Dick "I'm still mad that Clinton fired me for letting a prostitute listen into my phone calls while I sucked her toes" Morris is the latest nutball to conclude that there are secret polls which provide information the regular polls don't. http://boards.fool.com/morris-why-polls-understate-mitt-3027...Morris explains that you need to adjust the poll sample weighting to reflect changing demographics. But than he says that because the 2008 demographics had changed, they shouldn't be used.Then there was this gem:But the fact is that the undecided vote always goes against the incumbent. In 1980 (the last time an incumbent Democrat was beaten), for example, the Gallup Poll of October 27th had Carter ahead by 45-39. Their survey on November 2nd showed Reagan catching up and leading by three points. In the actual voting, the Republican won by nine. The undecided vote broke sharply — and unanimously — for the challenger.Lots of people said the same thing in 2004 when Bush and Kerry were virtually tied. Yet the undecideds broke in large numbers for the incumbent. So no, the undecided vote doesn't always go against the incumbent. Sometimes they do, but in some elections they don't. Dick Morris surely knows this, but he's preaching to the nutball audience who doesn't know better and doesn't care.Even though it is clear Romney will lose, the wingnuts will somehow forget about all these phony predictions. Dick Morris will still have a job making demonstrably false statements to people who don't if things are true or false. Good work if you can get it. Reminds me of the end of the world prophecy where even though the prophet is wrong, the wrongness just intensifies the beliefs of the followers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails
Even though it is clear Romney will loseIt isn't clear to me. More than a few voters have been discouraged from showing up at the polls for fear of being humiliated by being turned away, whether new voter ID have been passed or not.I haven't kept up with what's up with SOuth Carolina voting law because I have to vote absentee (I'll be in NY on election day), but otherwise I'd be concerned myself (although I'm more or less humiliation-proof-).
It isn't clear to me. More than a few voters have been discouraged from showing up at the polls for fear of being humiliated by being turned away, whether new voter ID have been passed or not.Look at it this way: The Romney campaign has been aggressively blaming our nations problems on unions, the elderly, working class whites, Hispanics, and school teachers. This has caused these constituencies to run screaming for the exits. According to Romney the solution for the nation's problems is to kick millions of sick and elderly Americans off of Medicaid so they can pay for the cost of giving Mitt Romney a tax cut. That's gone over just as great as you imagine it would. For example:http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/romneys-lean-mean...As a topper, Mitt Romney says it is a horrible mistake Americans aren't dying in Iraq anymore. I guess he thinks more Americans need to die there*, although he hasn't said specifically that he would try to restart the war. As you'd imagine, as we are getting close to the election and people are beginning to pay attention to the issues, they are beginning to be shocked at what a stumble bumb Romney is. He basically wants to screw everyone who might want to vote for him. The possible exception is high income voters, who you may recall broke for Obama in 2008. http://www.cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/poll...*For his part, he has said that only certain Americans should be fighting in Iraq. For example, he said that his sons are too valuable to be fighting because they are too busy serving their country trying to get their dad elected president. If your dad isn't running for president and if you aren't lucky enough to get killed, you can serve your country by getting your arms blown off or living with PTSD or something. Thank goodnees for small favors.
sykesix: "According to Romney the solution for the nation's problems is to kick millions of sick and elderly Americans off of Medicaid so they can pay for the cost of giving Mitt Romney a tax cut. That's gone over just as great as you imagine it would."........................Older Americans are already running from Romney. His lead in this demographic has fallen sharply, mostly from the selection of Ryan. from the 1st article--"Medicaid's nursing home beneficiaries are not necessarily poor people. During their working years they may have lived productive middle-class lives until becoming infirm and quickly exhausting their assets....Without Medicaid's essential safety net, members of this vulnerable population would be on their own or might be forced to live with relatives ill equipped to care for their intensive needs....It was Ryan who authored the plan to convert Medicaid from a strong federal-state entitlement to a block grant program to the states that Romney has incorporated into his campaign. The plan, passed as a budget blueprint by the Republican-controlled House, would gut Medicaid's safety net...The nonprofit Center for Budget and Policy Priorities says Medicaid funding would decline by one-third by 2022 under Ryan's plan."
And this just in Romney has lost NASCAR fans:http://jalopnik.com/5945896/poll-shows-barack-obama-leads-mi...
And this just in Romney has lost NASCAR fans:http://jalopnik.com/5945896/poll-shows-barack-obama-leads-mi......I forwarded to my redneck brother (the no count), who is a big NASCAR fan. Fave is J. Johnson.Count Upp
Karl Rove explains why you can't believe polls. Trust him.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/09/27/rove_be_ca...
Oh sure, I'll trust Rove over statisticians...Critics allege that pollsters are interviewing too many Democrats -- and too few Republicans or independents -- and artificially inflating the Democratic candidates' performance. Pollsters counter that the results they are finding reflect slight changes in public sentiment -- and, moreover, adjusting their polls to match arbitrary party-identification targets would be unscientific.Unlike race, gender or age, all demographic traits for which pollsters weight their samples, party identification is considered an attitude that pollsters say they should be measuring. When party identification numbers change, it's an indication of deeper political change that a poll can spot."If a pollster weights by party ID, they are substituting their own judgment as to what the electorate is going to look like. It's not scientific," said Doug Schwartz, the director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, which doesn't weight its surveys by party identification.http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/re...
More in my Wingnut Madness series about the right wing's willful ignorance of statistics. The WaPo's Jennifer Rubin has been in the bag for Romney since go street, to an embarrassing extent. As of today, October 1st, Obama is virtually assured of re-election barring some major unforeseen event. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_...Romney's path to victory must include winning all of the "red states" plus essentially every swing state, including at least one but most likely both of Ohio and Florida, both of which he is losing at the moment. And he's trailing in most of the rest of the swing states.Obama needs to win the solid blue states, plus one swing state, say Colorado, and he's got it sewn up. He could lose both Florida and Ohio and still win. It ain't over til the fat lady sings, but she's warmed up and ready to walk onto the stage. Romney needs a couple miracles to win.Rubin of course, concludes that this means the race is "up for grabs." I realize she's in the bag for Romney, but this level of spin just makes my brain hurt. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/the-poll...
Obama needs to win the solid blue states, plus one swing state, say Colorado, and he's got it sewn up. He could lose both Florida and Ohio and still win. It ain't over til the fat lady sings, but she's warmed up and ready to walk onto the stage. Romney needs a couple miracles to win.I think Obama may match his 2008 Electoral vote totals against McCain.Romney is an Ivy League Sarah Palin.intercst
Here is your Wingnut Madness for Tuesday. Noted Wingnut John Sununu claims he has access to secret polls that show Mitt Romney leading in New Hampshire, as opposed to the public polls which show him trailing by healthy margins. Former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu on Tuesday blasted a poll that showed GOP hopeful Mitt Romney behind in New Hampshire by 15 points as a “piece of garbage.”During an interview on MSNBC, host Chuck Todd pointed out that the WMUR Granite State Poll (PDF), conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, had Romney losing to President Barack Obama, 54 percent to 39 percent.“You know it’s a piece of garbage,” Sununu replied.“This is a good pollster,” Todd noted. “You can argue that it’s not 15.”“I believe it’s head to head in New Hampshire,” Sununu insisted. “And I've seen enough other polls to tell you that is a piece of garbage.”“This race in New Hampshire will be won by Mitt Romney by two to three points,” he added.Raw Story (http://s.tt/1oWDy)
From the article: <<Romney has attended races and spoken about having friends that are NASCAR team owners.>>How many NASCAR fans can say this? They work hard to afford to attend the races, and most watch the races on TV. I am so glad that Romney can boast that he has NASCAR team owners as friends. Just another statement to show how much he is out of touch.Donna
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |