RealClear electoral vote map

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:11 pm

Sirius wrote:AFAIK Rasmussen only polls landlines (for the phone part of things, apparently) which may explain why they tend to skew Republican.

I wonder if that's because of the Obama Free phone thing, that Republicans weren't able to afford Cell phones

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Oct 03, 2012 5:00 am

Sirius wrote:AFAIK Rasmussen only polls landlines (for the phone part of things, apparently) which may explain why they tend to skew Republican.

precisely true. They undercount young people and urban professionals by a huge margin, and tend to skew GOP by around 4%. Now what CUDAs ranting about, I have no idea, but it smells like the usual 'Obama, bad, bad,bad' nonsense again. At least he used smileys.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Oct 03, 2012 5:28 am

OTOH, the other polls are using turnout numbers like in the 2008 election which skews numbers in Obama's favor. There are too many disillusioned Obama voters for that to happen.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:08 am

wrong, woody....Quinnipiac and Gallup do no such thing. They look at average turnouts over the past 4-6 cycles. Hence, the 2010 Tea Party turnout works in, as well

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:18 am

But the Major Network polls still use 2008 distribution percentages.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:57 am

The major network polls are garbage, unless the two groups I mentioned above, or one of a handful of smaller, localized operations are involved. This is an area I know pretty well, having crunched polling data for a few campaigns, including Obama's in 2008.
What you see, as an insider, is an array of data, including stats on likelyhood of turnout generated by both ground teams. Basically, for a lay person, IMHO, the best figures to look at are RealClear's rolling summaries and electoral projection maps.
They are such a compilation of so many sources, the errors and skews tend to even themselves out.

I am, on a related subject, truly leery of projections of landslides. Not due to accuracy, but what it does to down ticket results. Take, CUDA's homestate: I hate the thought that Oregonians, hearing that one or the other candidate has it sewn up by 8 pm EDT, don't bother to vote. It messes with the entire representative electoral process. I suppose one could argue that if folks really cared, they would vote, and if they don't care enough they don't matter, but the whole thing still makes me uneasy.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Wed Oct 03, 2012 9:02 am

callmeslick wrote:Now what CUDAs ranting about,

that's because you don't pay attention

should I post the Video of the Lady that says she's going to Vote for Obama because Obama gave her a free cell phone

Heretic · Post by **Heretic** » Wed Oct 03, 2012 1:16 pm

He is talking about this program which has been around awhile.

http://www.fcc.gov/lifeline

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Wed Oct 03, 2012 1:47 pm

the program pre-dates Obama, (Clinton I think) but the Video is where I was going into relationship the the Land lines

Sirius · Post by **Sirius** » Wed Oct 03, 2012 11:05 pm

I'm not completely sure of the reasons but suspect it's more age-related. Older demographics are less likely to have cellphones - perhaps because they don't feel they need one, or don't want one - and are also more likely to be conservative. Younger demographics usually do have cellphones (even if they can't really afford them, sigh) and use them exclusively - they often don't bother with landlines because they can use a cellphone instead. Younger voters are more likely to be liberal.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Oct 03, 2012 11:29 pm

I never answer my cell, unless I know the caller.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:39 am

callmeslick wrote:man, are you delusional, Woody. Try looking at the makeup of the early voting turnouts......

heck, though, Romney still has a chance. If all else fails, just cheat:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49227596/ns ... ork_times/

Well comrade Slick, it looks like the Dems are not exactly pristine. This involves the Democratic party itself though:

"TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) _ Florida authorities are reviewing allegations of voter registration fraud leveled against the Florida Democratic Party just days before the deadline to register new voters.

The Florida Department of State on Friday confirmed that it has forwarded complaints about voter registration fraud that have been filed against the Democrats, as well as two other groups _ the Florida New Majority Education Fund and the National Council of La Raza/Democracia USA. "

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:44 pm

Florida's Dept of State having issues with minorities registering to vote is a long standing matter. Not sure myself if the criminals aren't in the Secretary of State's offices.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am

No, the criminals are in the Democratic party.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:10 am

certain about that?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:22 am

And you have doubts?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 6:47 am

callmeslick wrote:always a useful link, and has proven very accurate since 2000.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... e_map.html

5 Electoral votes away from 270!!!

Well it seems a whole bunch has changed. Now Obama is 69 votes away. Still think your horse is a shoe in?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... e_map.html

vision · Post by **vision** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:46 pm

woodchip wrote:Well it seems a whole bunch has changed. Now Obama is 69 votes away. Still think your horse is a shoe in?

Not changed a whole lot actually. Take a look at the Electoral Spread. It's been Obama on top for the whole year, with some fluctuations. There was a similar narrow spread on February 3rd (church contraception, Afghanistan, Iran Sanctions). But if I were to take all the data and draw a trend line toward November 6th, I'd say that Obama still wins. This is just from looking at data over time, not my opinion, not that I even care who wins really. They both suck as far as I'm concerned.

You can't look at a single peak or valley and draw a conclusion. That's a data interpretation error.

