Poll Dancing

[BT]

Why would i be miserable with the results?

[sirs]

Did I say you needed, or was going to be?       Just simply that if Romney did indeed to much better than 300, then congratulations President-elect Romney.......right?

[BT]

Not asking a trick question, and you can be just as miserable at the results, as H   

Thus my question. Why would i be miserable with the results. And i'm not sure Bear said he would be miserable either. But even if he did why would his outlook have anything to do with mine?

[sirs]

I DID NOT SAY YOU WOULD BE.  GADS.  Simple question, and you're making it into some soap opera.  My rhetort about being miserable was merely in how you were dancing around answering a simple question.  You can be any way you want, just as H can.  I get the impression he's not going to be happy regardless who wins, but that was never the point

Let's try one last time...... if Romney did indeed to much better than 300, and barring any direct evidence of fraud or dirty tricks, then end of story. congratulations President-elect Romney.......right?

[hnumpah]

The best thing I can say about this election is...

It's after 9 PM here and my phone has stopped ringing.

[BT]

My answers were straightforward.

Not sure why your retort centered on a misery index instead of seeking further clarification. Perhaps you should do a little self examining as to why that is one of your techniques.

I plan to vote tomorrow, in FL for Romney. I plan to hold my nose and vote for Mack. I have no quibble with my congress critter. Down ticket i have no opinion and probably won't vote for any candidate.

Romney was not my first choice for the GOP nomination. But i realized early on he would probably win the thing, without my vote, as i voted for Newt in the primary.

All of which leads to the fact that i believe Romney's set of skills is better suited to our current situation than Obama's. And because i believe that i would have no problem with him winning.

[sirs]

My answers were straightforward.

Not really.....since it would have been a yes or a no, not some repeat of:

This is what I think.

Quote
It will be either a squeaker or a landslide. If it is the latter, Romney will do much better than 300

As that was not the question asked.  As far as the attempt at the misery tangent, just gonna let that one go, since its irrelevent to this discussion



lol....can't help but notice it was still never really answered, but oh well

[hnumpah]

I have no quibble with my congress critter.

LOL, mine is a loudmouthed 'angry black woman' Democrat whose district stretches from here (Jacksonville) to Orlando, heavily gerrymandered and carved out for her, in some cases less than 100 yards wide, who thinks it's okay to call in favors and have county workers sandbag her house against flooding while her neighbors are limited to 10 sandbags each and have to fill them and place them themselves.

Politics.

[BT]

Your question:

In fact, before I go on with this theory,
- what would the response be if.....and I do mean if, if Romney captured 300+ electoral votes?
- Completely out of the question?
- If so, why would that be?

First question.
Whose response?

You open up the floor to all comers.

My reply.

It will be either a squeaker or a landslide. If it is the latter, Romney will do much better than 300

Ergo 300+ is not out of the question. If it is not out of the question, no need to answer the followup. 

Like i said. Straight forward.

[BT]

So your rep is Corrine. Mine is Crenshaw.

[sirs]

Like i said. Straight forward.

Not really, but at least by reply #23 we got an answer that required an ergo extension, vs a simple yes or no that would have sufficed by reply #12




With that soap opera effort now out of the way, the point of this thread was again related to the polling.  If I've been reading the reports about them accurately, there's alot of polls that have anywhere from a D+8 to a D+11, based on what I'm led to believe is the "pattern" of turnout.  In this case, many of these polls are using the turnout #'s in 2008, which had a huge turnout of Dems, and those enamored with the prospect of electing our first black president.  So apparently many of these polls are assuming something similar, thus the "D+X" component to those polled

Problem is, this isn't 2008.  There isn't the same "enthusiasm" for our current president, as he now is no longer the blank slate everyone wanted of him.  He now has a record, and an ongoing history of some pretty piss poor judgement calls.  There's also a huge surge of enthusiasm for his being fired & to attempt to slow down this Greece-like debt train, he's put us on.  Much of what I've been reading, as it relates to early ballots casted, echos exactly that...BIG reduction in ballots cast by Democrats compared to 2008, and a huge increase in GOP ballots compared to 2008.  One report even indicated that the difference in Ohio alone was more than Obama's victory margin in Ohio in 2008.  Not to mention its the Independents in these swing states that will decide, and they're going for Romney at a 2:1 clip, in polls across the country.  Yes, yes, that doesn't mean every Republican ballot is a vote for Romney.  It also means not every Democrat ballot is a vote for Obama.  It's merely a comparison of early ballots cast compared to 2008's early ballots

