PDA

View Full Version : Elections Dick Morris believes that at this point, Romney has the advantage


SNR
09-27-2012, 10:42 AM
http://www.dickmorris.com/romney-pulls-ahead/

Romney Pulls Ahead
By Dick Morris on September 25, 2012

The published polling in this year’s presidential race is unusually inaccurate because this is the first election in which who votes determines how they vote. Obama’s massive leads among blacks, Latinos, young people, and single women vie with Romney’s margin among the elderly, married white women, and white men. Tell me your demographic and I’ll tell you who you’re voting for and I’ll be right at least two times out of three!

Most pollsters are weighting their data on the assumption that the 2012 electorate will turn out in the same proportion as the 2008 voters did. But polling indicates a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the president among his core constituency. He’ll still carry them by heavy margins, but the turnout will likely lag behind the 2008 stats. (The 2008 turnout was totally unlike that in other years with all-time historic high turnouts among Obama’s main demographic groups).

Specifically, most pollsters are using 2008 party preferences to weight their 2012 survey samples, reflecting a much larger Democratic preference than is now really the case.

In my own polling, I found a lurch to the Democrats right after their convention, but subsequent research indicates that it has since petered out. Indeed, when one compares party identification in the August and September polls of this year in swing states, the Democratic Party identification is flat while the ranks of Republicans rose by an average of two points per state.
Pollster Scott Rasmussen has the best solution to the party id problem. He weights his polls to reflect the unweighted party identification of the previous three weeks, so he has a dynamic model which adjusts for sampling error but still takes account of gradual changes in the electorate’s partisan preferences.

Finally, with Obama below 50% of the vote in most swing states, he is hitting up against a glass ceiling in the high 40s. He can’t get past it except in heavily Democratic states like New York or California. The first time Obama breaks 50 will not be on Election Day. Either he consistently polls above 50% of the vote or he won’t ever get there in the actual vote.

So here’s where the race really stands today based on Rasmussen’s polling:

• Romney leads decisively in all states McCain carried (173 electoral votes).

• Romney is more than ten points ahead in Indiana – which Obama carried. (11 electoral votes)

• Romney leads Obama in the following states the president carried in 2008: Iowa (44-47) North Carolina (45-51), Colorado (45-47), and New Hampshire (45-48). He’ll probably win them all. (34 electoral votes).

This comes to 218 of the 270 Romney needs. But…

• Obama is below 50% of the vote in a handful of key swing states and leads Romney by razor thin margins in each one. All these states will go for Romney unless and until Obama can show polling support of 50% of the vote:

• Obama leads in Ohio (47-46) and Virginia (49-48) by only 1 point (31 electoral votes)

• Obama leads in Florida (48-460) and Nevada (47-45) by only 2 points (35 electoral votes)

If Romney carries Ohio, Virginia, and Florida, he wins. And other states are in play.

• Obama leads in Wisconsin (49-46) by only 3 points (10 electoral votes)

• Obama’s lead in Michigan is down to four points according to a recent statewide poll

• Obama is only getting 51% of the vote in Pennsylvania and 53% in New Jersey. And don’t count out New Mexico.
It would be accurate to describe the race now as tied. But Romney has the edge because:

• The incumbent is under 50% in key states and nationally. He will probably lose any state where he is below 50% of the vote.

• The Republican enthusiasm and likelihood of voting is higher

• The GOP field organization is better.

That’s the real state of play today.

Direckshun
09-27-2012, 10:43 AM
Dick Morris.

RubberSponge
09-27-2012, 10:44 AM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TPF33WCtols" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

KILLER_CLOWN
09-27-2012, 10:45 AM
Special ed strikes again.

RubberSponge
09-27-2012, 10:46 AM
Dick Morris.

aka patteeu

La literatura
09-27-2012, 10:50 AM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TPF33WCtols" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Life advice: If at any moment you find Sean Hannity is being more reasonable than you, you should retire from public light.

Donger
09-27-2012, 10:53 AM
Are the Obama people here under the impression that the Democrat turn-out in November will be the same as it was in 2008? That seems to be the question at hand.

RubberSponge
09-27-2012, 10:56 AM
Are the Obama people here under the impression that the Democrat turn-out in November will be the same as it was in 2008? That seems to be the question at hand.

