one party or another--what matters there is the volunteers getting people to the polls to turn out the vote. But I think that a switch to a national popular vote method would lead to the major parties, especially the Republicans, to reorganize themselves to appeal more to a broader base of potential voters, including urban dwellers.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It would mean that candidates would stop treating the election cycle as a zero-sum game, which would be nice. Then again, this could also be achieved by eliminating the winner-take-all format for the electoral college.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
The Republican Plan to End Democracy in the United States
Replies
13
Views
2K
Super55
S
Back
Top Bottom