EDIT: There are other options on that map. One version without toss-ups paints a pretty bleak picture for Romney/Ryan.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:27 pm

Or you can try this out for size:

"DENVER — A University of Colorado economic model that has correctly predicted the last eight presidential elections shows Mitt Romney emerging as the victor in 2012."

vision · Post by **vision** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:24 pm

woodchip wrote:"DENVER — A University of Colorado economic model that has correctly predicted the last eight presidential elections shows Mitt Romney emerging as the victor in 2012."

Neat. Is there a link or something you can direct us to? I'm sure there are many different ways to predict the outcome of the election, some better than others. That's the whole point of this thread, RCP's track record. But ultimately, no one knows.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:10 pm

This Guys opinion whether you agree with them or not. I'm sure some of you will say what a crock of ★■◆●, but he brings up some interesting observations

Wayne Allyn Root is a capitalist evangelist and serial entrepreneur. He is a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee. He now serves as chairman of the Libertarian National Campaign Committee.

"There are several specific reasons I predict a comfortable Romney victory on election day:

The news media is ignoring signs of mass revulsion towards President Obama. In the West Virginia Democrat primary, a felon got 40% of the vote versus Obama. In deep blue Massachusetts and Connecticut, GOP Senate candidates are even, or leading in recent polls. In pro-union Wisconsin, Walker won by a country mile. But worst of all for Mr. Obama, several recent polls show Romney competitive in Illinois -- Obama’s home state. Romney is actually winning by a landslide in the suburbs of Obama’s Chicago. Even in Cook County, the country’s biggest Democratic stronghold, Romney leads by double digits among independents (43-31) and white voters (53-40). These are very bad signs for Obama.

In 2008 Democrats overwhelmingly controlled the majority of governorships. Today Republicans control the majority of Governorships. Presidential elections are always steered in each state by the governor -- the most powerful force in state politics.

After the 2010 census, electoral votes were added to states that lean Republican in elections: Texas, Florida, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, South Carolina, and Utah. Deep blue Democrat states like New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Massachusetts lost electoral votes. That brings up an interesting point. Why is everyone running away from these ultra liberal, high tax states in the first place? Isn’t that alone proof of the failure of Democrat ideas?

Next, follow the money trail. Yes, Obama is raising plenty of money, although there is now a major question about whether it's coming from illegal foreign contributors. But forget all that. What matters is that in 2008 Obama overwhelmed McCain by out-spending him 10 to 1 down the stretch. That won’t happen in 2012. Romney is even, or can out-spend Obama, in the last 2 weeks of the election. That makes a huge difference in the outcome.

Christians will turn out in record numbers this year. Obama has offended Christians again and again. Last election 20 million evangelical Christians did not vote. They will turn out in record numbers in 2012 to defeat the most anti-Christian President in US history. How motivated are Christians? Did you see the long lines around the country to support Chick-fil-A this summer? You’ll see those same lines on election day.

Voter rolls have been purged in 2012 of felons and illegals in many states -- particularly Florida and Ohio. Turnout of Democrats will be nothing like 2008.

Which brings up another important question. What kind of political party relies on felons and people illegally in the country to win elections?

The “Enthusiasm Factor” for Romney is huge. Conservatives are focused, intense, motivated, and enthusiastic. Democrats turned out for Obama in record numbers in 2008. Today they are demoralized. A big edge goes to Romney on Election Day as conservatives, white voters, middle class voters and independents turn out in record numbers for Romney.

I know several people who voted for Obama in 2008, but never again. Does anyone know a McCain voter who will vote for Obama in 2012? There are none.

Finally, history proves that a majority of undecided voters break for the challenger. Romney will take most of the undecided voters on election day -- just like Reagan did versus Jimmy Carter in 1980. Romney’s fantastic debate performance gave them confidence to choose the challenger.

This is Carter/Reagan all over again. The same horrible economy. The same economically ignorant fool in the White House bringing misery to Americans. The same economic collapse under the weight of socialist, pro union, soak the rich, demonize the business owners, policies.

I predict the same result on election day. Mitt Romney in a landslide.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:26 pm

CUDA wrote:
Sirius wrote:AFAIK Rasmussen only polls landlines (for the phone part of things, apparently) which may explain why they tend to skew Republican.
I wonder if that's because of the Obama Free phone thing, that Republicans weren't able to afford Cell phones

Uh huh. I'm on a landline and it's NOT free. Oregon has a "Do Not Call" registry. I'm on that list. Guess who's violating that list and ruining my dinners to spread robo BS and FUD questioning my and other voter's registration status (it's active)? Why, surprise, surprise, a damn voter suppressing, law violating Republican.

The call basically said this:

robo speaker wrote: "one or more people at this address will not be receiving a mail-in ballot for the upcoming election because they were listed as inactive."

Oh CUDA, a comment on Wayne Root. Capitalist Evangelist. There's an oxymoron if I've ever heard of one. Take care of the rich, to hell with the poor. So does he worship Jesus, or money?

