Did Romneyshambles just lose the election?

[Woodruff]

I don't understand why you all keep chastising Scott for his support of Romney, he's already told us that he won't be voting for him.

For the record, I am not voting for Romney.

Ignoring that he has provided OVERWHELMING SUPPORT for Romney in this forum, he has both stated he will vote for Romney and stated that he will not vote for Romney. It's really quite remarkable.

[thegreekdog]

As usual you missed the point, but I'll spell it out for ya.

You agree with Republican marketing more than Democratic marketing. You agree with neither party's policy. This is by design, both parties know their policies are similar. They take very different target demographics partly to beat each other and gain power, party to prevent competition from others. Your vote for either a Democrat or Republican doesn't matter; your vote for anyone else over the two does.

This is a great explanation of political parties.

[GreecePwns]

Thought I'd resurrect this thread partly because of BBS' post on Median Voter Theorem, and partly to answer the thread's title.

I know I should be compiling information from more than one polling group, but it appears that the 47% comment will be what buries his chances, though the perceived success of the DNC (especially relative to the RNC) is what really sparked Obama's commanding lead. Previous polls had Obama in a certainly assailable lead with a major gaffe or uncontrollable downturn in the economy/foreign policy, but now it seems all but decided.

[Night Strike]

Yep, just keep believing those polls that are oversampling Democrats by 7-12%, which is more than their advantage in the 2008 election. Also, maybe if the media weren't so biased and would actually report the news of the cover-up in Libya, the breaking of the law by the HHS secretary, and the gaffes of Obama saying he can't change Washington from inside and thinking Libya is just a bump-in-the-road, Obama wouldn't be "winning" as much as perceived.

[Symmetry]

Yep, just keep believing those polls that are oversampling Democrats by 7-12%, which is more than their advantage in the 2008 election. Also, maybe if the media weren't so biased and would actually report the news of the cover-up in Libya, the breaking of the law by the HHS secretary, and the gaffes of Obama saying he can't change Washington from inside and thinking Libya is just a bump-in-the-road, Obama wouldn't be "winning" as much as perceived.

Huh, the Fox news polls also show a significant lead for Obama. Is Fox now part of the liberal conspiracy?

[BigBallinStalin]

The Economy and the Presidential Run-off


http://mungowitzend.blogspot.com/2012/0 ... tions.html

So lets just look at the relatively recent raw data and see what we can see. This graph is from my 2008 Public Choice paper. It shows that from 1961-2004, there is a pronounced difference in economic performance over the second half of the election cycle between cycles where the incumbent party wins and when it loses.


I used Fred to update the results through 2008, and average growth over the last half of the election cycle when the incumbent party wins is 4.6%. When the incumbent party loses, it's 2.2%. That difference is significant at the 0.001 level.

For the relevant period of the Obama cycle for which Fred lists data (2011 q1 - 2012q2, 6 quarters), the average growth rate is 1.9%

In recent times, the incumbent party will, on average, lose with such a low growth rate in the second half of the cycle.

Why do I care about this? Well, I want to question the idea that the economy is helping (or at least not hurting)Obama. I want to question the assertion that campaigns don't matter because the economy is everything.

BHO is going to win in November DESPITE the economy, largely because Romney is a terrible candidate who is running an undisciplined, juvenile, brain-damaged campaign.

And that matters.

[Night Strike]

Yep, just keep believing those polls that are oversampling Democrats by 7-12%, which is more than their advantage in the 2008 election. Also, maybe if the media weren't so biased and would actually report the news of the cover-up in Libya, the breaking of the law by the HHS secretary, and the gaffes of Obama saying he can't change Washington from inside and thinking Libya is just a bump-in-the-road, Obama wouldn't be "winning" as much as perceived.

Huh, the Fox news polls also show a significant lead for Obama. Is Fox now part of the liberal conspiracy?

It shows a much smaller lead for Obama while still oversampling Democrats, just not to the egregious amounts as the liberal polls. In the unskewedpolls website, the only corrected poll that Obama is winning in is the Fox News one.

[Symmetry]

Yep, just keep believing those polls that are oversampling Democrats by 7-12%, which is more than their advantage in the 2008 election. Also, maybe if the media weren't so biased and would actually report the news of the cover-up in Libya, the breaking of the law by the HHS secretary, and the gaffes of Obama saying he can't change Washington from inside and thinking Libya is just a bump-in-the-road, Obama wouldn't be "winning" as much as perceived.

Huh, the Fox news polls also show a significant lead for Obama. Is Fox now part of the liberal conspiracy?

It shows a much smaller lead for Obama while still oversampling Democrats, just not to the egregious amounts as the liberal polls. In the unskewedpolls website, the only corrected poll that Obama is winning in is the Fox News one.

So you're saying that Fox News is too liberal?

[BigBallinStalin]

Thought I'd resurrect this thread partly because of BBS' post on Median Voter Theorem, and partly to answer the thread's title.

I know I should be compiling information from more than one polling group, but it appears that the 47% comment will be what buries his chances, though the perceived success of the DNC (especially relative to the RNC) is what really sparked Obama's commanding lead. Previous polls had Obama in a certainly assailable lead with a major gaffe or uncontrollable downturn in the economy/foreign policy, but now it seems all but decided.

I'd err on the side of caution with this--although in my opinion, Obamney will win this one.

You're looking at a graph over one month, and the divergence seems HUGE but it's 6%. If we're relying on past trends to make predictions, then in previous elections, there have been big shifts in approval ratings.

See:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=177695&hilit=conventions&start=30#p3882578
(chess pieces later flew in that thread)



My main point is that some bounce may occur and may be significant enough to push this election in Rombo's favor.

