StrangeSox

I don't know why but not getting basic statistical methodology does seem to be a button for me!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 07:11 PM) I love watching you Mitt back and forth on topics. I really hope you're just trolling here and not this uniformed about basic stats.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 07:08 PM) Indianapolis is already has reports in. South Carolina had Obama ahead with a few percent in. It would be dumb to extrapolate anything from that because it isn't a random sample.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 06:59 PM) Weren't you the one defending small samples earlier? Seriously this is completely non-controversial basic statistics. It doesn't require "defending" any more than the concept of division does.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 07:03 PM) OK Mitt. random sample is stats 101, Dick Morris. Imagine if urban Indianapolis was the first 1% reporting. Obama would be killing it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 06:59 PM) Weren't you the one defending small samples earlier? individual precinct results aren't representative random samples

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 06:49 PM) If that is the case, Pence and Mourdock are probably winners as well. That is a much wider margin than was being talked about before. That was 60% of the 1%

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 05:05 PM) And wasn't he doing really well with women? I don't think so? But i could be wrong.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 05:04 PM) No, it's absolutely pandering. Romney's immigration plan isn't to kick every illegal out as soon as we find them. It's a pretty moderate position. But anything less than full amnesty is "demonizing" them apparently, because democrats have been great at making people associate any conservative with Sheriff Joe. This is why the GOP sucks. They don't combat this crap from liberals because of a fear of looking like mean oppressors. There's a tactful way of responding to "we don't want full amnesty and it's not because we want children who are victims of their parents crimes to die on the streets." But, they don't, because they think its' easier to pander to more white people about how the gays and fetus killing mobs are going to ruin the world. Again, lose those battles and think of the long-term war. "self-deportation" Arizona id laws Georgia's harsh laws Opposition to the dream act "language of the ghetto" "English-only"/official national language

If by "pandering" you mean "not demonizing immigrants" then... But the Republicans really do have a demographic problem. For Mitt to win, he has to have huge margins with white males. Republican policies, rightly or wrongly, have alienated most others from the party.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 04:50 PM) That may be true, but I think their strategy is defective. Id need to see some evidence that showed that somehow telling people its going to be a landslide increased voting in their favor. That to me just goes against all common sense. For example, Obama is going to win IL. Many Obama voters are indifferent on voting because their vote doesnt matter. They dont go out and vote just to say they voted. For Romney to win, the state polls need to be seriously off. They need to be systematically biased in Obama's favor, and if that's true in Ohio, it's true in NV, PA, WI etc. That would be Romney landslide territory. I don't think optimistic projections for your candidate are really going to damage your reputation as a campaign strategist down the road. The "landslide" victory still requires winning a bunch of tight races in numerous states.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 04:36 PM) Interesting that over the last week or so more have become "toss-ups," at least according to realclearpolitics. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...ollege_map.html Still Obama with the 1-3% lead in most of those. I'd be surprised if Romney won, but I don't think it would be unheard of. There's a lot of close states and if more people than expected show up he could easily win a few of those big states. One state moved to "toss-up" since 10/11, when a handful did after the first debate. Obama's recovered in most of those states (e.g. Michigan is +4.0) but they've left them at "toss-up" for some reason.

poll closing times: 7:00 est Georgia Indiana Kentucky South Carolina Vermont Virginia 7:30 est North Carolina Ohio West Virginia 8:00 est Alabama Connecticut Delaware Florida Illinois Maine Maryland Massachusetts Mississippi Missouri New Hampshire New Jersey Oklahoma Pennsylvania Rhode Island Tennessee Washington, DC 8:30 est Arkansas 9:00 est Arizona Colorado Kansas Louisiana Michigan Minnesota Nebraska New Mexico New York South Dakota Texas Wisconsin Wyoming 10:00 est Iowa Montana Nevada Utah 11:00 est California Hawaii Idaho North Dakota Oregon Washington 1:00 est Alaska

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 04:28 PM) Two of those have Obama winning Florida. That's not a foregone conclusion at this point is it? No, but they're all "no toss-ups" versions so they gotta go to someone. Obama can lose Florida and still have multiple paths to 271, though, as shown by the RCP (upper-right) projection. Personally, I'd be a little surprised if Obama wins Florida.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 04:27 PM) That absolutely has to be the worst election in my memory. Truly horrendous. It'll be hard to ever top that.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 04:16 PM) Have to agree, that is just stupid. Like Don't Ask Don't Tell for voters. HAVE YOUR ID READY (but you don't need it)

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 03:40 PM) Why even allow a sign like this in PA? It's only going to add confusion. The State of PA itself was sending out flyers with false information saying that an ID was required to vote, as well. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/...day.php?ref=fpb Why allow them to ask for ID if it isn't required? This was only ever going to lead to problems and solves nothing.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 04:05 PM) No one knows for sure. In my opinion indications are Obama will win. But the hubris from Romney's team gives me pause. What candidate ever goes into an election saying "We're doomed! DOOMED!!!"

QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 04:02 PM) Who is winning? As of yesterday I heard on the shows that Romney would win in a landslide; Obama would win in a landslide and Obama would win narrowly. Only scenario I did not hear was Romney would win narrowly. The polling analysts/aggregators show a strong likelihood of an Obama win.

I didn't know if I was going to vote for Obama or Jill Stein.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 03:38 PM) But Karl Rove's theory is that people like to vote for the winner, so acting like you are going to win will bring in some undecideds. Which is why they're pretending they have a strong chance in PA.

Why even allow a sign like this in PA? It's only going to add confusion. The State of PA itself was sending out flyers with false information saying that an ID was required to vote, as well.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 03:26 PM) They think he has a good chance in PA. That'd help a lot, especially if he can pull in Florida and maybe Ohio/Michigan. They've been saying all along that their internal polling is more favorable for him. I dunno how to take that really. If I were a campaign manager, I wouldn't fudge the numbers positively, I'd be more negative. "Voters, we're going to lose unless you get to the polls!" If the Romney campaign was running on the public polls straight-up, they'd be talking about being a long-shot. Not exactly an enthusiastic message compared to his "expanding the map" smokescreen. Claiming that they're competitive in PA might motivate more Republicans to vote instead of assuming the state is a lost cause.

Chicago woman votes while going into labor

The Argonne security team has a couple of pieces on election security: http://www.ne.anl.gov/capabilities/vat/election-security/