I'm not an Obama person. I think both parties suffer from lower than expected turnouts. Shitty candidates will do it.

dirk digler
09-27-2012, 10:57 AM
Are the Obama people here under the impression that the Democrat turn-out in November will be the same as it was in 2008? That seems to be the question at hand.

Possibly because every 4 years turnout increases or at has the last few elections

<table class="sgmltable" id="A0101179" border="1"><tbody><tr><th style="font-size:13px" align="left" valign="bottom">Year</th> <th style="font-size:13px" align="left" valign="bottom">Voting-age
population</th> <th style="font-size:13px" align="center" valign="bottom">Voter
registration</th> <th style="font-size:13px" align="center" valign="bottom">Voter turnout</th> <th style="font-size:13px" align="center" valign="bottom">Turnout of voting-age
population (percent)</th> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="bottom"> 2010** </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> 235,809,266 </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> NA </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> 90,682,968 </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> 37.8% </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="bottom"> 2008* </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> 231,229,580 </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> NA </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> 132,618,580* </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> 56.8 </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="bottom">2006</td> <td align="center" valign="bottom">220,600,000</td> <td align="center" valign="bottom">135,889,600</td> <td align="center" valign="bottom">80,588,000</td> <td align="center" valign="bottom">37.1</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="bottom"> 2004 </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> 221,256,931 </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> 174,800,000 </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> 122,294,978 </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> 55.3 </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="bottom">2002</td> <td align="center" valign="bottom">215,473,000</td> <td align="center" valign="bottom">150,990,598</td> <td align="center" valign="bottom">79,830,119</td> <td align="center" valign="bottom">37.0</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="bottom"> 2000 </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> 205,815,000 </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> 156,421,311 </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> 105,586,274 </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> 51.3</td></tr></tbody></table>

SNR
09-27-2012, 11:00 AM
Dick Morris.
Hey, that's why I said Dick Morris believes it. I could have used an HCF/sportsshrink/pete title like "OOOOOOOPS, looks like Obama will lose afterall!" but I didn't.

I report, you decide.

Donger
09-27-2012, 11:04 AM
Possibly because every 4 years turnout increases or at has the last few elections

<table class="sgmltable" id="A0101179" border="1"><tbody><tr><th style="font-size:13px" align="left" valign="bottom">Year</th> <th style="font-size:13px" align="left" valign="bottom">Voting-age
population</th> <th style="font-size:13px" align="center" valign="bottom">Voter
registration</th> <th style="font-size:13px" align="center" valign="bottom">Voter turnout</th> <th style="font-size:13px" align="center" valign="bottom">Turnout of voting-age
population (percent)</th> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="bottom"> 2010** </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> 235,809,266 </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> NA </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> 90,682,968 </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> 37.8% </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="bottom"> 2008* </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> 231,229,580 </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> NA </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> 132,618,580* </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> 56.8 </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="bottom">2006</td> <td align="center" valign="bottom">220,600,000</td> <td align="center" valign="bottom">135,889,600</td> <td align="center" valign="bottom">80,588,000</td> <td align="center" valign="bottom">37.1</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="bottom"> 2004 </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> 221,256,931 </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> 174,800,000 </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> 122,294,978 </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> 55.3 </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="bottom">2002</td> <td align="center" valign="bottom">215,473,000</td> <td align="center" valign="bottom">150,990,598</td> <td align="center" valign="bottom">79,830,119</td> <td align="center" valign="bottom">37.0</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="bottom"> 2000 </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> 205,815,000 </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> 156,421,311 </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> 105,586,274 </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom"> 51.3</td></tr></tbody></table>

You think there's the same amount of enthusiasm for Obama in 2012 as there was in 2008?

cosmo20002
09-27-2012, 11:07 AM
Are the Obama people here under the impression that the Democrat turn-out in November will be the same as it was in 2008? That seems to be the question at hand.

It is often repeated by right-wing pundits that all these polls are using 2008 turnout models. I hate to nitpick, but is that even true?

A lot of factors go into these polls and I don't think any of them release their complete formula. They may (or may not) start with 2008 as a base then make adjustments--but no one ever mentions the adjustments. Really, who the fuck actually knows? But it doesn't stop the right wing pundits and their sheep from simply repeating that every poll is incorrect because of this alleged 2008 turnout issue.

