state polls must be biased for Romney to win

[donkdowndonedied]

Clearly you are on tilt. You failed to dispute my post in anyway but of course that was not surprising.

You must learn to respect your superiors. Your childish troll responses are pathetic and weak, like you. You are a coward on tilt.

I didn't even read your post. Why would I? My post was simply calling you a dumbfuck. Which not one person besides yourself will dispute.
Last edited by Anal_Hershiser; Today at 01:47 AM.

LOL. He can't be half the fucking idiot you are. STFU and log-off.

[Anal_Hershiser]

I didn't even read your post. Why would I? My post was simply calling you a dumbfuck. Which not one person besides yourself will dispute.
Last edited by Anal_Hershiser; Today at 01:47 AM.

LOL. He can't be half the fucking idiot you are. STFU and log-off.

Like, I concluder that really really hurt my feelings. donkdowndonedied told me to stfu and log-off. He also like, capitalized the stfu. Like, really really got me good.

[BetCheckBet]

Nothign in your article addresses his argument. of the 22 polls listed are you saying some are omited? if so which ones? None of the polls are weighted. He is NOT using any model. All he is doing is looking at polls and seeing 18/19 in swing states favor obama. The argument that is being made is that current polls show it to be impossible for romney to win and therefore the polls have to be bias if he was to win.

The article you quoted is just a generic critic and doesn;t apply to my OP at all.

Your reply is beyond absurd. Don't you understand that before Nate Silver enters his polling data into his Excel spreadsheet with the cheap Monte Carlo plug-in, HE skews the data! He changes the polling data to reach the conclusion he desires. Plus, the polls Nate uses are overwhelmingly weighted for a Democratic turnout that occurred in 2008. That will NOT happen in 2012 (even Liberal pundits acknowledge this) yet the majority of polls cited in Nate's article take the polling results then add more points for Obama because they use a Democratic voter turnout formula based on what occurred in 2008!

Even Nate Silver's article touches on my point when he wrote "... if Mr. Romney wins, it can only be because the polls have been biased against him". What Nate doesn't tell his readers is that the majority of the polls he lists are biased against Romney. Now, this is not always a nefarious phenomenon. It is a flaw many polls experience. 2008 was a huge year for Democrat voter turnout. It will not be anywhere near the same in 2012 yet polling results do not reflect this. Many state polls are commissioned by media outlets who are biased against Romney. Some of those state polls are published knowing they are flawed but easily overlooked because the skewed results support the Obama wins narrative.

The article is using the raw data from polls he is not changing anything.

So your whole point is that his polls are biased? Well fuck that was what he says in the article (and you see its the title of my fucking post). That only way romney wins is if polls are biased against him. I was not writing this to be anti romney. The whole point of my post was to make this point. But you are too fucking blind and just start bashing because the article is by a guy you see as liberal. Even though you AGREE with his article.

Why do I waste my fucking time with you.

[Walter Sobchak]

I must say dragons - been nice having you back on the forum as a counterbalance to the slew of room-temperature IQ jackasses

I'd prefer Heisenberg and Gödel

[SixToedPete]

Your reply is beyond absurd. Don't you understand that before Nate Silver enters his polling data into his Excel spreadsheet with the cheap Monte Carlo plug-in, HE skews the data! He changes the polling data to reach the conclusion he desires. Plus, the polls Nate uses are overwhelmingly weighted for a Democratic turnout that occurred in 2008. That will NOT happen in 2012 (even Liberal pundits acknowledge this) yet the majority of polls cited in Nate's article take the polling results then add more points for Obama because they use a Democratic voter turnout formula based on what occurred in 2008!

Even Nate Silver's article touches on my point when he wrote "... if Mr. Romney wins, it can only be because the polls have been biased against him". What Nate doesn't tell his readers is that the majority of the polls he lists are biased against Romney. Now, this is not always a nefarious phenomenon. It is a flaw many polls experience. 2008 was a huge year for Democrat voter turnout. It will not be anywhere near the same in 2012 yet polling results do not reflect this. Many state polls are commissioned by media outlets who are biased against Romney. Some of those state polls are published knowing they are flawed but easily overlooked because the skewed results support the Obama wins narrative.

The article is using the raw data from polls he is not changing anything.

So your whole point is that his polls are biased? Well fuck that was what he says in the article (and you see its the title of my fucking post). That only way romney wins is if polls are biased against him. I was not writing this to be anti romney. The whole point of my post was to make this point. But you are too fucking blind and just start bashing because the article is by a guy you see as liberal. Even though you AGREE with his article.

Why do I waste my fucking time with you.

Hey, don't get your man panties in a bunch. First off, it's crystal clear that you did not read my entire post including the articles I linked to. If you had you would not be saying what you're saying.

Listen, you may think Nate Silver deserves respect but the truth shows he is little more than a partisan charlatan who is trying to sell a book on Amazon. That is not just my opinion. That is the truth readily available to anyone willing to do a little research. He is not honest and not to be trusted. The same goes for that disgraced rag he works for.

You mention "raw polling data". The data Nate uses is not raw, often not fresh but certainly always weighted in the Democrats' favor because BEFORE it gets to what you call "raw" the results are changed to reflect what occurred with voter turnout in 2008. That is the method the majority of those state polls use to come up with their "raw" data. I don't know why you can't understand this indisputable fact but if you did then you would grasp why Nate Silver's NYT article is such rubbish.

This is not just my opinion because I have hatred for a guy I never met. Most fair minded political scientists and pundits agree with this. Think of the "Wizard of Oz". Nate Silver is the guy behind the curtain pushing the buttons he wants to get his desired effect.

[Rollo Tomasi]

[QUOTE=Walter Sobchak;104415]

I will give you 5:1 on any amount up to $1000 (meaning $5000 on my part). Escrow with Druff prior to Tuesday. If there is any recount or court challenge in any state or combination of states that could swing the result or if the electoral college is a tie, the bet is void. Reply with amount you wager to confirm.

$200 no conditions just straight up $200 on who is inaugurated in January

confirm here and Druff will confirm to you he has the 2 hundy then ship 1K to Druff b4 Tuesday, same offer to BetCheck and Dirtyb

[DirtyB]

[QUOTE=Rollo Tomasi;104486]

$200 no conditions just straight up $200 on who is inaugurated in January

confirm here and Druff will confirm to you he has the 2 hundy then ship 1K to Druff b4 Tuesday, same offer to BetCheck and Dirtyb

There's a 20-30% chance that the Republicans will steal the election regardless of the vote.

[Rollo Tomasi]

so if Romney has a 16% chance you have no problem giving me 5-1 correct

The way you've been talking you think it's something like a dead heat/Romney is favored, yet you need 5-1?

Pinnacle Sports (ie the site with the most accurate lines, being high-volume and low juice) has Obama at ~76%, which is all you really need to know

i'm not a gambler per se i'm just betting on what the other guy thinks that's why I have a bet with Brandon

[Walter Sobchak]

[QUOTE=DirtyB;104488]

There's a 20-30% chance that the Republicans will steal the election regardless of the vote.

Exactly. Elections admins are all highly partisan and are overseeing electronic voting machines that are designed to be hacked and are unverifiable. In Ohio and to a lesser extent Florida there has been a relentless push to disenfranchise likely democratic voters and harrass them. Voter suppression groups are being used as poll workers. Plus, Ever since 2000 opened the floodgates we probably will never see another presidential election without dirty tricks to reduce opposition turnout plus teams of lawyers assembled and ready to pounce if reversing one or two close states can affect the EC. That's why I included the stipulations I did--no action if there is a recount, court challenge or EC tie. (but still action if a state is just too close to call without the absentee and provisional ballots which in Ohio won't be counted until the 17th, unless that also causes a recount.)

5-1 is pretty generous since the real odds are about 3.5-1.

Rollo if you can accept those terms I'll ship 1K to Druff prior to Tuesday.

[Rollo Tomasi]

[QUOTE=Walter Sobchak;104498]

Exactly. Elections admins are all highly partisan and are overseeing electronic voting machines that are designed to be hacked and are unverifiable. In Ohio and to a lesser extent Florida there has been a relentless push to disenfranchise likely democratic voters and harrass them. Voter suppression groups are being used as poll workers. Plus, Ever since 2000 opened the floodgates we probably will never see another presidential election without dirty tricks to reduce opposition turnout plus teams of lawyers assembled and ready to pounce if reversing one or two close states can affect the EC. That's why I included the stipulations I did--no action if there is a recount, court challenge or EC tie. (but still action if a state is just too close to call without the absentee and provisional ballots which in Ohio won't be counted until the 17th, unless that also causes a recount.)

