Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Electoral college favors Obama

Oct 30, 2012#1

strawman

The AP reports that while the polls show the race is quite close, once you factor in the electoral college and swing states, Romney has very few, and very difficult, paths to win the presidency.

While it's always mere speculation at this point, Ohio seems to be the key to winning for Romney. As polls stand in other states, if he doesn't take Ohio he will have to take more than a few generally blue states to make the 270 minimum electoral college votes.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-10-28-12-37-06

Chances are good the polls and math will be completely different by next week, and again we'll see that the actual election will turn out significantly differently than the polls (after these last few elections everyone's left scratching their heads going, "But why were pre-election polls so different than the outcome?"), but while we keep getting reports of either candidate up or down by five points in the polls, it's important to keep in mind that even if that's the case, the electoral collage changes that math in important ways, and it's not enough to simply rely on the raw number.

Oct 30, 2012#2

MindDetective

FiveThirtyEight has basically been saying the same thing.

Oct 30, 2012#3

Shakey

I don't know. I have a feeling Romney is going to win this one. Maybe it's just that I'm pretty much surrounded by Republicans, but it feels like most people who don't have a solid tie to a party are leaning towards Romney right now. Either way, this will probably be even closer and more contested than any we've had since the Bush/Gore election.

Oct 30, 2012#4

Charlie Don't Surf

Shakey said:
I have a feeling Romney is going to win this one. Maybe it's just that I'm pretty much surrounded by Republicans, but it feels like most people who don't have a solid tie to a party are leaning towards Romney right now.

let me take your gut feeling and anecdotal evidence and just saddle it up right next to polls and math and science and gosh, let's see which one is more accurate

Oct 30, 2012#5

Gared

That's right Shakey... how dare you have an opinion that isn't backed up by science. Don't you know that that's what's wrong with America?

Oct 30, 2012#6

MindDetective

Kind of on the nose, really, Gared.

Oct 30, 2012#7

Shakey

Charlie Don't Surf said:
let me take your gut feeling and anecdotal evidence and just saddle it up right next to polls and math and science and gosh, let's see which one is more accurate

Settle down there chief. It was just an opinion. I'm not saying they're wrong, or that I'm 100% right, I'm saying it's the feeling I'm getting.[DOUBLEPOST=1351630614][/DOUBLEPOST]Wait, I shouldn't call you chief, that might be considered offensive to native americans by implying they're all hot headed and quick to fight. Ummm, shooter, lets go with shooter instead.

Oct 30, 2012#8

Gared

MindDetective said:
Kind of on the nose, really, Gared.

Ahh... but if no one ever had an opinion that wasn't backed by scientific fact, would we ever have any new discoveries? If, throughout history, we'd never opined (or theorized) about anything that we didn't already know the answer to, would we ever have discovered why lower air pressure below the wing of an aircraft causes lift, and therefore allows said aircraft to fly? Or been able to harness electricity? Or come to understand mental illness? Or anything else that we've ever discovered?

Oct 30, 2012#9

strawman

If we've learned anything from the last four presidential elections, it's that the pre-election polls are all so much rubbish. When they're this close there's only so much solid conclusion one can draw from the statistics, and at best it's usually, "Things are pretty darn close!"

What's stupid is that news outlets are publishing these numbers because they have nothing else to go on. "Candidate X has a 3 point lead, which is well within the margin of error, but we're going to pretend it's important. Now on to our political commentators about the impact of this drastic, nay, tectonic move towards Candidate X..."

Ah well. I guess that's what happens when you need a wedding dress but you've only got enough cloth for a swimsuit.

Oct 30, 2012#10

MindDetective

Well, the guy on the FiveThirtyEight blog knows statistics and not only that, he tells you his methodology and hedges his conclusions.

Gared said:
Ahh... but if no one ever had an opinion that wasn't backed by scientific fact, would we ever have any new discoveries? If, throughout history, we'd never opined (or theorized) about anything that we didn't already know the answer to, would we ever have discovered why lower air pressure below the wing of an aircraft causes lift, and therefore allows said aircraft to fly? Or been able to harness electricity? Or come to understand mental illness? Or anything else that we've ever discovered?