And Romney is NOT going to have a "comfortable" victory. The polls are evenly split. If he wins, it will be by the skin of his offshoring, outsourcing teeth.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:56 pm

vision wrote:
woodchip wrote:"DENVER — A University of Colorado economic model that has correctly predicted the last eight presidential elections shows Mitt Romney emerging as the victor in 2012."
Neat. Is there a link or something you can direct us to? I'm sure there are many different ways to predict the outcome of the election, some better than others. That's the whole point of this thread, RCP's track record. But ultimately, no one knows.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/ins ... -november/

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 6:53 pm

Yeah TC, IIRC political parties and campaigns are allowed to bypass do-not-call.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:17 pm

Krom wrote:Yeah TC, IIRC political parties and campaigns are allowed to bypass do-not-call.

I know that. I was just griping because some political ★■◆● from a party I've come to loathe even more than the other, was abusing their loophole in an attempt to suppress my vote, on my time. And they couldn't even have the common courtesy to actually do it themselves, with their own voice. They had to hide behind a robo voice. If my fist could have traveled through the phone...............

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:53 pm

We've been ignoring every 800 or 202 number showing up on the caller ID for a few months now. By this point, I'm strongly considering picking up on one of them and cursing out the poor sap on the other end.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 10:01 pm

Yeah, I'm getting those plus some 600ish area codes. But, you can't curse out a robot, so there's no fun in that. Worse, they don't hang up for 30 seconds either. There needs to be a law........oh, wait, there kinda is, err sorta.

What I'd like to see is a law that says any business or political party/candidate or charity has to have a legitimate caller ID that matches who they are and who they do business as. None of this unknown caller or private caller crap. Or am I having pipe dreams?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 12:59 am

Top Gun wrote:We've been ignoring every 800 or 202 number showing up on the caller ID for a few months now. By this point, I'm strongly considering picking up on one of them and cursing out the poor sap on the other end.

I've done that. It feels good and they leave you alone for a long time.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:17 am

tunnelcat wrote:What I'd like to see is a law that says any business or political party/candidate or charity has to have a legitimate caller ID that matches who they are and who they do business as. None of this unknown caller or private caller crap. Or am I having pipe dreams?

That would be fantastic, though that's precisely why it'll never happen.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:33 pm

Ferno wrote:
Top Gun wrote:We've been ignoring every 800 or 202 number showing up on the caller ID for a few months now. By this point, I'm strongly considering picking up on one of them and cursing out the poor sap on the other end.
I've done that. It feels good and they leave you alone for a long time.

Ever have anybody start calling you back over and over harassing you after doing that?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:19 am

tunnelcat wrote:
Ferno wrote:
Top Gun wrote:We've been ignoring every 800 or 202 number showing up on the caller ID for a few months now. By this point, I'm strongly considering picking up on one of them and cursing out the poor sap on the other end.
I've done that. It feels good and they leave you alone for a long time.
Ever have anybody start calling you back over and over harassing you after doing that?

Ever try blasting a high pitch squealing sound into the mouth piece when they do

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:30 pm

Hmmm. I could use my portable marine air horn. That will make their ears ring.

Does absolutely nothin' for robo calls however. I need some kind of sound code that I could transmit that would eff up their system royally.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:33 pm

We have a community blocking list on our voip phone that fakes the "this number has been disconnected" tone and message to confirmed robot/marketing/id theft/etc callers. It works automatically and silently so the phone never even rings when they try to call.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:44 pm

Since I'm still on a landline, all I have as an option is to program my Northern Telecom phone to not ring on numbers I don't recognize, but it's a hassle to keep up with people I do business with. Because my phone has a voice that announces the number, I can hear it in the other rooms of the house and I just ignore any number that I don't recognize as legit. If they start calling late in night, I disconnect the phone altogether until morning.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:04 pm

Whenever I get around to living on my own, I think I'm going to tell everyone I know to stick to using e-mail or Facebook for everyday stuff, and only use my phone for times when they need to reach me right away. It's better than feeling like Pavlov's dog every time the damn thing rings.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:08 pm

I give people one of my email addresses (for spam), not my phone number.

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:30 pm

I still can't figure out why Christians think Romney is a Christian. Mormons are a "christian" cult.

If you were to go to any Christian bookstore and look in the non-Christian cult section you will see numerous books on Mormonism that document Mormon beliefs as aberrant and un-Biblical. The Mormon Church is not considered a Christian church.

Jesus warned us about such groups when he said in Matthew 24:24 that in the last days many false christs and false prophets will arise and deceive many. Mormonism is exactly that, a manifestation of a false prophet: Joseph Smith, who taught all these things.

The Bible does not teach that God came from another planet, or that he has a goddess wife, or that we can become gods. In fact, the Bible clearly and definitely contradicts those teachings. But, the Mormon Church responds by saying that the Bible is not really trustworthy, that the true faith was lost, and that its leader, Joseph Smith, restored the so-called "true" Christian faith: god from another world, becoming gods, goddess mother, etc

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:00 pm

Honestly, I don't care what people do or don't label Mormonism; Romney's faith plays absolutely no role in my opinion of him.

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:10 pm

Nor mine, what I'm afraid of is how his faith affects his opinion of me. Christian faith encourages people to include as many people as possible, Mormon's are separatists and elitists.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:18 pm

I might say that his social status would be causing that more than his religion.