• 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 election likely: 86.3% chance of Obama winning

Tomorrow, R.I.P. Romney - 2012 - Never Forget :doh
 
Romney must win three of these four to have a shot

FLORIDA
VIRGINIA
PENNSYLVANIA
OHIO

If he does that, he could very well win no matter what the popular vote says. If he fails to take three of those four, he has to make it up somewhere else by taking a blue state like Wisconsin or Michigan and those odds are long.
 
Just noticed that Gallup's daily tracking poll is back after a hiatus supposedly caused by Sandy (hah). Surprise surprise ... they're now nearly in line with the other national polls, showing Romney with a one point lead, as opposed to the 5-7% leads they were showing before their time out.
 
Verax said:
How? :roll:
Click to expand...

Romney winning Florida, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, and Virginia. He does that, LANDSLIDE. I can comfortably predict Florida and New Hampshire, the others? Toss ups where he is either leading, or tied. Ohio is the wild card. Romney wins that, kiss it goodbye for Obama.

Here's my analysis of your initial post. You are sourcing the New York Times blogosphere. Give me a break. The real numbers reported from the ground are indicating a Romney win. I don't care if it's a landslide, I just hope it is. Just remember this, the New York Times and all the other liberal prognosticators didn't see 2010 coming either, and Dems were humiliated in the mid term elections.

You are about to witness a Chick fil A moment in this country. No bussing required. People are going to show up in droves without the assistance of getting bussed in like Dems are well known for doing.
 
AdamT said:
Just noticed that Gallup's daily tracking poll is back after a hiatus supposedly caused by Sandy (hah). Surprise surprise ... they're now nearly in line with the other national polls, showing Romney with a one point lead, as opposed to the 5-7% leads they were showing before their time out.
Click to expand...

Ironically, after the Obama administration whined and whined about their methods for months. Who says the President doesn't play hard ball....now if we could get him to be equally as tough with Iran, maybe we'll get something accomplished!

David Axlerod has whined for months about Gallups polling methods. I guess Axelrod thinks it's "unfair" unless your method is polling more democrats than any other group of people. But I digress. Romney is going to win, because Obama ran out of gas months ago, and the American people are fed up with his failure to lead.
 
Masada said:
Ironically, after the Obama administration whined and whined about their methods for months. Who says the President doesn't play hard ball....now if we could get him to be equally as tough with Iran, maybe we'll get something accomplished!

David Axlerod has whined for months about Gallups polling methods. I guess Axelrod thinks it's "unfair" unless your method is polling more democrats than any other group of people. But I digress. Romney is going to win, because Obama ran out of gas months ago, and the American people are fed up with his failure to lead.
Click to expand...

The fact is that Gallup was way out of step with all the other national polling firms.
 
AdamT said:
The fact is that Gallup was way out of step with all the other national polling firms.
Click to expand...

You're right Adam, they were. They weren't sampling 6-12% more Democrats like the other pollsters......
 
Yay, the landslide victory ploy. Gotta love those.
 
Landslide election likely: 86.3% chance of Obama winning
Click to expand...
He is running for Dog Catcher in Hawaii... nobody is running against him.

I hope he has a quiet retirement, but like other Commi-Libbots, he will have to insert his sorry ass back in the national scene in an attempt to rewrite history.
 
zimmer said:
He is running for Dog Catcher in Hawaii... nobody is running against him.

I hope he has a quiet retirement, but like other Commi-Libbots, he will have to insert his sorry ass back in the national scene in an attempt to rewrite history.
Click to expand...

Yep, unlike Bush, who has quietly, and professionally gone back to Texas. Spoke with him a few weeks ago at a convention he was speaking at. Love that dude.....

A quote he made while speaking that stuck with me: "The biggest disappointment in Washington is the lack of courage".

Got that right dub....
 
Masada said:
Yep, unlike Bush, who has quietly, and professionally gone back to Texas. Spoke with him a few weeks ago at a convention he was speaking at. Love that dude.....

A quote he made while speaking that stuck with me: "The biggest disappointment in Washington is the lack of courage".

Got that right dub....
Click to expand...

You met GWB?
 
Masada said:
Yep, unlike Bush, who has quietly, and professionally gone back to Texas. Spoke with him a few weeks ago at a convention he was speaking at. Love that dude.....
Click to expand...

That explains both your positions and your ignorance.
 
haymarket said:
Romney must win three of these four to have a shot

FLORIDA
VIRGINIA
PENNSYLVANIA
OHIO

If he does that, he could very well win no matter what the popular vote says. If he fails to take three of those four, he has to make it up somewhere else by taking a blue state like Wisconsin or Michigan and those odds are long.
Click to expand...

The idea that Pennsylvania is within Romney's grasp is laughable (Nate Silver scores PA as 98% in Obama's camp, rating it as 'Safe Obama').

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Romney pretty much has to take Ohio (and Florida) or he is toast. He likely will carry Florida, but Ohio is probably just beyond his finger tips
 
Folks can't even wait 24 hours to possibly avoid making a fool of themselves I see. Think about it. If your guy wins, but by a squeeker, even though your guy won you look like a class one goober and proved yourself to be one who gets it wrong. Had you held you water and your guy won, either way it goes you'd have had your victory.
 
Masada said:
Yep, unlike Bush, who has quietly, and professionally gone back to Texas. Spoke with him a few weeks ago at a convention he was speaking at. Love that dude.....

A quote he made while speaking that stuck with me: "The biggest disappointment in Washington is the lack of courage".

Got that right dub....
Click to expand...

I didn't like the spending he approved... he could have hauled out the veto pen a bit more... but there was no question... the man loved this country, was sincere and when we needed someone to make tough choices, he did. He was what the nation needed after Clinton, though my preference was Alan Keyes. Think of what would have happened had Gore been elected during those years?!!! Scary.

I wish he'd have pardoned Scooter Libby; that was a perverse miscarriage of justice. He went to prison because he didn't recall something??? (he didn't leak; that was Armitage). If forgetting is gonna get someone's ass thrown in jail... Obama, Holder, Clinton, Rice & Co better hope they don't have to take an oath on Fast & Furious and Benghazi.
 
Verax said:
It keeps getting worse and worse for team Romney / Republicans. With the statistical odds nearing 90% it raises the question of how bad a job the Republican party is doing that they lose in a landslide during tough economic times. Something is seriously wrong here that one party isn't even viable anymore, the Democrats are the default winner, will this trend continue in 2016?

Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...

That's what the Chicago Trib thought back in '48.

Deweytruman12.jpg
 
apdst said:
That's what the Chicago Trib thought back in '48.

Deweytruman12.jpg
Click to expand...

It hasn't happened in 64 years, and polling is a LOT better and MUCH more prevalent now than it was then.
 
AdamT said:
It hasn't happened in 64 years, and polling is a LOT better and MUCH more prevalent now than it was then.
Click to expand...

How has polling changed?

In 1948, you conducted a poll by asking a group of people questions and recorded their answers. In 2012, you ask a group of people questions and record their answers.

What's different? :rofl
 
apdst said:
How has polling changed?

In 1948, you conducted a poll by asking a group of people questions and recorded their answers. In 2012, you ask a group of people questions and record their answers.

What's different? :rofl
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, a lot of people didn't have telephones in 1948. Sampling methods were much more primitive, likely voter models were less sophisticated. But mostly you might have something like five or ten polls versus five or six hundred nowadays.
 
Verax said:
It keeps getting worse and worse for team Romney / Republicans. With the statistical odds nearing 90% it raises the question of how bad a job the Republican party is doing that they lose in a landslide during tough economic times. Something is seriously wrong here that one party isn't even viable anymore, the Democrats are the default winner, will this trend continue in 2016?

Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...

An 86% chance of a narrow victory? How could that even be possible? lol. This same blogger cites some polls... all of which are within the margin of error. I'd say that indicates a coin flip.
 
Verax said:
How? :roll:
Click to expand...

That's easy. It just so happens that this year's election coincides precisely with national Opposite Day.
 
kamikaze483 said:
An 86% chance of a narrow victory? How could that even be possible? lol. This same blogger cites some polls... all of which are within the margin of error. I'd say that indicates a coin flip.
Click to expand...

The margin of error is reduced considerably when you have so many polls. For example, Ohio has been polled 17 times just in the last week.

btw, Silver has updated Obama's chance of winning to 91.4%.
 
AdamT said:
The margin of error is reduced considerably when you have so many polls. For example, Ohio has been polled 17 times just in the last week.

btw, Silver has updated Obama's chance of winning to 91.4%.
Click to expand...

They are using 2008 turnout in all of these polls. A lot of them as much as Democrat plus 8. I think that is faulty. Secondly, I don't think Ohio will not be the deciding state. I picked Ohio to go blue. I'm thinking it will be PA and CO along with VA that will prove the 91% statistic to be worthless.
 
AdamT said:
Believe it or not, a lot of people didn't have telephones in 1948. Sampling methods were much more primitive, likely voter models were less sophisticated. But mostly you might have something like five or ten polls versus five or six hundred nowadays.
Click to expand...

Yeah, asking questions was soooooo much more primitive in 1948. :rofl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom