engineer
 
  3  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2012 01:55 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

There are a number of reasons why one shouldn't assume Obama will win...despite the polls:
...
Undecided voters always, in the main, break for the challenger.

I read an article about undecided voters today and remembered this post. The article looked at polling data since 1936.
Quote:
There has not been any tendency, at least at this stage of the race, for the contest to break toward the challenging candidate.

Instead, it’s actually the incumbent-party candidate who has gained ground on average since 1936. On average, the incumbent candidate added 4.6 percentage points between the late September polls and his actual Election Day result, whereas the challenger gained 2.5 percentage points.

You can slice the data in slightly different ways if you like: by looking at only true incumbent presidents, for instance, as opposed to those who represented the incumbent party after the sitting president retired — or furthermore, you can restrict the sample to elected incumbents, which would exclude cases like Gerald R. Ford in 1976. But it gets you to more or less the same answer.

It is also important to observe, however, that the challenging party’s candidate has gained more ground than the incumbent in each of the past four election cycles (from 1996 through 2008). Statistically speaking, this streak does not tell us all that much (the incumbent party closed well in each year from 1988 through 1992). But perhaps this reflects the fact that the conventions are being held later and later, meaning that the incumbent-party candidate, who holds his convention last, could still be in the midst of a modest convention bounce at this stage of the race. For that reason, I think we’ll need to wait until at least the end of the week to see if Mr. Obama’s numbers hold.

But the point is not to argue for the idea that Mr. Obama is likely to gain ground so much as against the notion that Mr. Romney will necessarily have a tail wind. In 14 of the 19 elections since 1936, both the incumbent and the challenger added at least some points to their standing relative to each candidate’s late September polls.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2012 02:03 pm
@DrewDad,
True. Unintended consequences are not always unforeseeable consequences.

I still support voter ID laws, but think I've already covered the reasons long ago.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2012 02:09 pm
@roger,
There's a vast difference between unintended consequences and unforeseeable consequences.

If you can foresee the consequences, then it doesn't matter that they are unintended.


Since the actual, predicted results are far different than the allegedly intended results, then it seems silly to pursue the agenda.

I don't oppose voter ID laws, I just oppose these voter ID laws.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2012 02:23 pm
@DrewDad,
Good observation; whenever laws disenfranchises, discourages, or makes it harder for Americans to vote, they are bad laws.

We all know what the GOP is up to - no good. Why aren't more people and the SC speaking out?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2012 03:08 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Interesting analysis from fivethirtyeight.blog.

Quote:
First, the polling by this time in the cycle has been reasonably good, especially when it comes to calling the winners and losers in the race. Of the 19 candidates who led in the polls at this stage since 1936, 18 won the popular vote (Thomas E. Dewey in 1948 is the exception), and 17 won the Electoral College (Al Gore lost it in 2000, along with Mr. Dewey).

Of course, if Mr. Obama led in the race by 30 percentage points — as Lyndon B. Johnson did in 1964 — there wouldn’t be much need for such detailed analysis, and FiveThirtyEight might be free to blog about the baseball playoffs.

If you eliminate the candidates with double-digit leads, the front-runner’s record is eight Electoral College wins in 10 tries, or a batting average of 80 percent.
0 Replies
 
jcboy
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2012 03:33 pm
This clown makes Dumbya look like a Rhodes Scholar!

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/09/24/899441/romney-plane-windows

Quote:
On Monday, Mitt Romney offered a remedy to the problem that caused his wife’s airplane to land prematurely last week: Allow passengers to roll down the airplane windows.

Ann Romney’s plane was grounded Friday after the main cabin filled with smoke. The small electrical fire caused no injuries, but apparently did cause the Presidential candidate to forget the dangers of altitude.

“When you have a fire in an aircraft, there’s no place to go, exactly,” he told the LA Times. “And you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem.”
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2012 03:41 pm
@jcboy,
The guy's intellect is not in question; he's stupid!
Quote:
Romney: ".....the windows don’t open (on airplanes). I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem."


Only one thing is for sure about Romney's running for president; he wants to be president. He's flip-flopped on everything else, but he did say if he paid more taxes than necessary, he's not qualified to be president.

Anyone?
jcboy
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2012 04:20 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Did you watch Romney on 60 minutes? When they asked for specifics on his tax plan, he had none! And he wants to be President? Really?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2012 04:23 pm
@jcboy,
Really; that's all Romney wants; power and the title.

Romney said, "taking care of people is socialism." I'm sure the Mormons and their teachings are consistent with this belief.

Mormons just want one of "their own" to become president; it doesn't matter about their ethics or teachings. They'll all vote for Romney.

Why can't more people "see" this?

Just goes to show that religion doesn't have any morals. Prove me wrong.

One final note; Utah is a red state. Go figure.
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2012 04:37 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Mormons just want one of "their own" to become president; it doesn't matter about their ethics or teachings. They'll all vote for Romney.

http://mormonsforobama.org/
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2012 04:44 pm
@engineer,
From your link,
Quote:
Mormon Democrats are a rarity in Utah. They represent just 7 percent of Mormons in the state,


snood
 
  3  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2012 05:05 pm
I just changed my work schedule so that I can watch the Debate next Wednesday! Can ya tell I'm into this stuff?! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2012 06:08 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

From your link,
Quote:
Mormon Democrats are a rarity in Utah. They represent just 7 percent of Mormons in the state,


Not saying the state is purple but to say all Mormons are in the bag for Romney is not fair to that 7% minority.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2012 06:18 pm
@engineer,
Do you understand anything about electoral votes?

Also, the issue is a mass of Mormons who are supposed to learn and practice the caring of all peoples. Mormons funded legislation against gay marriage in California.

They are now supporting a presidential candidate that's a known liar, and a person who has stated that "47% are freeloaders."

You'll never "get it."

IRFRANK
 
  3  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2012 06:27 pm
@jcboy,
That has to be satire. Did he seriously say that? I wouldnt fly with him. He'd open the door.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2012 06:31 pm
@IRFRANK,
From thinkprogress.org.

Quote:
Romney Doesn’t Understand Why You Can’t Roll Down Windows On A Plane
By Annie-Rose Strasser on Sep 24, 2012 at 2:05 pm

On Monday, Mitt Romney offered a remedy to the problem that caused his wife’s airplane to land prematurely last week: Allow passengers to roll down the airplane windows.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2012 06:38 pm
@engineer,
I stand corrected. Thanks.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2012 07:07 pm
Romney's blind trust invested in the Chinese government oil company.
0 Replies
 
jcboy
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2012 07:08 pm
@IRFRANK,
IRFRANK wrote:

That has to be satire. Did he seriously say that? I wouldnt fly with him. He'd open the door.


You would think it was satire but he actually said that Cool
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  4  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2012 07:19 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Do you understand anything about electoral votes?

I know all about electoral votes and I know that some Mormons do not support Romney. One in three Utah voters supported Obama in 2008 and one in four supported Kerry. Are you going to disparage all Mormons because the majority's politics differ from yours? I live in the South so I assume I'm in the same boat, especially with electoral votes. There are many people of good will in Utah and some will even vote for Obama.
 

Related Topics

Why Romney Lost - Discussion by IRFRANK
Route to the sea. - Question by raprap
Two bad moments for Romney in second debate - Discussion by maxdancona
Romney vs. Big Bird - Discussion by maxdancona
Mitt Romney, the bane of Sesame Street - Discussion by DrewDad
It looks like it's Paul Ryan!!! - Discussion by maxdancona
Who will be Romney's running mate? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
When will Romney quit the race? - Discussion by edgarblythe
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Romney 2012?
  3. » Page 85
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 09/28/2024 at 10:18:32