The Republican Thread

[mr_genius]

Unless she asks Romney a loaded question ("Gov. Romney, the woman you killed from taking away her husband's job, and her healthcare along with it - how did that make you feel as you swam in your cash pool?") I think the moderators could be Joe Biden/Paul Ryan and it wouldn't matter. They're too good (or bad?) at bringing up their talking points in their answers.

 

A biased moderator can play a huge roll in the outcome. They can cherry pick questions or challenge one of the candidates while supporting another. 2 vs 1 scenario.

[StrangeSox]

There is no greater influence than having attended a wedding 21 years ago for two people who divorced 15 years ago. But it's always nice to see the Tucker Carlson Vanity Project continue to embarrass itself.

[Jenksismyhero]

A biased moderator can play a huge roll in the outcome. They can cherry pick questions or challenge one of the candidates while supporting another. 2 vs 1 scenario.

 

But most of the the time the moderator is basically ignored and for sure the questions are normally ignored. The first debate was like that.

[StrangeSox]

But most of the the time the moderator is basically ignored and for sure the questions are normally ignored. The first debate was like that.

 

Lehrer should have started cutting their mics. Or, alternatively, not asked dumb questions like "what are your differences on government?"

[Jenksismyhero]

Lehrer should have started cutting their mics. Or, alternatively, not asked dumb questions like "what are your differences on government?"

 

And that's why these debates are so worthless. They never get into any detail ("if given intel that Iran had a nuclear weapon, what would you do, and be specific") so the answers are never in detail. Then it just becomes who can praise policeman/fireman/teachers, criticize wall street/rich people, and promise better education, health and defense against terrorism with the best catch phrase.

 

Edit: Oh, and who can thank and ask God to bless America without seeming too religious (or not religious enough).

Edited October 11, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[mr_genius]

There is no greater influence than having attended a wedding 21 years ago for two people who divorced 15 years ago.

 

they are long time Obama friends. Obama even handed out a luxurious government job to one of them.

 

Paul Ryan just needs to get a few zingers ready for the corrupt moderator if she decides to do what everyone thinks she will do. he needs to be ready for an extremely biased moderator.

[mr_genius]

And that's why these debates are so worthless.

 

Compared to what? campaign ads or lame stump speeches. It's all worthless if you take that view.

[mr_genius]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election...ama-romney.aspx

 

Romney lead grows

[BigSqwert]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election...ama-romney.aspx

 

Romney lead grows

I was told by watching Fox News recently that polls should not be trusted.

[GoodAsGould]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election...ama-romney.aspx

 

Romney lead grows

 

Everything I have seen prior to this link had Obama leading and I bet I can find a polls that have as many if not more with Obama leading. Such a silly comment.

[mr_genius]

Everything I have seen prior to this link had Obama leading and I bet I can find a polls that have as many if not more with Obama leading. Such a silly comment.

 

Just posting some information to our high knowledge readers. You can simply ignore it.

[mr_genius]

you definitely don't want to read this poll, GoodAsGould

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election...ama-romney.aspx

 

Romney up 7, past the margin of error...

[GoodAsGould]

you definitely don't want to read this poll, GoodAsGould

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election...ama-romney.aspx

 

Romney up 7, past the margin of error...

 

I could be reading it wrong but that poll is made up of only sample size of 3000? That seems pretty insignificant.

[southsider2k5]

I could be reading it wrong but that poll is made up of only sample size of 3000? That seems pretty insignificant.

 

With a two percent margin of error, the sample size seems to be significant enough.

[GoodAsGould]

With a two percent margin of error, the sample size seems to be significant enough.

 

I guess I haven't done much research on polls it just seems small number of people for state elections to make a poll out of let alone for presidential.

[Jake]

3000 is large enough, provided the sampling is done well.

[mr_genius]

I guess I haven't done much research on polls it just seems small number of people for state elections to make a poll out of let alone for presidential.

 

http://www.ncpp.org/?q=node/6

[Jake]

http://www.ncpp.org/?q=node/6

 

That's a very good and concise explanation.