5-1 is pretty generous since the real odds are about 3.5-1.

Rollo if you can accept those terms I'll ship 1K to Druff prior to Tuesday.

that's why I accepted your offer of 5-1 now you have lowered your offer to 3.5-1
BetCheck offered me 4-1, i'm still thinking about it but props to you b/c barry wouldn't give me 3-1, if i do it $200 is a friendly wager to make it fun, i'm not a gambler
tbh either way i hope it's over teusday i'm sick of all the email's, mailers and tv ads

[Walter Sobchak]

[QUOTE=Rollo Tomasi;104500]

that's why I accepted your offer of 5-1 now you have lowered your offer to 3.5-1
BetCheck offered me 4-1, i'm still thinking about it but props to you b/c barry wouldn't give me 3-1, if i do it $200 is a friendly wager to make it fun, i'm not a gambler
tbh either way i hope it's over teusday i'm sick of all the email's, mailers and tv ads

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I am still giving 5-1. But no action if recount or court challenge that will determine enough EVs to change the outcome. Bet?

[Rollo Tomasi]

[QUOTE=Walter Sobchak;104501]

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I am still giving 5-1. But no action if recount or court challenge that will determine enough EVs to change the outcome. Bet?

only straight up bet for whomever is inaugurated in January

[DirtyB]

that's why I accepted your offer of 5-1 now you have lowered your offer to 3.5-1
BetCheck offered me 4-1, i'm still thinking about it but props to you b/c barry wouldn't give me 3-1, if i do it $200 is a friendly wager to make it fun, i'm not a gambler
tbh either way i hope it's over teusday i'm sick of all the email's, mailers and tv ads

You post 20 polls showing Romney ahead and now want 5 to 1? Eat a dick.

[Rollo Tomasi]

that's why I accepted your offer of 5-1 now you have lowered your offer to 3.5-1
BetCheck offered me 4-1, i'm still thinking about it but props to you b/c barry wouldn't give me 3-1, if i do it $200 is a friendly wager to make it fun, i'm not a gambler
tbh either way i hope it's over teusday i'm sick of all the email's, mailers and tv ads

You post 20 polls showing Romney ahead and now want 5 to 1? Eat a dick.

i'm not offering my position, i'm accepting their position that Nate Silver is the holy grail calling it 84-16 for Obama so their line should be 5-1 and you really are a nasty little prick barry

[Walter Sobchak]

only straight up bet for whomever is inaugurated in January

Not sure I can give 5-1 with zero protection for vote suppression and electronic voting machine shenanigans. If there really is a court case then it surely will end up in the Supreme Court and just like in 2000 when they stopped the recount that Gore would have won, they will 100% find a way to give it to the Republican even if they have to make the exact opposite ruling that they did in 2000. If you want a straight up on who is inaugurated only I may have to go down to 4-1. I will think about it, we still have a day or so.

[ShadyJ]

Nate Silver is a former Daily Kos far left wing blogger here is a
non-partisan prediction from a respected political analyist

"Michael Barone: Going out on a limb: Romney beats Obama, handily

November 2, 2012 | 4:58 pm

Fundamentals usually prevail in American elections. That's bad news for Barack Obama. True, Americans want to think well of their presidents and many think it would be bad if Americans were perceived as rejecting the first black president.

But it's also true that most voters oppose Obama's major policies and consider unsatisfactory the very sluggish economic recovery -- Friday's jobs report showed an unemployment uptick.

Also, both national and target state polls show that independents, voters who don't identify themselves as Democrats or Republicans, break for Romney.

That might not matter if Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 39 to 32 percent, as they did in the 2008 exit poll. But just about every indicator suggests that Republicans are more enthusiastic about voting -- and about their candidate -- than they were in 2008, and Democrats are less so.

That's been apparent in early or absentee voting, in which Democrats trail their 2008 numbers in target states Virginia, Ohio, Iowa and Nevada.

The Obama campaign strategy, from the beginning, has recognized these handicaps, running barrages of early anti-Romney ads in states that Obama carried narrowly. But other states, not so heavily barraged, have come into contention.

Which candidate will get the electoral votes of the target states? I'll go out on a limb and predict them, in ascending order of 2008 Obama percentages -- fully aware that I'm likely to get some wrong.

Indiana (11 electoral votes). Uncontested. Romney.

