Jump to content
270soft Forum
ellchicago

Who will win the Presidential Election in 2012?

  

30 members have voted

  1. 1. Who will be the Republican Nominee for President?

    • Mitt Romney
      21
    • Mike Huckabee
      0
    • Rick Perry
      1
    • Herman Cain
      1
    • Newt Gingrich
      6
    • Jon Huntsman, Jr.
      0
    • Ron Paul
      1
    • Michele Bachmann
      0
    • Rick Santorum
      0
    • Gary Johnson
      0
  2. 2. Will Mike Huckabee reenter the race to be a viable alternative to Mitt Romney?

    • Yes.
      1
    • No.
      26
    • Maybe?
      3
  3. 3. Who will win the Presidential Election in 2012?

    • Mitt Romney
      7
    • Barack Obama
      20
    • Mike Huckabee
      0
    • Rick Perry
      1
    • Herman Cain
      1
    • Newt Gingrich
      0
    • Jon Huntsman, Jr.
      0
    • Ron Paul
      1
    • Michele Bachmann
      0
    • Rick Santorum
      0
    • Gary Johnson
      0


Recommended Posts

First, ignoring another team's arguments and refusing to rebut in College Debate means that you concede that point. So we win all topics you didn't respond to... you had the chance... you said you wouldn't respond... you gave a "dodge the bullet" response of "no substance"... if our message is not refuted, then it stands... we win....

Nate Silver is a nice guy... but I know one that is an even better source: HISTORY!!!! ECONOMY PLAYS A SIGNIFICANT ROLE NO MATTER WHAT PARTY YOU ARE, NO MATTER HOW YOUNG OR OLD YOU ARE, NO MATTER WHAT LEANINGS YOU HAVE.... ECONOMY HAS PROVEN TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE OF MOST ELECTIONS!!!!

You gave no evidence stating that we are citing overfitting models. In fact, you used Gallup for YOUR evidence as well. So either you let us cite our polls... or you lose all your gallup evidence... go figure...

I never said Obama ran a bad campaign... heck, he won 365 Evs! He ran a good campaign with little substance. I'm saying that now he would perform badly if tried to do that again in 2012... he has to run on his record...

In response to your unemployment argument... I will use your fellow Democrat FDR as an example. Great Depression got him elected. Great Depression had high unemployment. High unemployment means bad economy. DUH!

WOW! That is the cheapest argument I have ever heard in my life! most elections are outliers? Let's see... how many elections did Gallup, Rasmussen, and other polling sources successfully predict? Give me a ------ break!

I ignored your arguments by replying to them all with one simple little link to some real analysis. Nate Silver, using good statistics, pretty much disproved all of your arguments in a single blog post. There was no need for me to reply to each of your poor arguments when Nate had them all covered.

No matter how much you shout it, economic factors can only account for 30-40% of the results at any given election. It's as simple as that. No matter how much "history" you think you have, statistics proves that economic factors are less than half of what is important in an election.

Also, I love this line:

"WOW! That is the cheapest argument I have ever heard in my life! most elections are outliers? Let's see... how many elections did Gallup, Rasmussen, and other polling sources successfully predict? Give me a ------ break!"

Your only evidence that elections are not outliers is to cite polls, which I have consistently held in high regard. You did not give a single example of a model which used only economic factors which predicted the election to any decent degree of accurracy. This sentence alone pretty much supports my entire argument - polls matter more than economic models.

Then you go on to cherry pick a list of polls which support your views. Among them is Rasmussen, the most inaccurate pollster with an estimated 4% bias to the Republicans, and Fox News, the least reliable news source in the country. If instead of cherry picking, if you look at all recent polls, you find that Obama still has a statistically significant lead. RealClearPolitics, which takes an average across all available polls, has the Democrats leading in ALL THE POLLS.

Both you and Elliot have failed to answer my question. My one, simple question. If the Democrats and Obama are still so unpopular, and the economy is getting worse and the economy is what will kill them, how come, in the midst of all this economic debate, the Democrats have gained ground in the polls? The generic congressional ballot shows a 10% swing towards Democrats from the 2010 election. In the last month Romney has dropped and suffered a 2% swing towards Obama. Pretty much all the polls have positive shifts towards the Democrats from where they stood a few months ago. Explain this. Explain why, despite the certainty of Obama's defeat, the complete lack of doubt that Obama and the Democrats are taking all of the blame for the economy, why are the Democrats gaining ground in the polls? Why do they have the positive momentum? Why?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ignored your arguments by replying to them all with one simple little link to some real analysis. Nate Silver, using good statistics, pretty much disproved all of your arguments in a single blog post. There was no need for me to reply to each of your poor arguments when Nate had them all covered.