I would think the pollsters would want to be accurate. But then again, maybe they are all involved in a conspiracy together to trick the public.

Donger
09-27-2012, 11:18 AM
It is often repeated by right-wing pundits that all these polls are using 2008 turnout models. I hate to nitpick, but is that even true?

A lot of factors go into these polls and I don't think any of them release their complete formula. They may (or may not) start with 2008 as a base then make adjustments--but no one ever mentions the adjustments. Really, who the **** actually knows? But it doesn't stop the right wing pundits and their sheep from simply repeating that every poll is incorrect because of this alleged 2008 turnout issue.

I would think the pollsters would want to be accurate. But then again, maybe they are all involved in a conspiracy together to trick the public.

Daily Beast says it's true.

dirk digler
09-27-2012, 11:21 AM
You think there's the same amount of enthusiasm for Obama in 2012 as there was in 2008?

Probably not but Dems only increased by a small margin

“A downturn in the number and percentage of Republican voters going to the polls seemed to be the primary explanation for the lower than predicted turnout,” the report said. Compared to 2004, Republican turnout declined by 1.3 percentage points to 28.7 percent, while Democratic turnout increased by 2.6 points from 28.7 percent in 2004 to 31.3 percent in 2008.

J Diddy
09-27-2012, 11:24 AM
Life advice: If at any moment you find Sean Hannity is being more reasonable than you, you should retire from public light.

Well said.

cosmo20002
09-27-2012, 11:26 AM
You think there's the same amount of enthusiasm for Obama in 2012 as there was in 2008?

I realize that "enthusiasm" is something they measure, but what if someone was "very enthusiastic" about voting for Obama in 2008 but in 2012 they are only "enthusiastic." Less enthusiasm, but they still appear to be a likely voter, and it still counts as 1 vote. 2008 didn't count "more."

At some point, you have to simply acknowledge that the professional polling agencies might know more about producing an accurate poll than you do.

Donger
09-27-2012, 11:32 AM
I realize that "enthusiasm" is something they measure, but what if someone was "very enthusiastic" about voting for Obama in 2008 but in 2012 they are only "enthusiastic." Less enthusiasm, but they still appear to be a likely voter, and it still counts as 1 vote. 2008 didn't count "more."

Well, yes, of course the actual vote is what matters. But I don't get the impression that Obama enthusiasm is anywhere close to what it was in 2008. I guess we'll see how that translates into votes soon.

At some point, you have to simply acknowledge that the professional polling agencies might know more about producing an accurate poll than you do.

Right now is fine and accurate.

Mr. Kotter
09-27-2012, 11:40 AM
I realize that "enthusiasm" is something they measure, but what if someone was "very enthusiastic" about voting for Obama in 2008 but in 2012 they are only "enthusiastic." Less enthusiasm, but they still appear to be a likely voter, and it still counts as 1 vote. 2008 didn't count "more."

At some point, you have to simply acknowledge that the professional polling agencies might know more about producing an accurate poll than you do.

Enthusiasm translates into turn-out. Dems were extemely enthusaistic about Obama in 2008, and that translated to huge turn-out. Dems and independents appear less enthusiastic about Obama this time; if that translates into suppressed turn-out, that falls in favor of Romney (many hard core conservatives are actually more motivated by hatred of Obama, than love for Romney.)

In any event, the argument makes sense...if it's true. However, this is Dick Morris--and his track record is checkered at best. Frankly though, it's Romeny's only prayer at this point short of some October surprise or serious blunders by Obama in the debates.

Donger
09-27-2012, 11:43 AM
In any event, the argument makes sense...if it's true. Frankly, it's Romeny's only prayer at this point short of some October surprise or serious blunders by Obama in the debates.

You are basing this on the polls?

Mr. Kotter
09-27-2012, 11:45 AM
You are basing this on the polls?

Not entirely. More important is the fact that Romney is a weak candidate. The Reps version of 2004 Kerry. However, pollsters who value their reputation and credibilty would not sacrifice that to simply pump-up their guy, as some cons allege--too much is at stake.

dirk digler
09-27-2012, 11:57 AM
What's funny about all this poll conspiracy is that Fox News has to be in on it as well since they show Obama with a nice lead in swing states.

cosmo20002
09-27-2012, 12:03 PM
What's funny about all this poll conspiracy is that Fox News has to be in on it as well since they show Obama with a nice lead in swing states.

