Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Bet it all on the election (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Bet it all on the election
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Most likely it will be a narrow Obama victory. Romney is definately an underdog but could still win. We could also get a repeat of 2000 where in a week we still won't know the outcome.
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Getting back to the original purpose of this thread:

President: Obama, 51%, 279 EVs

Ohio: Obama, 52%
Florida: Romney, 51%
Wisconsin: Obama, 52%
Pennsylvania: Obama, 54%
Nevada: Obama, 52%
Virginia: Romney, 52%
Colorado: Romney, 51%

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Obama 303 Romney 235.

Obama wins:
Ohio
Virginia
Nevada
Colorado
Wisconsin
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Pennsylvania
New Hampshire

Romney Wins:
Florida
North Carolina

I am basically betting on the most probable outcomes that Nate Silver is predicting. I figure his model is better than my guesses.

Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TCB
Member
Member # 1677

 - posted      Profile for TCB         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have a long-standing tradition of wishy-washy predictions, and I intend to keep it up. [Smile]

Polling is getting less and less reliable. These days fewer than 10% of people pick up their phones when a pollster calls. With that kind of self selection (Who's picking up their phones? Older people without caller ID? Unemployed people who spend most of the day at home?), pollsters have to put more and more weight on their turnout models, making polling more and more like an educated guess. Hence the discrepancy between the Republican insider polling on one hand and the Democratic insider and public polling on the other.

I trust the public polling the most because it has virtues:
1) While polling is becoming less reliable, public pollsters have more of an incentive to get it right than insiders do. Public pollsters' reputations depend on painting an accurate forecast of the election. They'll hear abuse for months if they get it wrong and Romney wins. Insider pollsters certainly have the incentive to get it right, but they also have contradictory ones, first among them keeping up the spirits of campaign contributors and workers.
2) Even if pollsters make bad baseline assumptions, they can pick out trends. Every poll picked up at least some of Obama's convention bounce and Romney's debate bounce. And most polls have slightly shifted toward Obama in the last week.

So given that, I think Obama is the slight favorite. But there's enough uncertainty in the polls that I wouldn't be shocked if Romney won, either.

Posts: 824 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One interesting tidbit is that automated pollsters are (supposedly) restricted to using land lines, but some people (mostly younger) don't have land lines. People pollsters have access to cell phone numbers, as well. This has been used to explain the sometimes significant difference in results between polls done on the same day in the same state. If this is true it means that younger people are not being represented in all polls and we need to know which ones reach them.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The final CNN/ORC poll just came out (at least I think it's the final) and it has a it a tie. But to get to that tie, it had to weight it D41/R30/I29. Democrats with a 11 point advantage? Given all the hype on voter enthusiasm, does anyone believe that? I sure don't. Rasmussen polling shows Republicans with a 5.8% advantage on election day. Not sure I believe that either but it's a lot more believable than D+11.

If they gotta work that hard to generate the belief of a tie, I think Mitt may actually win this thing. I'm gonna throw out, based on nothing more than a total WAG, Romney 295 Obama 243.

[ November 05, 2012, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: G3 ]

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But to get to that tie, it had to weight it D41/R30/I29.
No, they didn't choose to weight it that way, that was the distribution of the respondents to the poll. Any weighting they applied would have been to correct from that distribution toward one that matches their general likely voter model.

quote:
Registered voters were asked questions about their likelihood of voting, past voting behavior, and interest in the campaign; based
on answers to those questions, 693 respondents were classified as likely voters. Respondents who reported that they had already
cast an absentee ballot or voted early were automatically classified as likely voters. Among those likely voters, 41% described
themselves as Democrats, 29% described themselves as Independents, and 30% described themselves as Republicans.


Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In other words, you believe the D+11 breakdown is truly representative then? We really will see a gap of 11 points tomorrow? Check this too.

[ November 05, 2012, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: G3 ]

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The big question is why fewer people are self reporting as Republicans in so many polls.

1. It could be those who self-identify as Republican are systemically less chosen in the random sampling, to a greater degree than in the past.

2. It could be that those who would self-identify as Republicans do not answer the polls to a higher degree than Democrats and more so than in recent elections, and that the polling models haven't picked up the trend.

3. It could be that those who tend to vote Republican are for whatever reason less likely in this cycle to self-identify as Republican than in the past, rather self-reporting as independent.

4. Or possibly there are fewer people who consider themselves Republican or who will tend to vote Republican.

My bet is on #3 being the major factor.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
The big question is why fewer people are self reporting as Republicans in so many polls.