North Carolina (15 electoral votes). Obama has abandoned this target. Romney.

Florida (29). The biggest target state has trended Romney since the Denver debate. I don't see any segment of the electorate favoring Obama more than in 2008, and I see some (South Florida Jews) favoring him less. Romney.

Ohio (18). The anti-Romney auto bailout ads have Obama running well enough among blue-collar voters for him to lead most polls. But many polls anticipate a more Democratic electorate than in 2008. Early voting tells another story, and so does the registration decline in Cleveland's Cuyahoga County. In 2004, intensity among rural, small -town and evangelical voters, undetected by political reporters who don't mix in such circles, produced a narrow Bush victory. I see that happening again. Romney.

Virginia (13). Post-debate polling mildly favors Romney, and early voting is way down in heavily Democratic Arlington, Alexandria, Richmond and Norfolk. Northern Virginia Asians may trend Romney. Romney.

Colorado (9). Unlike 2008, registered Republicans outnumber registered Democrats, and more Republicans than Democrats have voted early. The Republican trend in 2010 was squandered by weak candidates for governor and senator. Not this time. Romney.

Iowa (6). The unexpected Romney endorsements by the Des Moines Register and three other newspapers gave voice to buyer's remorse in a state Obama carried by 10 points. Democrats' traditional margin in early voting has declined. Romney.

Minnesota (10). A surprise last-minute media buy for the Romney campaign. But probably a bridge too far. Obama.

New Hampshire (4). Polls are very tight here. I think superior Republican intensity will prevail. Romney.

Pennsylvania (20). Everyone would have picked Obama two weeks ago. I think higher turnout in pro-coal Western Pennsylvania and higher Republican percentages in the Philadelphia suburbs could produce a surprise. The Romney team evidently thinks so too. Their investment in TV time is too expensive to be a mere feint, and, as this is written, Romney is planning a Sunday event in Bucks County outside Philly. Wobbling on my limb, Romney.

Nevada (6). Democratic early-voting turnout is down from 2008 in Las Vegas' Clark County, 70 percent of the state. But the casino unions' turnout machine on Election Day re-elected an unpopular Harry Reid in 2010, and I think they'll get enough Latinos and Filipinos out this time. Obama.

Wisconsin (10). Recent polling is discouraging for Republicans. But Gov. Scott Walker handily survived the recall effort in June with a great organizational push. Democrats depend heavily on margins in inner-city Milwaukee (population down) and the Madison university community. But early voting is down in university towns in other states. The Obama campaign is prepared to turn out a big student vote, but you don't see many Obama signs on campuses. Romney.

Oregon (7), New Mexico (5), New Jersey (14). Uncontested. Obama.

Michigan (16). Romney chose Pennsylvania, where there's no auto bailout issue. Obama.

Bottom line: Romney 315, Obama 223. That sounds high for Romney. But he could drop Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and still win the election. Fundamentals."

Michael Barone,The Examiner's senior political analyst, can be contacted at mbarone@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Wednesday and Sunday, and his stories and blog posts appear on washingtonexaminer.com.

No chance Romney wins WI

[Gordman]

Nate Silver is a former Daily Kos far left wing blogger here is a
non-partisan prediction from a respected political analyist

"Michael Barone: Going out on a limb: Romney beats Obama, handily

November 2, 2012 | 4:58 pm

Fundamentals usually prevail in American elections. That's bad news for Barack Obama. True, Americans want to think well of their presidents and many think it would be bad if Americans were perceived as rejecting the first black president.

But it's also true that most voters oppose Obama's major policies and consider unsatisfactory the very sluggish economic recovery -- Friday's jobs report showed an unemployment uptick.

Also, both national and target state polls show that independents, voters who don't identify themselves as Democrats or Republicans, break for Romney.

That might not matter if Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 39 to 32 percent, as they did in the 2008 exit poll. But just about every indicator suggests that Republicans are more enthusiastic about voting -- and about their candidate -- than they were in 2008, and Democrats are less so.

That's been apparent in early or absentee voting, in which Democrats trail their 2008 numbers in target states Virginia, Ohio, Iowa and Nevada.

The Obama campaign strategy, from the beginning, has recognized these handicaps, running barrages of early anti-Romney ads in states that Obama carried narrowly. But other states, not so heavily barraged, have come into contention.

Which candidate will get the electoral votes of the target states? I'll go out on a limb and predict them, in ascending order of 2008 Obama percentages -- fully aware that I'm likely to get some wrong.