[Jake]

On this specific poll: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2...rld/#more-36284

 

The Gallup poll is accounted for in the forecast model, along with all other state and national surveys.

 

However, its results are deeply inconsistent with the results that other polling firms are showing in the presidential race, and the Gallup poll has a history of performing very poorly when that is the case.

 

. . .

 

Gallup Performs Poorly When Out of Consensus

 

Usually, when a poll is an outlier relative to the consensus, its results turn out badly.

 

You do not need to look any further than Gallup’s track record over the past two election cycles to find a demonstration of this.

 

In 2008, the Gallup poll put Mr. Obama 11 points ahead of John McCain on the eve of that November’s election.

 

That was tied for Mr. Obama’s largest projected margin of victory among any of the 15 or so national polls that were released just in advance of the election. The average of polls put Mr. Obama up by about seven points.

 

The average did a good job; Mr. Obama won the popular vote by seven points. The Gallup poll had a four-point miss, however.

 

In 2010, Gallup put Republicans ahead by 15 points on the national Congressional ballot, higher than other polling firms, which put Republicans an average of eight or nine points ahead instead.

 

In fact, Republicans won the popular vote for the United States House by about seven percentage points — fairly close to the average of polls, but representing another big miss for Gallup.

 

Apart from Gallup’s final poll not having been especially accurate in recent years, it has often been a wild ride to get there. Their polls, for whatever reason, have often found implausibly large swings in the race.

 

In 2000, for example, Gallup had George W. Bush 16 points ahead among likely voters in polling it conducted in early August. By Sept. 20, about six weeks later, they had Al Gore up by 10 points instead: a 26-point swing toward Mr. Gore over the course of a month and a half. No other polling firm showed a swing remotely that large.

 

Then in October 2000, Gallup showed a 14-point swing toward Mr. Bush over the course of a few days, and had him ahead by 13 points on Oct. 27 — just 10 days before an election that ended in a virtual tie.

 

In 1996, Gallup had Bill Clinton’s margin over Bob Dole increasing to 25 points from nine points over the course of four days.

 

After the Republican convention in 2008, Gallup had John McCain leading Mr. Obama by as many as 10 points among likely voters. Although some other polls also had Mr. McCain pulling ahead in the race, no other polling firm ever gave him larger than a four-point lead.

 

It’s not clear what causes such large swings, although Gallup’s likely voter model may have something to do with it.

 

Even its registered voter numbers can be volatile, however. In early September of this year, after the Democratic convention, Gallup had Mr. Obama’s lead among registered voters going from seven points to zero points over the course of a week — and then reverting to six points just as quickly. Most other polling firms showed a roughly steady race during this time period.

 

Because Gallup’s polls usually take large sample sizes, statistical variance alone probably cannot account these sorts of shifts. It seems to be an endemic issue with their methodology.

 

To be clear, I would not recommend that you literally just disregard the Gallup poll. You should consider it — but consider it in context.

 

The context is that its most recent results differ substantially from the dozens of other state and national polls about the campaign. It’s much more likely that Gallup is wrong and everyone else is right than the other way around.

 

There are a few statements in the excerpted sections that are cited via link on the actual site. There is also a section detailing exactly how the 538 system (which is regarded by most as the most accurate aggregator and thus most accurate predictor of election results) uses Gallup in its calculations.

[mr_genius]

yea, it appears to be an outlier.

[StrangeSox]

3000 is actually a pretty large sample for a national poll, statistically speaking.

[mr_genius]

http://www.rgj.com/article/20121020/NEWS19...nter-stage-Reno

 

Sandra Fluke, the woman at the center of a media firestorm earlier this year after Rush Limbaugh called her a “slut,” spoke Saturday in front of about 10 people at the Sak ‘N Save in north Reno.

 

looks like her 15 minutes of fame are up.

[mr_genius]

[juddling]

http://www.rgj.com/article/20121020/NEWS19...nter-stage-Reno

 

 

 

looks like her 15 minutes of fame are up.

maybe she can still scrape up donations for her birth control.......

[StrangeSox]

lol ramirez does a good job of leaving out the sept 12th rose garden speech in there