Sure, if that's what we were even discussing. This isn't about innovation, though. It is an opinion about a predicted outcome. Those are not in remotely the same neighborhood. It turns out, people actually have biases, and they often believe they are not biased, for that matter. I personally see nothing wrong with acknowledging that people have biases and that they are prone to act erroneously on them.

Oct 30, 2012#11

Shakey

MindDetective said:
Sure, if that's what we were even discussing. This isn't about innovation, though. It is an opinion about a predicted outcome. Those are not in remotely the same neighborhood. It turns out, people actually have biases, and they often believe they are not biased, for that matter. I personally see nothing wrong with acknowledging that people have biases and that they are prone to act erroneously on them.

I even say the reason it feels like Romney will win is because I'm mostly surrounded by Republicans. Hell, I don't even want Romney to win, but that's just the feeling I get. Does that make it wrong that we discuss the idea that the election might turn out different than what the polls are predicting? What's the point of having topics like this if we are just going to say "Yep, that's what the polls say."

Oct 30, 2012#12

Charlie Don't Surf

also, it is kind of pointless to look at.. what, maybe 100 people in Wisconsin? and be like "OH SHIT EVERYONE IS VOTING ROMNEY" when Wisconsin won't in any way influence who becomes President.

ALSO if you expand it to your facebook friends (let's give you 2,500 to be really generous), it's still not statistically relevant, even if they all live in Ohio

Oct 30, 2012#13

MindDetective

Shakey said:
I even say the reason it feels like Romney will win is because I'm mostly surrounded by Republicans. Hell, I don't even want Romney to win, but that's just the feeling I get. Does that make it wrong that we discuss the idea that the election might turn out different than what the polls are predicting? What's the point of having topics like this if we are just going to say "Yep, that's what the polls say."

I'm not telling you to shut up at all. But 1.) Charlie is right. The statistics are stronger than gut instinct and 2.) People often rely on their biases to a fault, which I think is strongly reflected in the media and their depiction of polling data as well. That's why I think Gared's statement was on the nose.

Oct 30, 2012#14

Dave

You know, even though I like where this thread is at (with an Obama win) I would rather have a Romney win and a removal of the electoral college than an Obama win and the college remains in tact. I think it's lived past its viability.

Oct 30, 2012#15

MindDetective

I think dropping the electoral college means dropping "United States" from the country's name. The electoral college is meant to 1.) indicate a clear winner in a close race and 2.) to allow the states to have a clear voice. I am NOT saying it is the best approach by any means, but I do not, do not, do not agree that it should be a purely popular vote.

Oct 30, 2012#16

Charlie Don't Surf

Dave said:
You know, even though I like where this thread is at (with an Obama win) I would rather have a Romney win and a removal of the electoral college than an Obama win and the college remains in tact. I think it's lived past its viability.

How about Obama wins the EC and loses the popular vote and we kick out the Electoral College? That way we don't get like 70 years of a severely conservative Supreme Court that will do all kinds of heinous shit.

Oct 30, 2012#17

Dave

Charlie Don't Surf said:
How about Obama wins the EC and loses the popular vote and we kick out the Electoral College? That way we don't get like 70 years of a severely conservative Supreme Court that will do all kinds of heinous shit.

I'll bet someone a few years ago said the same thing about the liberal Supreme Court when Gore won the popular vote.

So yes. We could have that same scenario with the roles reversed.

Oct 30, 2012#18

Necronic

Charlie Don't Surf said:
ALSO if you expand it to your facebook friends (let's give you 2,500 to be really generous), it's still not statistically relevant, even if they all live in Ohio

I'm not sure that's true (assuming it's well randomized/representative.) The Law of large numbers should mean that n=2500 will give you a good estimate of the population mean. "Well randomized/representative" is key here, and arguably impossible due to the self selecting population of people who will actually talk to pollsters (I've hung up on 3 so far), but that's independent of the volume.

Oct 30, 2012#19

GasBandit

Too hard to say, now. What with the hurricane and the horrible track record of election polling (sorry, MD), I wouldn't put money on either candidate right now. But I do agree that once Ohio's been called, if it's blue, it's over.