1. It could be those who self-identify as Republican are systemically less chosen in the random sampling, to a greater degree than in the past.

2. It could be that those who would self-identify as Republicans do not answer the polls to a higher degree than Democrats and more so than in recent elections, and that the polling models haven't picked up the trend.

3. It could be that those who tend to vote Republican are for whatever reason less likely in this cycle to self-identify as Republican than in the past, rather self-reporting as independent.

4. Or possibly there are fewer people who consider themselves Republican or who will tend to vote Republican.

My bet is on #3 being the major factor.

Why do you think Republicans are less likely to self-identify as Republican?

[ November 05, 2012, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: G3 ]

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It would seem to be the least unlikely of the options (there may be other options that I neglected that might seem more likely). I believe your question related to why this time around, there are measurably fewer Republican respondents)

1. The likelihood of the random sampling changing in such a way as to be more statistically biased against Republicans this time around seems really unlikely.

2. Changing the habits of a whole subsection of the population based on what is probably a completely independent variable (poll answering as a function of Republican self-identification) seems somewhat unlikely.

3. Self-identification could change for some unnamed reason over a short period of time. Obviously, figuring out why would require some serious analysis, but this seems at least plausible as there are many variables that do affect Republicans as a group and could reasonably affect their desire to self-identify (i.e., not be completely independent variables). For instance, do Tea Party members as uniformly self-identify as Republicans as they did 2 or 4 years ago? Do those who are Republicans but do not agree with the Tea Party positions self-identify as Republican as they did 2 or 4 years ago? Are those who vote Republican more likely in a post Tea Party world to consider themselves as independent/small 'l' libertarian?

4. There is not the same trend towards 'not voting Republican' so this isn't born out by the polls whatsoever.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
3. Self-identification could change for some unnamed reason over a short period of time. Obviously, figuring out why would require some serious analysis, but this seems at least plausible as there are many variables that do affect Republicans as a group and could reasonably affect their desire to self-identify (i.e., not be completely independent variables). For instance, do Tea Party members as uniformly self-identify as Republicans as they did 2 or 4 years ago? Do those who are Republicans but do not agree with the Tea Party positions self-identify as Republican as they did 2 or 4 years ago? Are those who vote Republican more likely in a post Tea Party world to consider themselves as independent/small 'l' libertarian?

I think this "unnamed reason" or reasons is the real reason.

First, Republicans were the home of conservatives but that's obviously changed (it's now the home of liberalism lite). Many conservatives have come to the relaization that the Republican party no longer represents them. Consequently, they identify as independent (or Tea Party) although they will vote Republican if the only choice ir Republican or Democrat - and it is.

Second, it's not exactly safe to identify yourself as Republican:
quote:
Chris Matthews argued that if you disagree with president Obama it is because you are a racist. Bill Maher, suggested that if president Obama loses this election that black people know where Republicans are and will exact their vengeance. Unfortunately, he is by no means the only person to suggest that black people will riot if president Obama loses. Twitter has many posts where Obama supporters are threatening to riot if Mitt Romney is elected.
If you're a Republican, it's smart to keep your profile as low as possible; otherwise you may become a target.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, we - gasp - agree?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I dunno. G3 said that many Republicans are paranoid and cowards. Was that your point, Donald? [Wink] [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D Pace
Member
Member # 1493

 - posted      Profile for D Pace   Email D Pace       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm going to predict a surprisingly decisive Obama electoral victory on the basis that the "fog of election" has created the illusion of tight race that does not exist. This represents my gut response to the polls of pollsters of polls, and the odd disparity between state polls and national polls, indicating that something is just queer in the polling. By definition some block of the polling is going to be completely wrong.


On the other hand I will not be surprised if we have a 2000 redux with recount and absentee ballot issues in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. (I do not predict this. I simply will not be surprised, however.)

Posts: 376 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
I dunno. G3 said that many Republicans are paranoid and cowards. Was that your point, Donald? [Wink] [Smile]

See, that's why, perfectly demonstrated. These types of personal attacks are what passes for witty intellectual discourse from the left - watch any MSNBC show, I'm sure Wayward Son finds his comment a real knee slapper and the vast majority of liberals here approve of it. I suspect more than a few Republicans choose to avoid it if possible and not advertising their political affiliation is one way to do it. The progression of this type of "humor" has historical precedent ...
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, I was was somewhat enjoying our unusually neutral exchange... and yes G3, you do have a point about Wayward's response.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry, G3. I just extrapolated from your contention.

Republicans have no more to fear from Democrats than Democrats from Republicans. Which means that there is a small danger, but one which most people can ignore. Hence, paranoia.

And the fact that some people might not want to identify their party affiliation to a phone-based poll based on such a small danger strikes me as cowardice, even if they felt the danger was larger than what it is.

I realize that was not the point you intended to make. But logic warrants that conclusion.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't want to jinx it.

All I'm going to say is Reagan-Mondale...

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure that I, if I lived in the USA, would feel particularly comfortable divulging personal political information to someone who just randomly called me up either.

The political climate in the USA is septic.

Not to mention that there is a real risk of caging and other political shenanigans once the wrong party get's ahold of your political inclinations. Maybe not physical violence...

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
...and yes G3, you do have a point about Wayward's response.
Well, perhaps. But G3's contention necessitates that Republicans feel threaten by the Democrats, far more than Democrats feel threatened by Republicans. I would further guess that G3 believes such fear is fully justified, based on some thread or another that he previously participated in, talking about how very, very violent liberals are (and thus necessitating Republicans to arm themselves). I believe that is what he is trying to imply from Obama's remark about voters "seeking revenge." The Left is dangerous.

I don't see such an implication justified in the least, so I countered with my own implication, my own spin on his spin. [Smile]

G3 likes to talk about how tough he is, how he will willingly take abuse and laugh about it. But, of course, when someone in the opposition responds in kind, then it's all "look how nasty Liberals are! They pick on us poor Conservatives all the time! Is it any wonder we think they are scum? We are just poor, innocent victims!" [Roll Eyes]

Perhaps I am being overly sensitive, and I am doing G3 wrong. I apologize if I am, G3--if you don't believe liberals are any more dangerous than conservatives, and you were not trying to imply that with your post.

Of course, if you do believe that and were trying to imply that with your post, well, then, really, what did you expect? [Razz]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cherry, that sounds like a prediction. [Smile]

The only thing missing is the numbers that you will not refer to. I'm sure you could craft a completely arbitray sentence having absolutely nothing to do with the election and not mentioning numbers not refereing to the election to boot.

My guess: 305ish to 233ish favoring Obama.

Romney surrogates seem to be rushing to the doors with excuses for why he won't win. At this point, even Florida might fall to Obama, though Romney will probably still take it.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rove, Barbour and other prominent Republicans are already pointing out the effect that Sandy is having on Romney's momentum. If Romney loses because of the hurricane, wouldn't that mean that God wanted it to be that way? Sort of like if a women gets pregnant from being raped she should embrace it because it is God's will.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The explanation presumably quoted from the CNN poll results seems to me ambiguous.
quote:
Respondents who reported that they had already
cast an absentee ballot or voted early were automatically classified as likely voters. Among those likely voters, 41% described
themselves as Democrats, 29% described themselves as Independents, and 30% described themselves as Republicans.

If "those likely voters" refers only to those who had voted early or had cast an absentee ballot, it just says early voters are more likely to be Democrats. Given that Democratic campaign workers have put a lot of effort into encouraging people to vote by mail or vote early - in part to combat Republican threats to suppress voting in certain areas - that is hardly surprising. But in that case the breakdown says nothing about how all voters may be found to have voted after the election.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If Romney wins, what will his mandate be? He began to close the gap in the 1st debate when he adopted policy positions that were far to the left of what he had advocated for the previous 18 months. Some said of that debate that he actually took positions to the left of Obama, although for purposes of this argument we don't have to go that far, just to say that (unless he wins by a large margin) that he was put over the top by a move to the left.

On the other hand,Obama did not noticeably change his positions to move to the right during the campaign. What does it say if Obama is re-elected with those policy positions, even though current economic conditions include the often politically toxic level of 7.9% unemployment and a growth rate under 2%? What would be the implications if the Democrats, defending 21 of 33 Senate seats, actually come out of the 2012 election with more than 21 wins? While a few Democratic Senators explicitly distances themselves from Obama (such as Manchin in West Virginia), other Republicans went far further away from Romney (I am thinking of the Republican Senate candidate in Connecticut who actually encouraged her supporters to vote for her and Obama). And what if the Republicans also lose ground in the House?

What mandate, if any, would we derive out of any of these circumstances (or their reverse?)

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
The explanation presumably quoted from the CNN poll results seems to me ambiguous.
quote:
Respondents who reported that they had already
cast an absentee ballot or voted early were automatically classified as likely voters. Among those likely voters, 41% described
themselves as Democrats, 29% described themselves as Independents, and 30% described themselves as Republicans.

If "those likely voters" refers only to those who had voted early or had cast an absentee ballot, it just says early voters are more likely to be Democrats. Given that Democratic campaign workers have put a lot of effort into encouraging people to vote by mail or vote early - in part to combat Republican threats to suppress voting in certain areas - that is hardly surprising. But in that case the breakdown says nothing about how all voters may be found to have voted after the election.
It's not really that ambiguous, in the full context of the described methodology
quote:
A total of 1,010 adults were interviewed by telephone nationwide by live interviewers calling both landline and cell phones. All respondents were asked questions concerning basic demographics, and the entire sample was weighted to reflect national Census figures for gender, race, age, education, region of country, telephone usage and whether respondents own or rent their homes. Registered voters were asked questions about their likelihood of voting, past voting behavior, and interest in the campaign; based on answers to those questions, 693 respondents were classified as likely voters. Respondents who reported that they had already cast an absentee ballot or voted early were automatically classified as likely voters. Among those likely voters, 41% described themselves as Democrats, 29% described themselves as Independents, and 30% described themselves as Republicans.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
In other words, you believe the D+11 breakdown is truly representative then? We really will see a gap of 11 points tomorrow? Check this too.

I'm not sure what the proper underlying demographics are off the top of my head. That's what weighting is for though- to make the results more meaningful, the poll analysis should be passed through a filter than normalizes the results based on an independent analysis of what they expect the actual voter profile to look like; that serve to adjust for a respondent profile that happens to be out of line with the overall demographics. Effectively just the opposite of what you claimed above, when you said that they weighed to poll to match that demographic profile.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, Romney is ahead by 300 votes at the moment in Florida, but the parts of the state that are lagging in being counted are Broward and Miami counties, which break heavily for Democrats. I think he's going to carry the state by 200K votes.

Ohio is semi-similar. Obama is ahead but Cuyahoga County is lagging in counting the votes. That's also a city and heavily Democratic, so I think it will go solid for Obama by about 4-5%.

With PA being called for Obama, I think it's pretty much game over for Obama.

edit: ok, NC for Romney, VA too close to call, but it probably will go for Romney, as well.

House: Rep
Senate: Dem

I'm going out for a drink....

[ November 06, 2012, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Stick a fork in it. Who suggested that Florida would go Obama?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nate Silver, I believe.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nope, that's me. The votes that haven't been counted are in Broward and Miami, which are heavily Democratic. It's tied without them.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Nate Silver, I believe.

True, Florida went from a slight Romney favorite yesterday afternoon when I posted to a slight Obama favorite when I looked this morning.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
oooh, just in on the Daily Show: 2016: Hillary Clinton 68%, Jeb Bush 32%. Hillary's VP running mate: 1962 Chevy Impala and a can of beer. Compelling!

[ November 06, 2012, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NBC, Fox, and NPR have all locked Ohio in for Obama, which pretty much gives him a lock for the election if they're right.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
At this point they are projecting President Obama as winning the election. I'd like to congratulate him on his victory. He had the better campaign and is the winner of the electoral vote.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
At this point they are projecting President Obama as winning the election. I'd like to congratulate him on his victory. He had the better campaign and is the winner of the electoral vote.

He's still behind on the popular vote; if he loses that, might we finally have bipartisan support for getting rid of the ridiculous electoral college?
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not over yet evidently....
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"NBC, Fox, and NPR have all locked Ohio in for Obama, which pretty much gives him a lock for the election if they're right."

I don't remember the name of the organization, but it's my understanding that all of the networks get their projection data from the same company.

He will win the popular vote once the western states and the rest of the urban areas in the midwest and east are counted.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The winner of the popular vote (likely Obama) will have 60-65 million votes; the tally when both have 40 million is not a good measure. Furthermore, not every state counts the absentee and vote-by-mail votes up front. As with 2008, Obama may increase his popular vote tally as scored at the end of election night by another 2% by the time all votes are counted.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd like a law passed that says the votes can't be counted up until the election is over for the whole country.

It probably isn't the case in this election, but I can imagine a scenario where a swing state is called early on the east coast (OHIO for instance), and that effects the voting on the West. (Nevada for instance). An early mis-call could cinch an election for the "wrong" person.

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1