[Symmetry]

It'd have to be a helluva bounce combined with a massive decrease for Obama. I guess it's possible if the stars align.

[BigBallinStalin]

It'd have to be a helluva bounce combined with a massive decrease for Obama. I guess it's possible if the stars align.

I'm thinking Rombo take the Way of McCain 2008.

[Symmetry]

It'd have to be a helluva bounce combined with a massive decrease for Obama. I guess it's possible if the stars align.

I'm thinking Rombo take the Way of McCain 2008.

I suspect you're drunk and not thinking at all.

[GreecePwns]

Night Strike, always question your sources.

Unskewed Polls is affiliated with QStarNews, a website with plenty of political articles, almost all of which are pro-GOP Examiner articles (read: blogs), some of which border on tin-foil-hat territory.

Unskewed? Don't think so. Credible? Also don't think so. 538 is a very credible poll compiling site in comparison.

[BigBallinStalin]

It'd have to be a helluva bounce combined with a massive decrease for Obama. I guess it's possible if the stars align.

I'm thinking Rombo take the Way of McCain 2008.

[Lootifer]

WHY DID I CLICK ON THIS THREAD!@?!?!?

[BigBallinStalin]

Night Strike, always question your sources.

Unskewed Polls is affiliated with QStarNews, a website with plenty of political articles, almost all of which are pro-GOP Examiner articles (read: blogs), some of which border on tin-foil-hat territory.

Unskewed? Don't think so. Credible? Also don't think so. 538 is a very credible poll compiling site in comparison.

Didn't 538 predict last year's outcome accurately?


Tangent: the results of a poll don't only reflect voter preferences--in some cases.

For example, if a poll, which has been deemed reliable and accurate, posts its results, the observation of these results may sway people's opinions further---even if the results of that poll were actually inaccurate.

[BigBallinStalin]

WHY DID I CLICK ON THIS THREAD!@?!?!?

QUICK!! GET OUT WHILE YOU STILL CAN!!!

But wait.... look at these graphs:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=178415&start=120#p3907063


Aren't they purdy?

[GreecePwns]

Night Strike, always question your sources.

Unskewed Polls is affiliated with QStarNews, a website with plenty of political articles, almost all of which are pro-GOP Examiner articles (read: blogs), some of which border on tin-foil-hat territory.

Unskewed? Don't think so. Credible? Also don't think so. 538 is a very credible poll compiling site in comparison.

Didn't 538 predict last year's outcome accurately? Tangent: the results of a poll don't only reflect voter preferences--in some cases.

For example, if a poll, which has been deemed reliable and accurate, posts its results, the observation of these results may sway people's opinions further---even if the results of that poll were actually inaccurate.

In 2008, he got 49 out of 50 states' results correct on the presidential election (Indiana unexpectedly voted for Obama). In 2010, he guessed the Republicans would gain 7 seats in the Senate and they gained 6.

538 is not a polling firm, its a forecasting model that gives weightings on polls based on the credibility of the firm issuing the poll (based on accuracy of their past polls and other factors) and how much time is between the poll's release and the election in question.

In 2012, they predict the same results as 2008 state by state, except for Indiana going for Romney (it was the one state he had wrong in 2008, it went for Obama instead of McCain).

[notyou2]

....so the lesson learned is that Indiana is full of swingers?

[Woodruff]

....so the lesson learned is that Indiana is full of swingers?

<laughing> I was thinking the same thing...I thought Indiana was in the farm belt? <grin>

[Symmetry]

Thought I might bump this one-

Just in case anyone is surprised that a man running for national office saying that he doesn't care about half of the country didn't win a national election.

This will be my only gloating, promise, and I have a bit of liberal guilt about it too.

[thegreekdog]

Thought I might bump this one-

Just in case anyone is surprised that a man running for national office saying that he doesn't care about half of the country didn't win a national election.

This will be my only gloating, promise, and I have a bit of liberal guilt about it too.

You should spend less time bumping and gloating and more time answering my points in two other threads.

[Symmetry]

Thought I might bump this one-

Just in case anyone is surprised that a man running for national office saying that he doesn't care about half of the country didn't win a national election.

This will be my only gloating, promise, and I have a bit of liberal guilt about it too.

You should spend less time bumping and gloating and more time answering my points in two other threads.

I believe your main points with regards to me are that I'm either a "troll" or a "moron". They don't seem like they're points worthy of reply.

[thegreekdog]

Thought I might bump this one-

Just in case anyone is surprised that a man running for national office saying that he doesn't care about half of the country didn't win a national election.

This will be my only gloating, promise, and I have a bit of liberal guilt about it too.

You should spend less time bumping and gloating and more time answering my points in two other threads.

I believe your main points with regards to me are that I'm either a "troll" or a "moron". They don't seem like they're points worthy of reply.

What a turn of events! You deemed them worthy of reply two days ago. And lo and behold, when I post significant additional and different points you won't respond? For shame...

[Symmetry]

Thought I might bump this one-

Just in case anyone is surprised that a man running for national office saying that he doesn't care about half of the country didn't win a national election.

This will be my only gloating, promise, and I have a bit of liberal guilt about it too.

You should spend less time bumping and gloating and more time answering my points in two other threads.

I believe your main points with regards to me are that I'm either a "troll" or a "moron". They don't seem like they're points worthy of reply.

What a turn of events! You deemed them worthy of reply two days ago. And lo and behold, when I post significant additional and different points you won't respond? For shame...

Alright dude, you're baiting, but tell me what you need me to reply to.