No matter how much you shout it, economic factors can only account for 30-40% of the results at any given election. It's as simple as that. No matter how much "history" you think you have, statistics proves that economic factors are less than half of what is important in an election.

Also, I love this line:

"WOW! That is the cheapest argument I have ever heard in my life! most elections are outliers? Let's see... how many elections did Gallup, Rasmussen, and other polling sources successfully predict? Give me a ------ break!"

Your only evidence that elections are not outliers is to cite polls, which I have consistently held in high regard. You did not give a single example of a model which used only economic factors which predicted the election to any decent degree of accurracy. This sentence alone pretty much supports my entire argument - polls matter more than economic models.

Then you go on to cherry pick a list of polls which support your views. Among them is Rasmussen, the most inaccurate pollster with an estimated 4% bias to the Republicans, and Fox News, the least reliable news source in the country. If instead of cherry picking, if you look at all recent polls, you find that Obama still has a statistically significant lead. RealClearPolitics, which takes an average across all available polls, has the Democrats leading in ALL THE POLLS.

Both you and Elliot have failed to answer my question. My one, simple question. If the Democrats and Obama are still so unpopular, and the economy is getting worse and the economy is what will kill them, how come, in the midst of all this economic debate, the Democrats have gained ground in the polls? The generic congressional ballot shows a 10% swing towards Democrats from the 2010 election. In the last month Romney has dropped and suffered a 2% swing towards Obama. Pretty much all the polls have positive shifts towards the Democrats from where they stood a few months ago. Explain this. Explain why, despite the certainty of Obama's defeat, the complete lack of doubt that Obama and the Democrats are taking all of the blame for the economy, why are the Democrats gaining ground in the polls? Why do they have the positive momentum? Why?

Nate Silver is great for poll averages for elections, some of his analysis is wrong. I know political sciences who study politics for a living. You know what they say? The state of the economy affects the incumbent’s reelection chances. How about the Consumer Confidence Index? It has one of the most accurate models for predicting elections. Hello? I cited the Consumer Confidence Index which you just ignored. Polls matter only when it is close to the election, more people are paying attention.Progressives came out to vote and wanted to defeat some of the Republican ideas (like banning collective bargaining rights in Ohio) that they didn’t like (and where were you Mr.President? Where were you with your everyday clothes and comfortable pairs of shoes? Why weren't you at that picket line in Wisconsin or Ohio?). Progressives have momentum that is not going to transfer into positive momentum for President because he is not a Progressive.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RCPolitics:

Congress:

Democrats have a 2% lead. That doesn't mean a landslide. That means a competitive race. And rememeber, the Democrats and GOP in 2010 were pretty much locked in a tie and the GOP gained tons of seats. So you can't guarantee anything with taking the overall national average. You can only predict the Senate and House based off individual results, fundraising reports, and approval ratings of state politicians... all odds are pointing toward a GOP takeover of both the Senate and keeping the House.

RCPolitics Recent House Prediction:

GOP: 214

Democrats: 174

Undecided: 49

Unless the Democrats win nearly all the tossups, the House will remain GOP.

Regarding the GOP race, the RCP says Obama has led Romney by a mere 1.8%. That means almost nothing. Bush Jr. was beating Gore by 2% on election day 2000, yet Gore won the popular vote.

Historically, when an incumbent is doing this bad this early... he always loses. The only exceptions are Clinton and Reagan who both experienced economic booms.Obama has the complete opposite.

Also, if you look at the polling for the 2012 Congress race, both sides have been switching leads over a weekly basis. So the Democrats 2.8% lead probably won't last till the end of the month.

Actually, my statement did not support your argument. Polls reflect the issues. Americans disagree with Obama on domestic policy. The economy and jobs are the big issue of the day. Just look up a few polls online. I don't need to cite this.

Also, quoting RCP, only 21% of Americans think we're on the right track. Mr. President, are you taking notes?

Regarding the Senate... predictions for the Upcoming races from ROLLCALL, SABATO, COOK POLITICAL REPORT, ROTHENBURG POLITICAL REPORT all say that the...

missouri, montana, virginia, and wisconsin races are all tossups. the GOp will likely win North Dakota. Florida will prove competitive now that COnnie Mack IV is running. Ohio's Josh Mandel is raising loads of money which could prove devesatating. Nevada is also going to most likely to stay GOP. New Mexico and Connecticut are also border line tossup. Hawaii is also being thrown into a competitive category now that Governor Lingle is running. odds are, GOP Senate in the 113th Congress.

I ignored your arguments by replying to them all with one simple little link to some real analysis. Nate Silver, using good statistics, pretty much disproved all of your arguments in a single blog post. There was no need for me to reply to each of your poor arguments when Nate had them all covered.

No matter how much you shout it, economic factors can only account for 30-40% of the results at any given election. It's as simple as that. No matter how much "history" you think you have, statistics proves that economic factors are less than half of what is important in an election.

Also, I love this line:

"WOW! That is the cheapest argument I have ever heard in my life! most elections are outliers? Let's see... how many elections did Gallup, Rasmussen, and other polling sources successfully predict? Give me a ------ break!"

Your only evidence that elections are not outliers is to cite polls, which I have consistently held in high regard. You did not give a single example of a model which used only economic factors which predicted the election to any decent degree of accurracy. This sentence alone pretty much supports my entire argument - polls matter more than economic models.

Then you go on to cherry pick a list of polls which support your views. Among them is Rasmussen, the most inaccurate pollster with an estimated 4% bias to the Republicans, and Fox News, the least reliable news source in the country. If instead of cherry picking, if you look at all recent polls, you find that Obama still has a statistically significant lead. RealClearPolitics, which takes an average across all available polls, has the Democrats leading in ALL THE POLLS.

Both you and Elliot have failed to answer my question. My one, simple question. If the Democrats and Obama are still so unpopular, and the economy is getting worse and the economy is what will kill them, how come, in the midst of all this economic debate, the Democrats have gained ground in the polls? The generic congressional ballot shows a 10% swing towards Democrats from the 2010 election. In the last month Romney has dropped and suffered a 2% swing towards Obama. Pretty much all the polls have positive shifts towards the Democrats from where they stood a few months ago. Explain this. Explain why, despite the certainty of Obama's defeat, the complete lack of doubt that Obama and the Democrats are taking all of the blame for the economy, why are the Democrats gaining ground in the polls? Why do they have the positive momentum? Why?

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief... here we go again...

Reasons Why Democrats Aren't Rising in the Polls

1.) Last two polls cited by RCP show Romney leads. If RCP wants a good reputation, they cite good sources. Enough said.

2.) You picked only the most recent showing the Congress race. As a matter of fact, the GOP and Democrats have been swapping leads all summer and fall.

3.) People don't blame Obama for the economy, they blame him for failing to fix the economy. Not even with $800Billion could he turn us around. Now he issues an executive order (which is disaproved by 67% of Americans according to Gallup) enforcing his plan in an attempt to look like a leader. No one is falling for his gimmicks.

4.) The economy is getting worse. The Democrats have not yet gotten their blame. Bush didn't suffer from the recession until September 08. Tenchnically, we've already hit recesssion II about 4 months ago.

5.) You are really betting alot if you think that Obama will win despite 9.1% unemployment.

Guess what... Real Clear Politics quotes both CNN and Fox News. Honestly, you have no solid evidence that Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly rigged the polling system at Fox. Neither do you have any that LZ Granderson or Jack Cafferty hacked into CNN and switched their polls. So if you are going to quote Real Clear Politics, you have to give respect to Fox and CNN. (sorry, sometimes the truth hurts)

You cited ZERO evidence saying Obama is leading significantly in the election. We cited several sources. We have not cherrypicked evidence. We report the most recent. I wouldn't cite a poll from July 2006 pitting Obama v.s. Romney. I would cite the most recent poll within a reasonable time frame (about 6 weeks max). Unless there is a continuing trend, then I go for the most recent polling.

I ignored your arguments by replying to them all with one simple little link to some real analysis. Nate Silver, using good statistics, pretty much disproved all of your arguments in a single blog post. There was no need for me to reply to each of your poor arguments when Nate had them all covered.

No matter how much you shout it, economic factors can only account for 30-40% of the results at any given election. It's as simple as that. No matter how much "history" you think you have, statistics proves that economic factors are less than half of what is important in an election.

Also, I love this line:

"WOW! That is the cheapest argument I have ever heard in my life! most elections are outliers? Let's see... how many elections did Gallup, Rasmussen, and other polling sources successfully predict? Give me a ------ break!"

Your only evidence that elections are not outliers is to cite polls, which I have consistently held in high regard. You did not give a single example of a model which used only economic factors which predicted the election to any decent degree of accurracy. This sentence alone pretty much supports my entire argument - polls matter more than economic models.

Then you go on to cherry pick a list of polls which support your views. Among them is Rasmussen, the most inaccurate pollster with an estimated 4% bias to the Republicans, and Fox News, the least reliable news source in the country. If instead of cherry picking, if you look at all recent polls, you find that Obama still has a statistically significant lead. RealClearPolitics, which takes an average across all available polls, has the Democrats leading in ALL THE POLLS.

Both you and Elliot have failed to answer my question. My one, simple question. If the Democrats and Obama are still so unpopular, and the economy is getting worse and the economy is what will kill them, how come, in the midst of all this economic debate, the Democrats have gained ground in the polls? The generic congressional ballot shows a 10% swing towards Democrats from the 2010 election. In the last month Romney has dropped and suffered a 2% swing towards Obama. Pretty much all the polls have positive shifts towards the Democrats from where they stood a few months ago. Explain this. Explain why, despite the certainty of Obama's defeat, the complete lack of doubt that Obama and the Democrats are taking all of the blame for the economy, why are the Democrats gaining ground in the polls? Why do they have the positive momentum? Why?

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OBama is merely trying to cover up the domestic issues by doing all this foreign policy crap...

Barack Obama's 6 attempts at using foreign policy to his political advantage...

1.) Bin Laden Raid... Tiny accomplishment. Finding him was great, but executing the operation was like taking candy from a baby. Bush and Clinton would have done just as well if not better (though Bush probably would have bombed the place)

2.) Iraq... Nice accomplishment, but old news. The War ended officially in 2010. He is trying to milk it for all its worth by pulling out all troops. Not doing much for him in the polls.

3.) Afghanistan... Instead of setting a firm stance on the withdrawal date, Obama has now decided to push for a 2013 official exit. The Pentagon wanted 2015 or 2016. Sounds pretty politically motivated.

4.) Austrailia... Obama is sending 8,000 troops to counter China. He therefore concedes to Romney and Trump that China is a threat both economically and militarily... good grief...

5.) NEW START... There was really no logical sense into WHY we signed it. It was a great idea, but there was no threat of terrorists getting a strategic nuclear weapon. Those things weigh twice the size as a killer whale and are about as big as metro bus. Our big concern should have been Tactical nuclear bombs which could fit in a moving van or truck. These tacticals are held in low security facilities in Russia.

6.) Libya... Obama bombs the crap out of Gadhafi's forces, leads from the rear. Nice job blowing up tanks and soldiers... but still didn't help him in the polls.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OBama is merely trying to cover up the domestic issues by doing all this foreign policy crap...

Barack Obama's 6 attempts at using foreign policy to his political advantage...

1.) Bin Laden Raid... Tiny accomplishment. Finding him was great, but executing the operation was like taking candy from a baby. Bush and Clinton would have done just as well if not better (though Bush probably would have bombed the place)

2.) Iraq... Nice accomplishment, but old news. The War ended officially in 2010. He is trying to milk it for all its worth by pulling out all troops. Not doing much for him in the polls.

3.) Afghanistan... Instead of setting a firm stance on the withdrawal date, Obama has now decided to push for a 2013 official exit. The Pentagon wanted 2015 or 2016. Sounds pretty politically motivated.

4.) Austrailia... Obama is sending 8,000 troops to counter China. He therefore concedes to Romney and Trump that China is a threat both economically and militarily... good grief...

5.) NEW START... There was really no logical sense into WHY we signed it. It was a great idea, but there was no threat of terrorists getting a strategic nuclear weapon. Those things way twice the size as a killer whale. Our big concern should have been Tactical nuclear bombs which could fit in a moving van or truck. These tacticals are held in low security facilities in Russia.

6.) Libya... Obama bombs the crap out of Gadhafi's forces, leads from the rear. Nice job blowing up tanks and soldiers... but still didn't help him in the polls.

I think that most people were worried about loose nukes and that why we did NEW START.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, I'm going to stop here. You're still cherrypicking. You claim to be doing the right thing by only taking the most recent polls. Then you arbitrarily choose the two at the top of the list, despite the one right beneath it also covering the exact same time period. That, again, is very bad of you.

And then you claim some nonsense about the congress polls fluctuating all the time. Locally, yeah, they go up and down a bit. But over the last month, the Democrats vote has trended upwards, while the Republicans has trended downwards. That's not a weekly trend, that's a solid trend. And more importantly, the Democrats leading solidly by 2.8% means that they went from being 7% down in 2010 to being nearly 3% ahead. That's a 10% swing in the Democrats favor.

So, again, I ask, why the big swing? Why have the Democrats gone from 7% down in November 2010 to 3% ahead in November 2011? And why has Romney's vote against Obama collapsed in the last month as the Republican primaries campaign picks up?

I don't care for your explainations of the current polling data. I never claimed that the current polls in isolation told you anything relevent to the election. I claimed, as I always have, that the trends in polling over time are what is useful. And over the last year, congressional Democrats have recovered a lot of ground, turning a 7% defecit into a 3% lead. In the last month, Obama's approval numbers have trended upward, Romney's polling against Obama has trended down, and Obama vs. generic Republican has trended upward for Obama.

I'm asking you to explain the trends. Why, when the Democrats are supposably incredibly screwed, have they managed to cause a 10% swing towards them? Why?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that most people were worried about loose nukes and that why we did NEW START.

Correct, but tactical nukes are far more easy to deport. Again, I think it is great to have nuclear reductions. But that isn't the big problem. Tactical nukes are far more easy to capture and to isolate. You could fit a certain type in a moving van. You would need alot more than a uhaul to move a strategic nuke. Again, great idea,but I would have liked to know why... if the reason was security was low at strategic nuclear facilities, it doesn't mean you get rid of the bombs. It means you build up security. You don't eat all the cookies in the cookie jar in an attempt to keep your son from eating them. You put it on a high shelf in the back of the space. I think it was reasonable to cut them for relations sake, but that was not stressed by the Obama administration. It was stressed more as a security issue.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, I'm going to stop here. You're still cherrypicking. You claim to be doing the right thing by only taking the most recent polls. Then you arbitrarily choose the two at the top of the list, despite the one right beneath it also covering the exact same time period. That, again, is very bad of you.

And then you claim some nonsense about the congress polls fluctuating all the time. Locally, yeah, they go up and down a bit. But over the last month, the Democrats vote has trended upwards, while the Republicans has trended downwards. That's not a weekly trend, that's a solid trend. And more importantly, the Democrats leading solidly by 2.8% means that they went from being 7% down in 2010 to being nearly 3% ahead. That's a 10% swing in the Democrats favor.

So, again, I ask, why the big swing? Why have the Democrats gone from 7% down in November 2010 to 3% ahead in November 2011? And why has Romney's vote against Obama collapsed in the last month as the Republican primaries campaign picks up?

I don't care for your explainations of the current polling data. I never claimed that the current polls in isolation told you anything relevent to the election. I claimed, as I always have, that the trends in polling over time are what is useful. And over the last year, congressional Democrats have recovered a lot of ground, turning a 7% defecit into a 3% lead. In the last month, Obama's approval numbers have trended upward, Romney's polling against Obama has trended down, and Obama vs. generic Republican has trended upward for Obama.

I'm asking you to explain the trends. Why, when the Democrats are supposably incredibly screwed, have they managed to cause a 10% swing towards them? Why?

There are not in the same time period.

As POLLWONK has shown in individual House and Senate races, the Republicans have a lead.

Progressives are ready to back PROGRESSIVE candidates, it won’t change that Republicans will probably control congress, but should help get Progressives elected. Romney and Obama are still tied

Polling in terms of eventually outcomes doesn’t matter until shortly after the Conventions.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... let's see... you never quote a single source except gallup and real clear... oh my! did you even hear me when I said that Real Clear uses your biased sources called FOX and CNN? I don't think you did. We have not cherrypicked. If we did, then that means you had your microscope out examing every inch and layer and throwing out every poll that you felt was contradictory to your arguments. Not ONE poll you cited indicated a landslide OBama victory. Not one article, not one pundit, not one historian (Except Nate Silver who we refuted 300 times with response from the defendant). The Economy decides elections. Nate Silver needs to get his head out of the earth and look around. Our economy is failing, unemployment not improving, our debt just hit 15trillion, the Eurozone is on the brink of collapse. Unless Obama knows a magic potion that can magically fill our checkbooks with more money, then no reelection seems likely.

Look, the Republicans were ahead by 10% in the 2010 race. But they needed 10 seats to win a majority. Plus, all indicators even a year before the election pointed to a GOP takeover. RCPolitics is predicting a GOP hold as the most likely scenario.

Again, I ask... where is your evidence for the big swing? If you are going to tear down the sources of your primary source, then what source do you have? All you have done is nit pick at our sources and call them biased... that is a sign of desperation not refutation. And the Obama campaign is doing the same thing with General David Axemyjob.

If you are going to argue polls don't matter a year before the election, then your arguments about the Democrats taking over the House and Senate are NULL! Elliot and I repeatedly pointed out that if an incumbent is struggling a year before the election, then things get worse. The GOP House is not struggling if you take RCP's report and the Senate is right now a Democrat's haunted house.

The trends are clear. A month ago, the GOP was beating the Democrats in the Congressional vote. 2 weeks ago they were jam locked. 5 months ago, the Dems were winning. 3 months ago, the GOP was winning. 2 months ago, the Dems had narrow lead. Get with reality...

Also, you never responded to our Obama weakness arguments. You never gave a reason why Romney was a bad candidate despite his economic experience amidst an era of extreme recession.

Alright, I'm going to stop here. You're still cherrypicking. You claim to be doing the right thing by only taking the most recent polls. Then you arbitrarily choose the two at the top of the list, despite the one right beneath it also covering the exact same time period. That, again, is very bad of you.

And then you claim some nonsense about the congress polls fluctuating all the time. Locally, yeah, they go up and down a bit. But over the last month, the Democrats vote has trended upwards, while the Republicans has trended downwards. That's not a weekly trend, that's a solid trend. And more importantly, the Democrats leading solidly by 2.8% means that they went from being 7% down in 2010 to being nearly 3% ahead. That's a 10% swing in the Democrats favor.

So, again, I ask, why the big swing? Why have the Democrats gone from 7% down in November 2010 to 3% ahead in November 2011? And why has Romney's vote against Obama collapsed in the last month as the Republican primaries campaign picks up?

I don't care for your explainations of the current polling data. I never claimed that the current polls in isolation told you anything relevent to the election. I claimed, as I always have, that the trends in polling over time are what is useful. And over the last year, congressional Democrats have recovered a lot of ground, turning a 7% defecit into a 3% lead. In the last month, Obama's approval numbers have trended upward, Romney's polling against Obama has trended down, and Obama vs. generic Republican has trended upward for Obama.

I'm asking you to explain the trends. Why, when the Democrats are supposably incredibly screwed, have they managed to cause a 10% swing towards them? Why?

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have not cherry-picked. We cited the most recent polls. We also used your evidence and explained it. I don't trust a poll from 1932 to judge the 2012 elections. I judge polls within a reasonable timeframe. I evaluate them by taking economic indicators and historical mood changes. Using the past as a tool, we can generally tell what is going to happen.

POLLWONK

Alright, I'm going to stop here. You're still cherrypicking. You claim to be doing the right thing by only taking the most recent polls. Then you arbitrarily choose the two at the top of the list, despite the one right beneath it also covering the exact same time period. That, again, is very bad of you.

And then you claim some nonsense about the congress polls fluctuating all the time. Locally, yeah, they go up and down a bit. But over the last month, the Democrats vote has trended upwards, while the Republicans has trended downwards. That's not a weekly trend, that's a solid trend. And more importantly, the Democrats leading solidly by 2.8% means that they went from being 7% down in 2010 to being nearly 3% ahead. That's a 10% swing in the Democrats favor.

So, again, I ask, why the big swing? Why have the Democrats gone from 7% down in November 2010 to 3% ahead in November 2011? And why has Romney's vote against Obama collapsed in the last month as the Republican primaries campaign picks up?

I don't care for your explainations of the current polling data. I never claimed that the current polls in isolation told you anything relevent to the election. I claimed, as I always have, that the trends in polling over time are what is useful. And over the last year, congressional Democrats have recovered a lot of ground, turning a 7% defecit into a 3% lead. In the last month, Obama's approval numbers have trended upward, Romney's polling against Obama has trended down, and Obama vs. generic Republican has trended upward for Obama.

I'm asking you to explain the trends. Why, when the Democrats are supposably incredibly screwed, have they managed to cause a 10% swing towards them? Why?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in what context should i take that?

The context that you really seem to be missing the point of what I'm saying, so I'm giving up trying.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. So you gave up. (high fives Elliot.) Looks like you concede. You gave no real responses to my arguments about how RCP uses the two polls you hate. You kept dodging the arguments with more Obamaisms.

The context that you really seem to be missing the point of what I'm saying, so I'm giving up trying.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with everything... But regarding polling, it does have some predictional measuring tools to it...

if an incumbent is tied a year before the election, and the economy is in pieces, then he usually gets his butt kicked in the election.

Alfonzo, we agree that polling a year before the election does not directly give the actual results, but it gives us a compass or starting point which help us tie in historical and economic precedences.

There are not in the same time period.

As POLLWONK has shown in individual House and Senate races, the Republicans have a lead.

Progressives are ready to back PROGRESSIVE candidates, it won’t change that Republicans will probably control congress, but should help get Progressives elected. Romney and Obama are still tied

Polling in terms of eventually outcomes doesn’t matter until shortly after the Conventions.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-1581.html

Most recent poll has Romney's lead being cut by over 20%, with Gingrich now being within 2% of Romney in Romney's safest state of the early three.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html

Most recent poll has Gingrich surging ahead in Iowa.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

The four most recent federal polls all have Gingrich ahead of Romney now.

If Gingrich wins Iowa, there's a good chance he could go on to win New Hampshire. By that point, it would probably be all over for Romney. And in Gingrich vs. Obama polls, Obama holds a significant lead.

The certainty of Romney winning the nomination has taken a very hard and sobering hit lately. He's probably at 50/50 odds of winning the nomination right now.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. So you gave up. (high fives Elliot.) Looks like you concede. You gave no real responses to my arguments about how RCP uses the two polls you hate. You kept dodging the arguments with more Obamaisms.

Giving up is by no means a concession. I only concede that debating with you and elliot is like debating with a brick wall. I still thoroughly reject your arguments and their conclusions. RCP uses all the polls. I don't trust Fox "News" polls because I don't trust Fox "News". Rasmussen has a noted Republican bias and a tendency towards inaccurracy. I never said anything about CNN though.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Giving up is by no means a concession. I only concede that debating with you and elliot is like debating with a brick wall. I still thoroughly reject your arguments and their conclusions. RCP uses all the polls. I don't trust Fox "News" polls because I don't trust Fox "News". Rasmussen has a noted Republican bias and a tendency towards inaccurracy. I never said anything about CNN though.

Actually it is... when you don't respond in a College Debate, you automaticly lose.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-1581.html

Most recent poll has Romney's lead being cut by over 20%, with Gingrich now being within 2% of Romney in Romney's safest state of the early three.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html

Most recent poll has Gingrich surging ahead in Iowa.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

The four most recent federal polls all have Gingrich ahead of Romney now.

If Gingrich wins Iowa, there's a good chance he could go on to win New Hampshire. By that point, it would probably be all over for Romney. And in Gingrich vs. Obama polls, Obama holds a significant lead.

The certainty of Romney winning the nomination has taken a very hard and sobering hit lately. He's probably at 50/50 odds of winning the nomination right now.

Gingrich will not survive the attacks against him. Romney will go back up. First Bachmann was the main challenger to Romney, then it was Perry, then it was Cain, and now it is Gingrich. Romney will easily crush Gingrich. Romney has at least a 70% chance on winning the nomination.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually it is... when you don't respond in a College Debate, you automaticly lose.

Do you see any professors around here?

Debates aren't about winners or losers. They aren't even about proving to the other side that you are right. They are about pitting your ideas up against people who disagree with them, and seeing how your ideas hold up. If, at the end, you are still sure that your arguments are correct, then your beliefs are all the stronger for it. If, at the end, your beliefs are weakened, then you become open to more possibilities. Either way, you end up better off. Assuming you went into the debate with an open mind, which I really don't think you or pollwonk did.

Gingrich will not survive the attacks against him. Romney will go back up. First Bachmann was the main challenger to Romney, then it was Perry, then it was Cain, and now it is Gingrich. Romney will easily crush Gingrich. Romney has at least a 70% chance on winning the nomination.

He might falter, given time. But Iowa is only six weeks away. A big win there, followed by beating Romney in New Hampshire could all happen before the attacks against him begin to be felt. Then the question is whether those attacks can overcome Gingrich's momentum, and whether Romney, having suffered a big hit to his momentum, can be the beneficiary of that.

What's most likely if Gingrich wins Iowa, and is able to use that momentum to steal New Hampshire from Romney, then unless Romney can win South Carolina and Florida, he's pretty much toast. Right now, I'd have Gingrich the favourite to win Iowa, and Romney at maybe 70/30 to win New Hampshire.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you see any professors around here?

Debates aren't about winners or losers. They aren't even about proving to the other side that you are right. They are about pitting your ideas up against people who disagree with them, and seeing how your ideas hold up. If, at the end, you are still sure that your arguments are correct, then your beliefs are all the stronger for it. If, at the end, your beliefs are weakened, then you become open to more possibilities. Either way, you end up better off. Assuming you went into the debate with an open mind, which I really don't think you or pollwonk did.

He might falter, given time. But Iowa is only six weeks away. A big win there, followed by beating Romney in New Hampshire could all happen before the attacks against him begin to be felt. Then the question is whether those attacks can overcome Gingrich's momentum, and whether Romney, having suffered a big hit to his momentum, can be the beneficiary of that.

What's most likely if Gingrich wins Iowa, and is able to use that momentum to steal New Hampshire from Romney, then unless Romney can win South Carolina and Florida, he's pretty much toast. Right now, I'd have Gingrich the favourite to win Iowa, and Romney at maybe 70/30 to win New Hampshire.

First of all, I am opened minded. I don't want either Romney or Obama as President. I am Progressive and want Progressive goals to get done. Neither candidate would do that. With the economy as bad as it is, Obama is most likely going to lose.

In 6 weeks, Gingrich will lose his momentum and polling.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I did 4 years of College Level debate with a 130-75 record, Alfonzo. I wouldn't describe myself as a professor, but I would describe myself as very experienced debater. I also have been studying political sciences for the past 10 years and my job involves itself with other experienced historians and economists.

The GOP debates have honestly been a bunch of crap. The two guys who have been playing their cards right are Romney and Gingrich (Huntsman if you really want to strech it). The moderators have been swarming the candidates with hundreds of "gotcha" questions. Every candidate has imploded except Romney. Gingrich imploded in June, then unimploded recently. Historical odds say he is going to reimplode by January. Unless, he is going to pull a John McCain and hold his lead, he will simply be Romneyvictim number 5. Previous victims are Pawlenty, Bachmann, Perry, and Cain. Romney has pretty much put the nail in the coffin.

Actually, I don't think Gingrich is going to win in Iowa. Gingrich has only about $5,000,000. Romney by now I'm guessing has about $43,000,000 under his belt (the Wall Street Economists are swarming to him since Obama has been voicing support toward the Occupyers). Plus, Iowa Republicans care a ton about personal integrity and compared with Gingrich, Romney looks like Saint Peter. I think Gingrich is going to lose his momentum by December and implode.

New Hampshire is a Romney guarantee. Unless Huntsman suddenly comes up with about $20,000,000 and makes up ground in the polls, Romney has New Hampshire tattoed to himself.

Do you see any professors around here?

Debates aren't about winners or losers. They aren't even about proving to the other side that you are right. They are about pitting your ideas up against people who disagree with them, and seeing how your ideas hold up. If, at the end, you are still sure that your arguments are correct, then your beliefs are all the stronger for it. If, at the end, your beliefs are weakened, then you become open to more possibilities. Either way, you end up better off. Assuming you went into the debate with an open mind, which I really don't think you or pollwonk did.

He might falter, given time. But Iowa is only six weeks away. A big win there, followed by beating Romney in New Hampshire could all happen before the attacks against him begin to be felt. Then the question is whether those attacks can overcome Gingrich's momentum, and whether Romney, having suffered a big hit to his momentum, can be the beneficiary of that.

What's most likely if Gingrich wins Iowa, and is able to use that momentum to steal New Hampshire from Romney, then unless Romney can win South Carolina and Florida, he's pretty much toast. Right now, I'd have Gingrich the favourite to win Iowa, and Romney at maybe 70/30 to win New Hampshire.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over the past few months, we've seen the following candidates top Romney in Iowa...

Pawlenty

Bachmann

Perry

Cain

Everysingle one of them imploded.

Pawlenty declawed his paws by giving the most childish attack on Obamneycare... good grief...

Bachmann looked stupid herself when she said the Texas vaccine caused mental issues.

Perry committed harri-carri in the debates.

Herman Cain dialed 999 when the sexual harrassment charges arose. He should have dialed 911.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-1581.html

Most recent poll has Romney's lead being cut by over 20%, with Gingrich now being within 2% of Romney in Romney's safest state of the early three.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html

Most recent poll has Gingrich surging ahead in Iowa.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

The four most recent federal polls all have Gingrich ahead of Romney now.

If Gingrich wins Iowa, there's a good chance he could go on to win New Hampshire. By that point, it would probably be all over for Romney. And in Gingrich vs. Obama polls, Obama holds a significant lead.

The certainty of Romney winning the nomination has taken a very hard and sobering hit lately. He's probably at 50/50 odds of winning the nomination right now.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I don't think Gingrich is going to win in Iowa. Gingrich has only about $5,000,000. Romney by now I'm guessing has about $43,000,000 under his belt (the Wall Street Economists are swarming to him since Obama has been voicing support toward the Occupyers). Plus, Iowa Republicans care a ton about personal integrity and compared with Gingrich, Romney looks like Saint Peter. I think Gingrich is going to lose his momentum by December and implode.

New Hampshire is a Romney guarantee. Unless Huntsman suddenly comes up with about $20,000,000 and makes up ground in the polls, Romney has New Hampshire tattoed to himself.

This is the most recent data I could find, from the 8th of November.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/2012-presidential-campaign-fundraising-update/

Obama has raised more than all of the Republican candidates combined. This wikipedia page is a little more outdated...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_for_the_2012_United_States_presidential_election

Romney probably hasn't raised $30 million in a month, and Gingrich has probably raised quite a bit since then, given his surge in the polls. If you can find more recent data, I'm curious to see it.

I think the poll I posted showing Romney with only a 2 point lead in NH, though it had a larger sample size than the other polls, might have been an outlier, as a new poll (with a distinctly smaller sample, mind you) had Romney's lead back in the 20's. Though Gingrich is still ahead in Iowa and federall. The five most recent polls have him leading at the moment. He seems to be benefitting most from Perry and Cain's collapse.

I'd say it's definitely more likely that Gingrich will get the votes from when more conservative candidates (like Cain and Perry) drop out, than Romney would. Gingrich is much closer to the average Republican than Romney is. If Gingrich can stay competative long enough for Cain and Perry to drop out, he'll probably surge ahead. Romney has the difficult task of fighting off three big conservatives who the average Republican is much closer to.

Romney kind of strikes me as being a more popular Paul. He has a solid base of voters, but not much broader appeal amoung Republicans. He will have a very hard time taking potential voters away from Gingrich, Cain and Perry - that's why his vote has stayed pretty much the same the entire primaries campaign.

Like I said, it all depends on whether Gingrich can hold out for another six weeks or not. If he can, he's in a pretty solid place. If not, he's out for the count and Romney probably has it. Though if Gingrich drops out, Cain or Perry will probably gain a lot of that vote, and go back to serious contenders against Romney.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...