I will explain why the media is reporting a close race

Pekelo

Pekelo

Because basicly none of the sides want to admit that it is NOT a close race. It is simply not in their best interest. The popular vote is irrelevant, the Electoral College is what counts as we know since 2000. And Obama has a very decent EC lead. Anyway:

1. Dems: They want the young voters actually to show up. If Obama has a reported decent lead, lots of them might stay home on election day because "he is going to win anyway".

2. Reps: They don't want the money to dry up. Who wants to donate to a sure loser? Also, they want their voters to show up too, if he is behind by 5%, lots of would be voters might stay home.

3. Media: An already decided race is boring. A close race is exciting, so to keep up interest and excitement, they report the slightest change that would make the race look closer than it is.

In reality, Obama has had a 30-50 EC lead in the last 6 months, nothing changed that. Personally, I don't even think Reps want Romney to win, because they want their real guys in 2016, so this time the Ohio voting machines won't be tinkered with. Hopefully...

Now you understand the news, and you can stop your premature orgasm...

54267989.png
 
modeling slanted poll is ridiculous...

Look are the most recent ARG poll in ohio


Romney leads independent voters
57 % to 36%...

So to give Obama a 2 point lead they had to slant the poll...

43D/ 34/R / 23 I
 
Hi, Ho, Nate Silver: NYT's Star Poll Analyst Bolsters Fading Democratic Spirits Once Again

By Clay Waters | October 26, 2012

The closer Election Day looms, the more often New York Times golden-boy Nate Silver is thrust from his Five-Thirty-Eight blog into the print edition with another poll analysis rallying the troops for Obama. In last Saturday's paper Silver, who has been optimistic about Obama's chances in the fact of rising poll numbers for Romney, dismissed results from Gallup's tracking poll showing wide leads for Romney in "Gallup vs. the World." He also boosted Obama in Tuesday's print edition: "We calculate Mr. Obama’s odds of re-election as being about two chances out of three."

On Friday he wrote "Gaining Momentum, Whatever That Is," adapted from a blog post whose headline was more explicit: "In Polls, Romney’s Momentum Seems to Have Stopped."

Michael Cooper eagerly jumped on the bandwagon with his Thursday "Caucus" post, "Has Romney’s Rise in Polls Stopped?" Cooper had shown no interest in the three weeks of polls showing Romney's poll numbers sharply improving, but now that Romney's surge may have stalled, he asks:

Is there Ro-mentum, or is it faux-mentum?

A debate has been raging among polling analysts and commentators about whether Mitt Romney is still gaining ground, as he did after the first debate, or if his bounce has slowed or stalled. But while some Republicans say that they still have the wind at their backs, several polling analysts weighed in recently to argue that the data suggests there is no longer a Romney surge.

Of course he cited Silver's blog post on the myth of momentum:

Nate Silver, who writes the FiveThirtyEight blog in The New York Times, wrote Thursday: “Mr. Romney clearly gained ground in the polls in the week or two after the Denver debate, putting himself in a much stronger overall position in the race. However, it seems that he is no longer doing so.”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-w...r-pollster-bolsters-fading-democratic-spirits
 
Quote from jem:

modeling is ridiculous...
More...

It worked perfectly 4 years ago...

You can look at any kind of polls, to have a premature orgasm, it won't change the facts. But I will see you here in 2 weeks....

In Nate we trust! :)

P.S.: To add my personal opinion: Most Rep big guns see another 4 bad years economically speaking, so they didn't even try to enter the race this time. 2016 is the big time, and they let Romney to lose this one....
 
Quote from Pekelo:

Because basicly none of the sides want to admit that it is NOT a close race. It is simply not in their best interest. The popular vote is irrelevant, the Electoral College is what counts as we know since 2000. And Obama has a very decent EC lead. Anyway:

1. Dems: They want the young voters actually to show up. If Obama has a reported decent lead, lots of them might stay home on election day because "he is going to win anyway".

2. Reps: They don't want the money to dry up. Who wants to donate to a sure loser? Also, they want their voters to show up too, if he is behind by 5%, lots of would be voters might stay home.

3. Media: An already decided race is boring. A close race is exciting, so to keep up interest and excitement, they report the slightest change that would make the race look closer than it is.

In reality, Obama has had a 30-50 EC lead in the last 6 months, nothing changed that. Personally, I don't even think Reps want Romney to win, because they want their real guys in 2016, so this time the Ohio voting machines won't be tinkered with. Hopefully...

Now you understand the news, and you can stop your premature orgasm...

54267989.png
More...

truman_deweywins.jpg
 
Quote from wildchild:

...
More...

Excuse me, but did you have anything against my arguments?

But a Romney win would be funny, because all the real guns among the Reps then have to wait another 8 years. I don't think they want that, so they might even do something against the Mittens....
 
Quote from Pekelo:

Excuse me, but did you have anything against my arguments?
More...

Asking such a question shows that something went right over your head.
 
ask nate the odds of Obama winning if Romney currently has the lead with independents in Ohio by 21 according to todays ARG poll.
 
Quote from jem:

ask nate the odds of Obama winning if Romney currently has the lead with independents in Ohio by 21 according to todays ARG poll.
More...

Ten more days, jem, just ten more days.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top