Latest Gallup Poll tough news for Obama...

[Statler Waldorf]

[QUOTE]

The latest estimates of telephone coverage by the National Center for Health Statistics found that a quarter of U.S. households have only a cell phone and cannot be reached by a landline telephone. Cell-only adults are demographically and politically different from those who live in landline households; as a result, election polls that rely only on landline samples may be biased.

"fundamentals"--factors such as the state of the economy, the role of foreign wars and whether the incumbent president is running. At best, polls represent a snapshot of the electorate on a given day, rather than a forecast of the eventual outcome.

Yet even this modest view has its problems. A snapshot may be seen as worthless if it is clear that the picture must eventually change. In four of the last five presidential elections, the eventual popular vote winner has trailed in the polls at some point, often by a substantial margin. Moreover, these changes are often predictable, as shifts usually move in the direction suggested by forecasts based on readings of "bread and peace": the state of the economy and U.S. standing abroad.

Polling methodology problems. Pollsters also face statistical modeling challenges.

"Likely voters." Pollsters attempt to survey the subset of the population that will vote on election day, rather than the entire adult population. (This makes sense, given that these polls are geared toward an election and not an abstract representation of the public's preference, such as presidential job approval ratings.) Some polls survey only registered voters, while others will ask a series of questions designed to screen out those who are not deemed 'likely voters':

--Misapplied technique? These screening techniques help give a more accurate picture of the electorate in polls conducted shortly before election day. However, polls with "likely voter screens" portray a very volatile electorate, with levels of fluctuation that appear unrealistic. Crucially, it is more difficult to predict likely voters. There is some evidence to suggest that likely-voter screens, in particular, may actually make early polls less accurate.

--Turnout guesswork. Turnout is not easy to predict, even in principle. For example, anecdotal reports suggest that Barack Obama's campaign has a large advantage in the 'ground game' of door-to-door canvassing (in terms of measurable campaign activity such as money invested, volunteers enlisted, and field offices opened). This could conceivably translate into a higher Democratic turnout than models based on past elections predict.

Undecided voters. In an apparent paradox, polls move a great deal over the course of the campaign but usually claim that only a small segment of the population is "undecided." Yet if 85% to 95% of the electorate has already "decided," then early polls should track the November results closely--and they do not. If pollsters' estimates of undecided voters early in the election campaign were meaningful, then the race would essentially be over when one candidate's lead exceeds the remaining number of undecided voters. This paradox has two main causes:

-Pollsters' questions. Aiming for a momentary snapshot, pollsters almost always ask respondents whom they would vote for "if the election were held today." Many also use a follow-up probe to see if those who say they are unsure "lean" in a particular direction.

Huh? You asserted that my logic was flawed; none of this demonstrates that my logic was actually flawed. So I will ask again, please demonstrate that my logic was actually flawed as you assert.

Do only Obama supporters own cell phones? You can try to come up with reasons you think your boy is going to win despite all of the polling and historical evidence that suggests he’s going to get knocked around on the 6^th, but I will stick to actual numbers and history.

[JackFinfan]

[QUOTE=Statler Waldorf;1064473013]

Huh? You asserted that my logic was flawed; none of this demonstrates that my logic was actually flawed. So I will ask again, please demonstrate that my logic was actually flawed as you assert.

Do only Obama supporters own cell phones? You can try to come up with reasons you think your boy is going to win despite all of the polling and historical evidence that suggests he’s going to get knocked around on the 6^th, but I will stick to actual numbers and history.

I don't think you would disagree that young voters tend to lean left, and I would assume that the cell phone only households are mostly young people. You say you want to only look at historical trends, but I think CrazyDolfan is suggesting history may be an inaccurate predictor of this election, because cell phone only households weren't popular 20 years ago
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. Hell, I'd even say that cell phone only households weren't even slightly popular 4-8 years ago.

All that being said, we'll see which one of you is right in about 2 weeks. I personally wouldn't be suprised if the election went to Romney or Obama. I think it'll be fairly close.

[R&R Express]

Rich people benefit more when Republicans control more of the gov't, poor people benefit more when Democrats control more of the gov't, and the middle class gets ****ed either way. That's been the story for quite some time, and I don't see it changing anytime soon.

Pretty much this. Romney. Obama. Bush. Same ****, different pile. and the middle class is ****ed either way.

[Statler Waldorf]

QUOTE=JackFinfan;1064473040]

I don't think you would disagree that young voters tend to lean left, and I would assume that the cell phone only households are mostly young people. You say you want to only look at historical trends, but I think CrazyDolfan is suggesting history may be an inaccurate predictor of this election, because cell phone only households weren't popular 20 years ago . Hell, I'd even say that cell phone only households weren't even slightly popular 4-8 years ago.

All that being said, we'll see which one of you is right in about 2 weeks. I personally wouldn't be suprised if the election went to Romney or Obama. I think it'll be fairly close.

Fair enough, but one thing we know about young voters, they’re hard to find because young people just don’t turn out to vote (especially considering the fact that Halo 4 comes out next week :-P ). This isn’t going to be like 2008, we should expect to see voter turnout very similar to every other election. I don’t think Romney is going to win simply because I want him to, I knew Obama would win last time, I knew Bush would win in ’04 and I honestly didn’t know who would win in 2000, I think the numbers clearly indicate Romney is going to win this thing, if the roles were reversed and Obama was the challenger I’d say he was going to win. The undecided vote always banks for the challenger, so that’s bad news for Obama in any poll where he is under 50 percent, and that just happens to be about 95 percent of them.

[JackFinfan]

QUOTE=JackFinfan;1064473040]

Fair enough, but one thing we know about young voters, they’re hard to find because young people just don’t turn out to vote (especially considering the fact that Halo 4 comes out next week :-P ). This isn’t going to be like 2008, we should expect to see voter turnout very similar to every other election. I don’t think Romney is going to win simply because I want him to, I knew Obama would win last time, I knew Bush would win in ’04 and I honestly didn’t know who would win in 2000, I think the numbers clearly indicate Romney is going to win this thing, if the roles were reversed and Obama was the challenger I’d say he was going to win. The undecided vote always banks for the challenger, so that’s bad news for Obama in any poll where he is under 50 percent, and that just happens to be about 95 percent of them.

I agree, the young vote won't come out and vote for Obama like they did in 2008.

[CRAZYDOLFAN305]

[QUOTE=Statler Waldorf;1064473013]

Huh? You asserted that my logic was flawed; none of this demonstrates that my logic was actually flawed. So I will ask again, please demonstrate that my logic was actually flawed as you assert.

Do only Obama supporters own cell phones? You can try to come up with reasons you think your boy is going to win despite all of the polling and historical evidence that suggests he’s going to get knocked around on the 6^th, but I will stick to actual numbers and history.

Delusional, you're on crack if you think what Romney's prescribing the rest of the country is buying. The republican way of governing is no longer suitable. All you guys ever give us is wars, deficits, and tax cuts to the rich. Bush didn't win the popular vote his brother gave him Florida, and the supreme court judges his dad nominated gave him the presidency.


List the economy policy as the reason you are voting for Romney?

As a matter of fact, aside from your pure hatred for Obama, give me the reasons why you think Romney is going to win the election ?

And yes, most people that are going to be voting for Obama owns cell phones..

[TheWalrus]

You really are slow on the uptake aren’t you? I have no problem with my thread being brought to the top. Obama is not going to win this election, he’s now down in Pennsylvania, Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, Virginia and has now lost his lead in Ohio, Michigan, and Iowa (Wisconsin and Minnesota are also now statistical dead heats), this thing is over. Romney will comfortably exceed 270 electoral votes.



You’re celebrating because your boy is still down 3 points? The undecided voters always bank for the challenger so that’s still Romney 53 Obama 47, your boy is done.


How’s the weather there in Oz?

This seems like a good time to revisit this thread and especially this post.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Where you at, Statler?

[CRAZYDOLFAN305]

Like I said they were all delusional and just for their sake, if they weren't part of the .0001 percentile and don't make $250,001 or more a year they should be glad he (Romney Didn't Win)

[Buddy]

Like I said they were all delusional and just for their sake, if they weren't part of the .0001 percentile and don't make $250,001 or more a year they should be glad he (Romney Didn't Win)

What you don't understand, my friend, is that although the focus was on "the 1%", anyone who makes enough to pay taxes will come to regret this election. In time, most all Americans will regret this unfortunate decision except those who are completely dependent and only interested in "getting theirs." About 3-4% of households here in the US make $250K+/year and about 47% don't pay any taxes so that leaves roughly 1/2 of the household supposedly not affected by any of this. How long do you think it will be before $100K is the new $250K? Is Washington all of a sudden going to wake up and be fiscally responsible? We just reelected a president, senate, and house that haven't passed a budget in four years and wonder why our country is broke. The answer is to just tax more money in and redistribute it? Do you think the leches will be satisfied in the next election with just pillaging the system? Heck no, their vote will be far more expensive the next time around and taxes will be on the rise again. People have grown accustomed to government handouts and nothing short of cataclysmic collapse will wean them, I fear.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[irish fin fan]

This seems like a good time to revisit this thread and especially this post.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Where you at, Statler?

Like all his views they turn out to be the same ... Wrong.