Point being, that when you take all that into consideration, these D+8, D+11, etc factors, is really more like a D+2 or 3, if that.  And if THAT were being applied, it wouldn't be 48-48 or 48-47.  It'd be more 54-45 or 53-45.....Romney

So, indeed, if the accurate polling holds, Romney could easily win with 300+ electoral votes (which I would actually predict).  BUT, with all this ever reported polling of Romney neck and neck with Obama, how razor thin the margin is, that if Romney were to win with the 300+ electoral votes, the left is going to go apesnot, absolutely convinced that "the election was stolen.....again"   And the evidence?........nothing outside of the polling.  How on earth could Romney win in such a massive way, if they were polling so close?

That's my prediction.....Romney wins with 301 - 321 electoral votes......and the Dems immediately cry "fix!!...stolen!!...an electoral lynching!!", based on nothing more than the polls.

Any bets on my prediction?

[sirs]

Case in point:

Polls would have to be wrong by four points for Romney to win
Posted by Dylan Matthews on November 5, 2012
Washington Post

“The only poll that matters is on election day,” goes the old cliché. It’s a reassuring sentiment for Mitt Romney supporters, given that recent polling shows their candidate running behind in many key swing states. And there’s a kernel of truth to it: There’s absolutely a chance the polls are all wrong.

But just how wrong would current polls have to be for Romney to win the election? Robert Erikson, a prominent forecasting specialist at Columbia, and his colleague Karl Sigman did the math. They estimate that if the current polls are correct, Obama has a 99.9 percent chance of winning.

That’s impressive, but not that remarkable given that Obama has more electoral votes from safe states than Romney does. That means that if you flipped a coin to determine who won different battleground states, Obama would still have an 83.9 percent chance of winning. The geography is just more favorable to him.

But what happens if the polls are wrong, and biased (in the statistical sense, not the ideological sense) in Obama’s favor? If they’re two points too favorable to Obama, Erikson and Sigman estimate that there’s still an 65.9 percent chance Obama wins; if they’re four points off, there’s a 1.7 percent chance he wins, making a Romney win a near certainty. The following table summarizes these results:



A four-point swing in the final days isn’t unthinkable. Erikson and Sigman note that a swing nearly that big happened in the national vote in 2000, with almost 4 percent of voters swinging toward Al Gore following the discovery of George W. Bush’s DUI arrest.

The problem was that the swing bypassed battleground states, where the candidates had already spent more time campaigning, indicating that those voters’ opinions were more fixed in the last weeks than those of voters in safe states. So a four-point swing in battleground states is a little harder to imagine than a swing that large in the national vote.

“Unheard of” doesn’t mean “impossible,” of course, but it does suggest that Romney has tough odds to overcome Tuesday.

Article

[BSB]

I'd say if Romney gets 300 electoral votes it was fixed by the mafia, or maybe the Cubans. You know the CIA was also probably involved. And don't tell there was only one shooter, I'm not buying it. I bet there were several Bain Capital people on the grassy knoll and a couple of LDSers behind the fence.


BSB


P.S. Stop being so paranoid Miss Sirs

[Christians4LessGvt]

[sirs]

I'd say if Romney gets 300 electoral votes it was fixed by the mafia, or maybe the Cubans. You know the CIA was also probably involved. And don't tell there was only one shooter, I'm not buying it. I bet there were several Bain Capital people on the grassy knoll and a couple of LDSers behind the fence.

BSB

Yea, because that's clearly what I was referring to        Nice to see B taking topics being discussed so seriously.  Let us know if your game on taking my bet, any time

Sirs


P.S.  Stop being so Obtuse Miss B