• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Landslide coming on tuesday

jdxprs said:
My opinion on those states is based on current polling that shows romney even, or within a point or so of obama, even with a democrat sampling of as much as +7
Click to expand...

Well, we will have to wait but as it looks now, Romney will win zero of the states you mentioned.
 
jdxprs said:
a success? really? If the FED wasn't printing money at unprecedented rates, the DOW would be at about 5000 and unemployment would be around 35%. In spite of the FED's efforts, we still have actually unemployment hanging around 15% or so, and that's not even talking about underemployment.

Also, what about economic growth? We are barely staying out of recession, in spite of billions and billions of dollars worth of printed money being dumped into the economy.
Click to expand...

we tried austerity in the hoover years, it didnt work. europe is trying it now, it still doesnt work.
 
jdxprs said:
what do you base this comment on?
Click to expand...

polls and as doctor Phil says, the best predictor for future behavior is past behavior. Past behavior is democrat all the way so the most likely outcome is an Obama victory in the states you mentioned.
 
Peter King said:
polls and as doctor Phil says, the best predictor for future behavior is past behavior. Past behavior is democrat all the way so the most likely outcome is an Obama victory in the states you mentioned.
Click to expand...

The most recent polls from these states all show within the margin of error.
 
jdxprs said:
The most recent polls from these states all show within the margin of error.
Click to expand...

well we'll know soon enough, i'll be the first to apologize in here if it is as you say, then we'll have to shove you in an MRI machine to see what makes psychics tic :D.
 
roflpublican said:
well we'll know soon enough, i'll be the first to apologize in here if it is as you say, then we'll have to shove you in an MRI machine to see what makes psychics tic :D.
Click to expand...

lol. im just analyzing the polls i've seen and using common sense. Those states are VERY low on minorities. If they end up going ANYWHERE near on the white vote that romney is getting in the national surveys, i'll be correct in my prediction.
 
jdxprs said:
lol. im just analyzing the polls i've seen and using common sense. Those states are VERY low on minorities. If they end up going ANYWHERE near on the white vote that romney is getting in the national surveys, i'll be correct in my prediction.
Click to expand...

i've been watching the polls too, but everything is looking like a slim obama win in the electoral with a romney popular win. so that means effectively a statistical tie. i just dont see how it could be a landslide like that, unless i'm missing something fundamental here, but i guess i'll know soon. the suspense would kill me, if it wasnt for the fact that gridlock will likely prevail regardless of outcome.
 
roflpublican said:
i've been watching the polls too, but everything is looking like a slim obama win in the electoral with a romney popular win. so that means effectively a statistical tie. i just dont see how it could be a landslide like that, unless i'm missing something fundamental here, but i guess i'll know soon. the suspense would kill me, if it wasnt for the fact that gridlock will likely prevail regardless of outcome.
Click to expand...

it all comes down to what the turnout breakdown will be. most polls are calling for the turnout to be somewhere between +4 and +11 for democrats. I don't believe democrats are that excited this year. It was only +7 in 2008 and democrats were FIRED UP!!! I believe this year will fall more evenly, and romney will win the independents by around 15 points, which will push him over the edge in a lot more states than people realize.
 
jdxprs said:
it all comes down to what the turnout breakdown will be. most polls are calling for the turnout to be somewhere between +4 and +11 for democrats. I don't believe democrats are that excited this year. It was only +7 in 2008 and democrats were FIRED UP!!! I believe this year will fall more evenly, and romney will win the independents by around 15 points, which will push him over the edge in a lot more states than people realize.
Click to expand...

well that's true, the democrats tend to have a significantly higher deficit if the turnout is generally reduced. You're correct in that dems feel betrayed, obama failed in many ways, even those of us like me who voted for him again can see that. Another thing to consider here is that romneys % of the popular vote might be considerably higher, if many voters in these heavily-democrat states that got FUBAR'd by sandy simply don't vote because their states don't swing anyway (if enough of them dont, there could indeed be a few surprises).
 
roflpublican said:
well that's true, the democrats tend to have a significantly higher deficit if the turnout is generally reduced. You're correct in that dems feel betrayed, obama failed in many ways, even those of us like me who voted for him again can see that. Another thing to consider here is that romneys % of the popular vote might be considerably higher, if many voters in these heavily-democrat states that got FUBAR'd by sandy simply don't vote because their states don't swing anyway (if enough of them dont, there could indeed be a few surprises).
Click to expand...

i expect, as do many people who are looking at things honestly, that there will be some amount of democrats that vote with their feet in this election.
 
Hairytic said:
I never trust anyone who claims they can see into the future. I will take a wait and see attitude.
Click to expand...

I see hairy palms in your future.
 
roflpublican said:
i can see into the future: romney biden administration caused by a 269-269 electoral split.
Click to expand...

As a big historian... I would love to see it happen...

However, the landslide Romney victory is far more likely than the tie at this point...
 
IndepCentristMA said:
As a big historian... I would love to see it happen...

However, the landslide Romney victory is far more likely than the tie at this point...
Click to expand...

considering based on a few prediction sites the tie is <1% probable, i agree :D.
 
IndepCentristMA said:
As a big historian... I would love to see it happen...

However, the landslide Romney victory is far more likely than the tie at this point...
Click to expand...

I agree: very remote is far more likely than extremely remote.
 
AdamT said:
Good luck with that! Hope you didn't put any money on it.
Click to expand...

Actually, I DID put money on this race, through Intrade. Started out with Romney shares, then shorted them and bought Obama shares at 5.90 per share. I stand to make about 1200 bucks tomorrow night. :)
 
Personally, I think that just about all liberals should be gravely insulted that there are so many conservatives out there that think absolutely SO little of Obama that they really think that a scumbag like Romney could win. By ANY margin.
 
AdamT said:
A tie is more likely (0.1%) than a Romney landslide (<0.1%). See scenario analysis in the sidebar: Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...

As I've discussed, their analysis is wrong, because of 2 reasons...

They allocate all 4 Maine electors to Obama... Romney is up by 5 pts in all 3 polls from the 2nd Congressional District in ME... That would give Romney 1 of the Maine electors and only 3 to Obama... That changes ALL of the counts Nate Silver has... How someone as smart as Nate Silver is could overlook that is ridiculous... He either didn't look at it, or intentionally left it out to achieve his ends, as a heavily liberal political advocate...

Add to that, the fact that in their opinion there is no chance for Romney to win in states like PA, MI, MN, NM, OR, etc. which isn't the prescripted plan, but it's not impossible... PA being the most likely of them, and it's been trending heavily pro-Romney over the past week...

I always thought he should've made a better attempt at PA... with sweater-vest's recent popularity, Lynn Swan, Giuliani, and Christie in the and more time in the Philadelphia area... This state has been a lot more of a battleground state than people gave it, with the early polling from liberal polling sites...

That 6pt lead you spoke of is PPP poll... It's funny how you always point out which polling agencies are from conservate sites, but make no mention of the legitimacy of blatantly liberal leaning polling agencies... PPP is one of them... Id toss that 6pt poll right out the window as an outlier... and go with the 2 polls that had 3pt leads, and keep a grain of salt of the 1 poll which had it tied...

Again, don't forget... 4.5% claim to be undecided... historically, they've broken 80%-20% in every election... that means a 3.6pt to .9pt breakdown... or a 2.7 swing in the electorate...
 
IndepCentristMA said:
As I've discussed, their analysis is wrong, because of 2 reasons...

They allocate all 4 Maine electors to Obama... Romney is up by 5 pts in all 3 polls from the 2nd Congressional District in ME... That would give Romney 1 of the Maine electors and only 3 to Obama... That changes ALL of the counts Nate Silver has... How someone as smart as Nate Silver is could overlook that is ridiculous... He either didn't look at it, or intentionally left it out to achieve his ends, as a heavily liberal political advocate...

Add to that, the fact that in their opinion there is no chance for Romney to win in states like PA, MI, MN, NM, OR, etc. which isn't the prescripted plan, but it's not impossible... PA being the most likely of them, and it's been trending heavily pro-Romney over the past week...

I always thought he should've made a better attempt at PA... with sweater-vest's recent popularity, Lynn Swan, Giuliani, and Christie in the and more time in the Philadelphia area... This state has been a lot more of a battleground state than people gave it, with the early polling from liberal polling sites...

That 6pt lead you spoke of is PPP poll... It's funny how you always point out which polling agencies are from conservate sites, but make no mention of the legitimacy of blatantly liberal leaning polling agencies... PPP is one of them... Id toss that 6pt poll right out the window as an outlier... and go with the 2 polls that had 3pt leads, and keep a grain of salt of the 1 poll which had it tied...

Again, don't forget... 4.5% claim to be undecided... historically, they've broken 80%-20% in every election... that means a 3.6pt to .9pt breakdown... or a 2.7 swing in the electorate...
Click to expand...

You're assuming you know how Silver did his calculation. I'll give the benefit of the doubt to Silver on that one. In fact, if you roll over his interactive map you'll see that he does consider both districts separately ... and concludes that there's a high probability that Obama will win both.

As far as judging pollster accuracy, I'm looking at their actual results rather than the identity of the people who are paying to have the polls taken. The house effect is determined by comparing a pollster's results to the mean result of all the polls. You'll be surprised to know that both PPP (supposedly pro Democrat) and Fox (supposedly pro Republican) have been among the most neutral polling firms during this cycle. Simon Jackman: House Effects, Back By Popular Demand

You're meme about undecided voters breaking for the challenger is also incorrect. Silver examined presidential elections going back as far as decent polling data would take him and found no statistical support for that rule of thumb.

Romney has a chance to win. It's just not a very good chance.
 
AdamT said:
You're assuming you know how Silver did his calculation. I'll give the benefit of the doubt to Silver on that one. In fact, if you roll over his interactive map you'll see that he does consider both districts separately ... and concludes that there's a high probability that Obama will win both.

As far as judging pollster accuracy, I'm looking at their actual results rather than the identity of the people who are paying to have the polls taken. The house effect is determined by comparing a pollster's results to the mean result of all the polls. You'll be surprised to know that both PPP (supposedly pro Democrat) and Fox (supposedly pro Republican) have been among the most neutral polling firms during this cycle. Simon Jackman: House Effects, Back By Popular Demand

You're meme about undecided voters breaking for the challenger is also incorrect. Silver examined presidential elections going back as far as decent polling data would take him and found no statistical support for that rule of thumb.

Romney has a chance to win. It's just not a very good chance.
Click to expand...

In 2004, undecideds broke in favor of Bush.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom