Let's Make a CFC-OT US Presidential Election Map 2012!

[Camikaze]

@utgotye - don't the polling companies take expected lower turnout into account? What reason is there for thinking that, despite the fact everyone knows turnout will be lower for Obama, the polling companies and Nate Silver for some reason don't?

@MisterCooper - on the other hand, Romney's performing far worse than GWB according to that tied Dixville Notch vote, and GWB still didn't win NH in 2004!

 

[AlpsStranger]

And that's fine, I'm not expecting you to, I'm simply wondering why you and others seem to just believe the result without examining the internals of the poll and judging for yourself if is a valid representation of reality.

As you said, we will know soon enough.

I didn't crack open my I5-3570K analyze it before I applied Arctic Silver 5 and started playing Shogun 2 either. ( sorry, still stoked about my recent upgrade from my aging Core2 Quad ) Point is, I'm simply trusting the polling industry as a black box. I'm relying on their expertise. Just like I do with doctors, dentists, etc. Is that so wrong?

If their expertise is not trustworthy then what are they for? They're either corrupt or disastrously incompetent if Romney wins in a landslide. A narrow Romney win would just mean that he got lucky, but I'm talking about the Romreagan landslides.

 

[utgotye]

@utgotye - don't the polling companies take expected lower turnout into account? What reason is there for thinking that, despite the fact everyone knows turnout will be lower for Obama, the polling companies and Nate Silver for some reason don't?

If their idea for lower turnout is level with, or greater than, 2008, then they are still starting with a faulty premise. As I said, the only people that think that is realistic are people in the Obama camp and even that isn't certain.

 

[Core Imposter]

Alps, you mock me over a sample size of 10 and provide a sample size of 5. Is this Obama math?

And for utgotye, there is a powerful unspoken motive for people to vote for Obama, just one, and that is: of these two guys, which one is more likely to give me(or continue to keep giving me) some money?

So when you say, this election is about the economy or pocket book issues, for an alarming percentage of people that translates into "if I vote for Romney I will get cut off". The fact that the country is going broke doesn't compute. The vast majority of people think that the Federal money tree is just never going to fail.

But it will. The country IS going broke. And death and hell follows after. This is why I oppose Obama. Romney might be just another liberal, but he gets the fact that we have to have growth to get us out of this mess and the way to growth is competitive tax rates, use of natural resources, tax reform and reform of excessively burdensome regulations, support for business and requiring our trade partners to play fair. This is the intelligent answer to the day.

Obama will do none of that. He believes that rich white people can and should be separated from their wealth and somehow this is fair and the math works. It doesn't. This is the stupid path.

And that is why I go off quoting dreaded scriptures. Because we are headed for a disaster of Biblical proportions. Thats all that is at stake today.

 

[utgotye]

I didn't crack open my I5-3570K analyze it before I applied Arctic Silver 5 and started playing Shogun 2 either. ( sorry, still stoked about my recent upgrade from my aging Core2 Quad ) Point is, I'm simply trusting the polling industry as a black box. I'm relying on their expertise. Just like I do with doctors, dentists, etc. Is that so wrong?

If their expertise is not trustworthy then what are they for? They're either corrupt or disastrously incompetent if Romney wins in a landslide. A narrow Romney win would just mean that he got lucky, but I'm talking about the Romreagan landslides.

Looking at upgrading to that exact CPU as soon as I find a good deal. Still running a Athlon x2 so if you're happy I'm sure I'll be stoked.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Okay, but why did they start with that premise?

You do realize that midterm elections involve older, whiter, and more religious electorates, right?

 

[utgotye]

Alps, you mock me over a sample size of 10 and provide a sample size of 5. Is this Obama math?

And for utgotye, there is a powerful unspoken motive for people to vote for Obama, just one, and that is: of these two guys, which one is more likely to give me(or continue to keep giving me) some money?

So when you say, this election is about the economy or pocket book issues, for an alarming percentage of people that translates into "if I vote for Romney I will get cut off". The fact that the country is going broke doesn't compute. The vast majority of people think that the Federal money tree is just never going to fail.

But it will. The country IS going broke. And death and hell follows after. This is why I oppose Obama. Romney might be just another liberal, but he gets the fact that we have to have growth to get us out of this mess and the way to growth is competitive tax rates, use of natural resources, tax reform and reform of excessively burdensome regulations, support for business and requiring our trade partners to play fair. This is the intelligent answer to the day.

Obama will do none of that. He believes that rich white people can and should be separated from their wealth and somehow this is fair and the math works. It doesn't. This is the stupid path.

And that is why I go off quotes dreaded scriptures. Because we are headed for a disaster of Biblical proportions. Thats all that is at stake today.

Biblical consequences and implications aside, I would agree with you in the main.

The nanosecond 50.1% of the voters are no longer responsible for their own lives/livelihood, we are all screwed. You think the federal government is worthless now? You thought it was hard to vote out an incumbent now? No one is going to vote out someone who helps get the federal government to wipe his/her ass for them.

Hope remains though.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Alps, you mock me over a sample size of 10 and provide a sample size of 5. Is this Obama math?

Hah, fair enough. Point to MisterCooper, good catch.

<snip>

Meh, rest was a rant.

 

[utgotye]

Okay, but why did they start with that premise?

You do realize that midterm elections involve older, whiter, and more religious electorates, right?

I have ZERO idea. I'm not saying 2010 is the place to start either. But I'm betting if you take the average of 2004 and 2008, it would at least be in the ballpark for the most part. Anyone care to guess as to what that might do to some of these polls?

Time to pass out. Don't have a stroke if the returns don't go your way.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Time to pass out. Don't have a stroke if the returns don't go your way.

Nah, I'll be pissed but I'll live. America will still be here either way. The right wing severely overestimates the importance of this election in either direction.

I'm making my peace now with whatever happens. If Romney wins I'm willing to keep an open mind and give him a chance, though I suspect he'll manage to royally piss me off with a political payout to the theocons within his first term.

 

[Antilogic]

What if all these pollsters, with completely different call lists, contacting people randomly, are just coming up with more Obama supporters than Romney supporters?

 

[AlpsStranger]

What if all these pollsters, with completely different call lists, contacting people randomly, are just coming up with more Obama supporters than Romney supporters?

That's the million dollar question.

 

[Core Imposter]

What if all these pollsters, with completely different call lists, contacting people randomly, are just coming up with more Obama supporters than Romney supporters?

Exiting polling bias in the past has been traced to a Republican reluctance to talk to pollsters. This is documented in elections where Democrats polled less well than the exits indicated. Kerry's exit polls being a prime example as Democrats were elated and near certain of victory until the discrepency because clear.

This may be part of the reason why pre-election samples might be skewed.

Or maybe not.

But I think there are certainly some people who invested a lot of emotion in Obama last time and were vocal about it that might be more reluctant to tell people they are ready to switch than they might be once in the booth. This is part of the reason we have secret ballots.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Why would Republicans be reluctant to talk to pollsters?

Anticipated answer: Something that implies that all Democrats are unemployed.

 

[Antilogic]

I know, old white people love talking to the cops. I figure it's the same thing with pollsters.

 

[AlpsStranger]

If it makes the conservatives here feel better I am extremely nervous.

 

[Antilogic]

Stop snitchin' to the po-po, Alps.

Seriously, at this point, we posted our maps, just laugh, go to bed, and make sure you get to the polls tomorrow if you haven't already put in an absentee ballot or an early vote.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Early in person in the early days of Oct. mofos. This Godless commie mole was ready to go

 

[Core Imposter]

Why would Republicans be reluctant to talk to pollsters?

Anticipated answer: Something that implies that all Democrats are unemployed.

Google "Shy Tory Factor" for similar effect that materialized in the UK. This is documented, I'll leave it to you to assess.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Google "Shy Tory Factor" for similar effect that materialized in the UK. This is documented, I'll leave it to you to assess.

I'm skeptical that this is the case, but again, today will be the ultimate test.