Indiana (11 electoral votes). Uncontested. Romney.

North Carolina (15 electoral votes). Obama has abandoned this target. Romney.

Florida (29). The biggest target state has trended Romney since the Denver debate. I don't see any segment of the electorate favoring Obama more than in 2008, and I see some (South Florida Jews) favoring him less. Romney.

Ohio (18). The anti-Romney auto bailout ads have Obama running well enough among blue-collar voters for him to lead most polls. But many polls anticipate a more Democratic electorate than in 2008. Early voting tells another story, and so does the registration decline in Cleveland's Cuyahoga County. In 2004, intensity among rural, small -town and evangelical voters, undetected by political reporters who don't mix in such circles, produced a narrow Bush victory. I see that happening again. Romney.

Virginia (13). Post-debate polling mildly favors Romney, and early voting is way down in heavily Democratic Arlington, Alexandria, Richmond and Norfolk. Northern Virginia Asians may trend Romney. Romney.

Colorado (9). Unlike 2008, registered Republicans outnumber registered Democrats, and more Republicans than Democrats have voted early. The Republican trend in 2010 was squandered by weak candidates for governor and senator. Not this time. Romney.

Iowa (6). The unexpected Romney endorsements by the Des Moines Register and three other newspapers gave voice to buyer's remorse in a state Obama carried by 10 points. Democrats' traditional margin in early voting has declined. Romney.

Minnesota (10). A surprise last-minute media buy for the Romney campaign. But probably a bridge too far. Obama.

New Hampshire (4). Polls are very tight here. I think superior Republican intensity will prevail. Romney.

Pennsylvania (20). Everyone would have picked Obama two weeks ago. I think higher turnout in pro-coal Western Pennsylvania and higher Republican percentages in the Philadelphia suburbs could produce a surprise. The Romney team evidently thinks so too. Their investment in TV time is too expensive to be a mere feint, and, as this is written, Romney is planning a Sunday event in Bucks County outside Philly. Wobbling on my limb, Romney.

Nevada (6). Democratic early-voting turnout is down from 2008 in Las Vegas' Clark County, 70 percent of the state. But the casino unions' turnout machine on Election Day re-elected an unpopular Harry Reid in 2010, and I think they'll get enough Latinos and Filipinos out this time. Obama.

Wisconsin (10). Recent polling is discouraging for Republicans. But Gov. Scott Walker handily survived the recall effort in June with a great organizational push. Democrats depend heavily on margins in inner-city Milwaukee (population down) and the Madison university community. But early voting is down in university towns in other states. The Obama campaign is prepared to turn out a big student vote, but you don't see many Obama signs on campuses. Romney.

Oregon (7), New Mexico (5), New Jersey (14). Uncontested. Obama.

Michigan (16). Romney chose Pennsylvania, where there's no auto bailout issue. Obama.

Bottom line: Romney 315, Obama 223. That sounds high for Romney. But he could drop Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and still win the election. Fundamentals."

Michael Barone,The Examiner's senior political analyst, can be contacted at mbarone@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Wednesday and Sunday, and his stories and blog posts appear on washingtonexaminer.com.

No chance Romney wins WI

Yes there is. If you know anything about what our state has been going through the last couple of years, im sure your opinion would be a little different (at least not saying "no chance"). I realize much had to do with the governors office, but at this point republicans are pretty energized, and they certainly showed it when they showed up on June 5th and gave Walker a win against his recall with an even bigger margin than his original election.

[Gordman]

There's a 20-30% chance that the Republicans will steal the election regardless of the vote.

So, is this going to be your excuse if Romney is elected?

and of course there is no chance that Democrats could steal the election, right?

[Gordman]

particularly when alot of their arguments have holes and are as biased as the people they are criticizing.

You never point out holes in my arguments. You just call me an asshole.

I don't bother pointing out holes in your arguments, because like many others do, you absolutely refuse to let go of your tunnelvision.

And I never called you an asshole.

[Walter Sobchak]

There's a 20-30% chance that the Republicans will steal the election regardless of the vote.

So, is this going to be your excuse if Romney is elected?

and of course there is no chance that Democrats could steal the election, right?

Is there evidence that the Democrats or their supporters have made any effort to steal the election or disenfranchise Republicans, similar to the evidence of Republicans doing this?