Obama staying in office probably = better ratings on Fox. It's all a big conspiracy and everyone is in on it!

Direckshun
09-27-2012, 12:08 PM
Hey, that's why I said Dick Morris believes it. I could have used an HCF/sportsshrink/pete title like "OOOOOOOPS, looks like Obama will lose afterall!" but I didn't.

I report, you decide.

Fair point.

Donger
09-27-2012, 12:27 PM
What's funny about all this poll conspiracy is that Fox News has to be in on it as well since they show Obama with a nice lead in swing states.

I'm not sure that there's any conspiracy. It just sounds like some of the polls are weighting their results based on outdated and erroneous information.

vailpass
09-27-2012, 12:33 PM
Dick Morris.

You are the last on poster here who can ever criticize any source. In your 24-7-365 quest to paper this forum with threads you quote some way way out there sources.

cosmo20002
09-27-2012, 12:40 PM
I'm not sure that there's any conspiracy. It just sounds like some of the polls are weighting their results based on outdated and erroneous information.

And they are not experienced enough or care enough about accuracy to determine if they are using bad formula? And Dick Morris knows better?

Donger
09-27-2012, 12:42 PM
And they are not experienced enough or care enough about accuracy to determine if they are using bad formula? And Dick Morris knows better?

I don't know what the motivation is.

Mr. Kotter
09-27-2012, 12:45 PM
I'm not sure that there's any conspiracy. It just sounds like some of the polls are weighting their results based on outdated and erroneous information.

Any proof of that, other than Dick Morris or wishful thinking from other conservative pundits?

Donger
09-27-2012, 12:48 PM
Any proof of that, other than Dick Morris or wishful thinking from other conservative pundits?

Sure:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/27/are-the-polls-really-biased-for-obama.html

And it is true that a number of polls have been heavily weighted toward Democrats. There was the late August Washington Post/ABC poll that had a plus-9 Democratic skew (and still had Romney ahead by one point). And there was a Marquette poll (PDF) of Wisconsin two weeks ago that had a plus-8 Democratic skew.

Mr. Kotter
09-27-2012, 12:53 PM
Sure:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/27/are-the-polls-really-biased-for-obama.html

And it is true that a number of polls have been heavily weighted toward Democrats. There was the late August Washington Post/ABC poll that had a plus-9 Democratic skew (and still had Romney ahead by one point). And there was a Marquette poll (PDF) of Wisconsin two weeks ago that had a plus-8 Democratic skew.

So you are saying there is a conspiracy among the competing pollsters, then? Because most are pretty clear.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-27-2012, 12:55 PM
Sure:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/27/are-the-polls-really-biased-for-obama.html

And it is true that a number of polls have been heavily weighted toward Democrats. There was the late August Washington Post/ABC poll that had a plus-9 Democratic skew (and still had Romney ahead by one point). And there was a Marquette poll (PDF) of Wisconsin two weeks ago that had a plus-8 Democratic skew.

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002745809/5123371953_tin_foil_hat_answer_3_xlarge.jpeg

Donger
09-27-2012, 12:55 PM
So you are saying there is a conspiracy among the competing pollsters, then? Because most are pretty clear.

I already said that I have no idea as to what their motivations are.

Donger
09-27-2012, 12:56 PM
http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002745809/5123371953_tin_foil_hat_answer_3_xlarge.jpeg

Why would you post that?

KILLER_CLOWN
09-27-2012, 12:56 PM
Why would you post that?

Is everything a conspiracy to you?

Mr. Kotter
09-27-2012, 12:56 PM
I already said that I have no idea as to what their motivations are.

I didn't ask about motivations. Just confirmation that you subscribe to a conspiracy theory on it.

Donger
09-27-2012, 01:03 PM
I didn't ask about motivations. Just confirmation that you subscribe to a conspiracy theory on it.

Why does it have to be a conspiracy? It seems pretty clear that when even Daily Beast says that the weighting is too heavy in Obama's favor, it probably is, no?

For all I know, the one's that are too heavily weighted are just using wrong and out-dated information. Like I said, I have no idea what their motivation is in doing so (if any).

patteeu
09-27-2012, 01:12 PM
It is often repeated by right-wing pundits that all these polls are using 2008 turnout models. I hate to nitpick, but is that even true?

A lot of factors go into these polls and I don't think any of them release their complete formula. They may (or may not) start with 2008 as a base then make adjustments--but no one ever mentions the adjustments. Really, who the **** actually knows? But it doesn't stop the right wing pundits and their sheep from simply repeating that every poll is incorrect because of this alleged 2008 turnout issue.

I would think the pollsters would want to be accurate. But then again, maybe they are all involved in a conspiracy together to trick the public.

Pollster accuracy isn't measured until the election. Whether a pollster is intentionally skewing his results for political purposes or not, there's plenty of time for them to refine their model and move toward the correct final result. And who's going to prove that there wasn't some impressive Romney surge in the final weeks that led to a Romney victory or a narrow Romney defeat even if the Sept. 27 poll gave Obama a 78% lead?

patteeu
09-27-2012, 01:13 PM
I realize that "enthusiasm" is something they measure, but what if someone was "very enthusiastic" about voting for Obama in 2008 but in 2012 they are only "enthusiastic." Less enthusiasm, but they still appear to be a likely voter, and it still counts as 1 vote. 2008 didn't count "more."

At some point, you have to simply acknowledge that the professional polling agencies might know more about producing an accurate poll than you do.

How do you explain differences from one poll to another if they're all so good at figuring the art out?

patteeu
09-27-2012, 01:18 PM
I'm not sure that there's any conspiracy. It just sounds like some of the polls are weighting their results based on outdated and erroneous information.

Yeah, I just think it's standard practice to rely more heavily on the last election for your turnout model rather than trying to actually predict a turnout model based on current conditions. Twenty or thirty years ago, that was probably a pretty good rule of thumb, but we've seen some pretty dramatic swings in enthusiasm the past 6-8 years so I'm not so sure that it's still a good bet.

cosmo20002
09-27-2012, 01:23 PM
How do you explain differences from one poll to another if they're all so good at figuring the art out?

The differences generally aren't that big and all polls have a reported margin of error, often +/-3% that actually gives a pretty large window.

All I'm saying is that you only hear the bitching from the right, and only when a poll is bad news for them. The notion that the leading pollsters, let alone all of them, are intentionally producing bad results in order to make it look like Obama is ahead, is just stupid.

dirk digler
09-27-2012, 01:43 PM
Pollster accuracy isn't measured until the election. Whether a pollster is intentionally skewing his results for political purposes or not, there's plenty of time for them to refine their model and move toward the correct final result. And who's going to prove that there wasn't some impressive Romney surge in the final weeks that led to a Romney victory or a narrow Romney defeat even if the Sept. 27 poll gave Obama a 78% lead?

Next time you quote Rush you should at least give him credit.

dirk digler
09-27-2012, 01:47 PM
I'm not sure that there's any conspiracy. It just sounds like some of the polls are weighting their results based on outdated and erroneous information.

I don't. I heard this same complaint in 2008 and the polls were right. They will be right this time as well.

Mr. Kotter
09-27-2012, 01:57 PM
I don't. I heard this same complaint in 2008 and the polls were right. They will be right this time as well.

I agree, but I do think there will be less enthusiasm and turn-out this time. Instead of the 5-6% lead Obama seems to be building...it will probably settle back into a 3-4% win---barring some major October surprise or major debate gaffes.

ReynardMuldrake
09-27-2012, 02:18 PM
Sure:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/27/are-the-polls-really-biased-for-obama.html

And it is true that a number of polls have been heavily weighted toward Democrats. There was the late August Washington Post/ABC poll that had a plus-9 Democratic skew (and still had Romney ahead by one point). And there was a Marquette poll (PDF) of Wisconsin two weeks ago that had a plus-8 Democratic skew.

I keep hearing these mentions of bias artificially weighting polls toward Democrats, but I've yet to see any evidence of it.

patteeu
09-27-2012, 02:20 PM
The differences generally aren't that big and all polls have a reported margin of error, often +/-3% that actually gives a pretty large window.

All I'm saying is that you only hear the bitching from the right, and only when a poll is bad news for them. The notion that the leading pollsters, let alone all of them, are intentionally producing bad results in order to make it look like Obama is ahead, is just stupid.