Oct 30, 2012#20

MindDetective

Aggregated polling data is the way to go. And FiveThirtyEight's results are pretty similar to others taking a similar approach. He is also running simulations that incorporate state and national fluctuations in the data. I'd say it will take a genuine October (November?) surprise to swing things towards Romney at this point.

And Sandy is going to be ancient history when election day rolls around.

Oct 30, 2012#21

Covar

MindDetective said:
And Sandy is going to be ancient history when election day rolls around.

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

Oct 30, 2012#22

Dave

Hell, even Christie is praising Obama right now. I think the Dems will be the ones trying to keep this in the spotlight. Romney wants to get rid of FEMA, but this storm is showing a large swath of population what FEMA can be if run right. I hate politicizing something like this, but you know they are going to.

Oct 30, 2012#23

MindDetective

Covar said:
I wouldn't be so sure of that.

I'm not 100% sure of that, but things will certainly look different next week. A regular ol' rainstorm on election day is probably going to be more influential than Sandy next week.

Oct 30, 2012#24

Gared

MindDetective said:
Well, the guy on the FiveThirtyEight blog knows statistics and not only that, he tells you his methodology and hedges his conclusions.

Sure, if that's what we were even discussing. This isn't about innovation, though. It is an opinion about a predicted outcome. Those are not in remotely the same neighborhood. It turns out, people actually have biases, and they often believe they are not biased, for that matter. I personally see nothing wrong with acknowledging that people have biases and that they are prone to act erroneously on them.

Sure, but there's a difference between pointing out - in a calm, even-keeled manner - that people have biases and that they are prone to act erroneously on them, and making a snide comment about holding someone's personal feelings (based on their observations) up to scientific fact and seeing which one is more accurate, like Charlie did. Especially since political polling is so fluid. Sure, these polls and stats predict that Obama will win, based on the electoral college; but what if Obama had really, really screwed up the response to hurricane Sandy? Would that have stayed the same, or would Romney have been able to pull ahead. Political statistics are all well and good, but in this realm of probability, you really can't afford to toss out the human element.

Oct 30, 2012#25

MindDetective

Gared said:
Sure, but there's a difference between pointing out - in a calm, even-keeled manner - that people have biases and that they are prone to act erroneously on them, and making a snide comment about holding someone's personal feelings (based on their observations) up to scientific fact and seeing which one is more accurate, like Charlie did. Especially since political polling is so fluid. Sure, these polls and stats predict that Obama will win, based on the electoral college; but what if Obama had really, really screwed up the response to hurricane Sandy? Would that have stayed the same, or would Romney have been able to pull ahead. Political statistics are all well and good, but in this realm of probability, you really can't afford to toss out the human element.

Hey, I don't condone his tone at all, but his statement wasn't inaccurate.[DOUBLEPOST=1351634608][/DOUBLEPOST]

Gared said:
Sure, these polls and stats predict that Obama will win, based on the electoral college; but what if Obama had really, really screwed up the response to hurricane Sandy? Would that have stayed the same, or would Romney have been able to pull ahead. Political statistics are all well and good, but in this realm of probability, you really can't afford to toss out the human element.

Oh, and specifically in response to this part: FiveThirtyEight has discussed natural disasters, but has no precedence for this close to the election. Still, he gives Romney a 31% chance of winning the election. The analyses don't claim to be ironclad and so they always hedge their conclusions. Yes, Romney could win. Most likely, it will take some big news to swing things in his favor for that to happen.

Oct 30, 2012#26

Hailey Knight

GasBandit said:
(sorry, MD)

No biggie smalls, it's cool.

Oct 30, 2012#27

bhamv3

stienman said:
Ah well. I guess that's what happens when you need a wedding dress but you've only got enough cloth for a swimsuit.

Good thread, but right now this is the only mental image I care about...

Oct 30, 2012#28

Necronic

MindDetective said:
I'm not 100% sure of that, but things will certainly look different next week. A regular ol' rainstorm on election day is probably going to be more influential than Sandy next week.

I wouldn't write off the long term affects of Sandy. Problem wasn't the storm so much as the storm surge/flooding. Same thing happened here and it took a looooooong time to rebuild

Oct 30, 2012#29

Gilgamesh

Got to love how Romney canceled his Political Rally to host a Relief Rally.... at the same place... and same time that his Political Rally was supposed to be.