This election cycle is the first time I can remember any bitching about turnout models. Given that most of the polls are using 2008 turnout as the basis for their models, and given that that was a banner year for democrat turnout (and an abnormally weak year for Republican turnout), it stands to reason that any bitching about turnout models would be coming from the Republican side. That said, there was a story about David Axelrod expressing his displeasure with Gallup (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/06/gallup-doj-axelrod) earlier in the election cycle based on the turnout model they were using which anticipated a lower minority turnout than in 2008.

patteeu
09-27-2012, 02:21 PM
Next time you quote Rush you should at least give him credit.

I'll sure do that. Do you have any comments about my posts in this thread?

ReynardMuldrake
09-27-2012, 02:22 PM
Yeah, I just think it's standard practice to rely more heavily on the last election for your turnout model rather than trying to actually predict a turnout model based on current conditions. Twenty or thirty years ago, that was probably a pretty good rule of thumb, but we've seen some pretty dramatic swings in enthusiasm the past 6-8 years so I'm not so sure that it's still a good bet.

If you're comparing midterm election turnout with presidential election turnout, you are comparing apples with oranges.

dirk digler
09-27-2012, 02:28 PM
I'll sure do that. Do you have any comments about my posts in this thread?

I only pointed that out because I heard Rush make that same exact argument today. You guys must think alike. ;)

No since you are channeling Rush I think they are mostly BS. :p

patteeu
09-27-2012, 02:29 PM
I don't. I heard this same complaint in 2008 and the polls were right. They will be right this time as well.

Oh were they? On Sept. 22, 2008, Gallup's 5 day rolling average (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107674/gallup-daily-election-2008.aspx) had Barack Obama and John McCain tied at 46% each. On Sept. 27, it was Obama 49, McCain 43. On Oct. 5, it was Obama 52, McCain 41. On Oct. 31, it was Obama 53, McCain 40.

The final result was Obama 53, McCain 46. When were they right?

Interestingly, even before Obama was a known commodity, McCain got all of the Gallup Oct. 31 undecideds in the end.

patteeu
09-27-2012, 02:31 PM
If you're comparing midterm election turnout with presidential election turnout, you are comparing apples with oranges.

I'm not suggesting that they're identical, I'm pointing out how much flux our electorate is in wrt the political parties. That's undeniable.

patteeu
09-27-2012, 02:31 PM
I only pointed that out because I heard Rush make that same exact argument today. You guys must think alike. ;)

No since you are channeling Rush I think they are mostly BS. :p

I'm proud of Rush for making such an astute observation. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. :thumb:

jjjayb
09-27-2012, 05:03 PM
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/Bandwagon%20Effect

Mr. Kotter
09-27-2012, 05:54 PM
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/Bandwagon%20Effect

Most elections experience the bandwagon effect to one degree or another; if Obama ends up winning this thing by more than 5-6 points, it could be at work here. I don't expect that though, because our electorate is so damn polarized. The only true undecideds at this point are either lazy, or complete numbskulls. The choice is clear, and most who are inclined to vote in any cerebral way at all....have made up their minds. And that may actually be why the election is breaking the way it seems to be breaking.

If you, however, are implying that the bandwagon effect is the motivation for the current polling trends, then you are nuts. Rasmussen, known for it's conservative bias over the years seems to be the only nationally respected outlier--so that's not unusual. Any thought that the media is trying, in a serious way to influence this election, is just a complete joke though.

ReynardMuldrake
09-27-2012, 09:22 PM
Speaking of Dick Morris, has he ever correctly predicted an election? You could have a pretty good career as a pundit just by taking whatever he picks and predicting the opposite.

Psyko Tek
09-27-2012, 09:35 PM
http://youtu.be/hDTT1yRNsFE

SNR
09-27-2012, 10:30 PM
Speaking of Dick Morris, has he ever correctly predicted an election? You could have a pretty good career as a pundit just by taking whatever he picks and predicting the opposite.

He predicted huge gains in the HOR by the Republicans in 2010 pretty early on.

That's not terribly impressive, but he accurately predicted the extent of the bold leap they would take. And hey, it was correct.

That's the only one I can think of, but then again, I'm not a Dick Morris scholar.

alnorth
09-27-2012, 11:07 PM
How wrong does this drooling Dick Morris retard have to be before we stop paying attention to him?

Chocolate Hog
09-27-2012, 11:11 PM
Dick Morris said a few days before last presidential election that McCain was winning.

alnorth
09-27-2012, 11:12 PM
And who's going to prove that there wasn't some impressive Romney surge in the final weeks that led to a Romney victory or a narrow Romney defeat even if the Sept. 27 poll gave Obama a 78% lead?

Common sense. Its easy to get election day right, people who are playing fair know whats going to happen, and people who have stupidly skewed polls can change their likely voter screen to show a "collapse" or "shocking comeback" to save their own asses. Huge swings used to happen, but not any more. Undecided voters are now very, very few so you can't point to Reagan or his predecessors.

The best way to judge a poll is 4-5 weeks out, since debates don't change much any more and there's usually no huge shocking event that swings votes. By that measure, Rasmussen sucked ass in 2010, and he and Dick Morris will again be stupidly far off in 2012.

suzzer99
09-28-2012, 12:03 AM
Most of my family thinks Dick Morris is a bipartisan visionary. :banghead:

SNR
09-28-2012, 12:05 AM
Most of my family thinks Dick Morris is a bipartisan visionary. :banghead:

I'm surprised black people care about Dick Morris

DaneMcCloud
09-28-2012, 12:19 AM
I'm surprised black people care about Dick Morris

I'm surprised anyone cares about Dick Morris

patteeu
09-28-2012, 05:22 AM
Common sense. Its easy to get election day right, people who are playing fair know whats going to happen, and people who have stupidly skewed polls can change their likely voter screen to show a "collapse" or "shocking comeback" to save their own asses. Huge swings used to happen, but not any more. Undecided voters are now very, very few so you can't point to Reagan or his predecessors.

The best way to judge a poll is 4-5 weeks out, since debates don't change much any more and there's usually no huge shocking event that swings votes. By that measure, Rasmussen sucked ass in 2010, and he and Dick Morris will again be stupidly far off in 2012.

This is fiction. There is plenty of movement in the final weeks. If there weren't, political pros wouldn't spend gazillions on ads in the final weeks.

suzzer99
09-28-2012, 06:45 AM
I'm surprised black people care about Dick Morris

I guess you think you're making some kind of clever joke here

SNR
09-28-2012, 08:57 AM
I guess you think you're making some kind of clever joke here

No, I really am surprised.

Amnorix
09-28-2012, 09:31 AM
Speaking of Dick Morris, has he ever correctly predicted an election? You could have a pretty good career as a pundit just by taking whatever he picks and predicting the opposite.


He's so bad foreign papers note how horrible he is at it and makes up a top 10 list about it...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/08/is-dick-morris-worlds-worst-political-pundit

suzzer99
09-29-2012, 10:31 PM
No, I really am surprised.

Are you saying that for my family is black, or are you saying something else? If so, why do you think I'm black?

whoman69
09-29-2012, 11:26 PM
Conservatives needed their own news to skew fact to their own viewpoint. Now they need polls to do the same? There is no scientific method, just a doctoring of the numbers to have them say what he wants.

Here is a scientific response to the unskewed insanity:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/poll-averages-have-no-history-of-consistent-partisan-bias/

SNR
09-29-2012, 11:31 PM
Are you saying that for my family is black, or are you saying something else? If so, why do you think I'm black?

I thought you were black? Didn't you say so awhile ago?

patteeu
09-30-2012, 06:14 AM
Are you saying that for my family is black, or are you saying something else? If so, why do you think I'm black?

Maybe it's the Afro and the do-rag in your avatar. :shrug:

RedNeckRaider
09-30-2012, 07:12 AM
Are you saying that for my family is black, or are you saying something else? If so, why do you think I'm black?

Why would you care if he thinks you are black? Unless you are a racist~

suzzer99
10-02-2012, 12:00 AM
I don't I just thought it was weird. Fwiw I'm a ginger.

ChiTown
10-02-2012, 07:20 AM
Dick Morris said a few days before last presidential election that McCain was winning.

Yep. He is a fkn boob.

Swanman
10-02-2012, 07:37 AM
I don't I just thought it was weird. Fwiw I'm a ginger.

A black ginger? Weird. :p