Oct 30, 2012#30

Zappit

Gilgamesh said:
Got to love how Romney canceled his Political Rally to host a Relief Rally.... at the same place... and same time that his Political Rally was supposed to be.

Probably raising money for the 47% of Americans affected by the storm, too.

Oct 31, 2012#31

sixpackshaker

The only thing I'll drop on Romney right now... Etch-a-Sketch moment.

Oct 31, 2012#32

Dei

Neither president getting elected is going to make a damn bit of difference on whether or not we keep the electoral college. It would require an amendment, and Congress does not get along well enough for that to happen I'm sure.

Oct 31, 2012#33

AshburnerX

We're probably going to see a lot of seats vacated come 2014 if Obama wins... or the Republicans are going to start turning on each other to keep their seats.

Oct 31, 2012#34

Covar

Gilgamesh said:
Got to love how Romney canceled his Political Rally to host a Relief Rally.... at the same place... and same time that his Political Rally was supposed to be.

If I wasn't wearing a tinfoil hat I might wager it was because of the large space already rented out and scheduled, and the minimal change to the travel schedule required.

Oct 31, 2012#35

sixpackshaker

With the devastation to the North East, the vote there will likely be suppressed as people are busy getting their lives and property back together. i.e. too busy to vote. There could be millions that don't get out and vote because of the storm. So now it will be more likely that Obama will lose the popular vote, but still carry the electoral college.

Oct 31, 2012#36

Gilgamesh

Covar said:
If I wasn't wearing a tinfoil hat I might wager it was because of the large space already rented out and scheduled, and the minimal change to the travel schedule required.

Oh and since he expected a low turn out of supplies, his team bought $5,000 in supplies and lined them up on the donation table for photo ops to make it look like the tables were full. Afterwards he forced the Red Cross to break their rules and accept his donations. Fantastic.

Oct 31, 2012#37

AshburnerX

sixpackshaker said:
With the devastation to the North East, the vote there will likely be suppressed as people are busy getting their lives and property back together. i.e. too busy to vote. There could be millions that don't get out and vote because of the storm. So now it will be more likely that Obama will lose the popular vote, but still carry the electoral college.

Except the North East is also home to many Blue State strongholds. If enough people can't get out to vote, it could conceivably cost him one of his core states. That would make it much simpler for Romney to win.

Gilgamesh said:
Oh and since he expected a low turn out of supplies, his team bought $5,000 in supplies and lined them up on the donation table for photo ops to make it look like the tables were full. Afterwards he forced the Red Cross to break their rules and accept his donations. Fantastic.

I'd be more upset if the Red Cross wasn't staffed by assholes. They routinely try to shut down independent aid operations and are well known for sending people into the ones they can't shutdown to tell reporters it's a Red Cross op. This is on top of them charging people for food at times. I know it's just to support future aid ops but it's still a dick move for disaster victims.

Entire organization is full of glory hounds.

Oct 31, 2012#38

GasBandit

How dare Romney buy and donate $5000 worth of supplies to the red cross. String em up.[DOUBLEPOST=1351712590][/DOUBLEPOST]

AshburnerX said:
Except the North East is also home to many Blue State strongholds. If enough people can't get out to vote, it could conceivably cost him one of his core states. That would make it much simpler for Romney to win.

Only New Hampshire could possibly have this scenario, and they're not exactly New York.

Oct 31, 2012#39

strawman

How dare the red cross accept donations outside its normal operating procedure during a disaster.

Oct 31, 2012#40

sixpackshaker

AshburnerX said:
Except the North East is also home to many Blue State strongholds. If enough people can't get out to vote, it could conceivably cost him one of his core states. That would make it much simpler for Romney to win.

Right, he'll lose the popular election because of all the Blue States that got hit, but still carry those states.

Oct 31, 2012#41

strawman

Yeah, I'm not seeing the, "The democrats in those states will be hampered by the storm more than the republicans, therefore it might be possible to get more electoral college votes to romney" angle there.

Oct 31, 2012#42

sixpackshaker

stienman said:
How dare the red cross accept donations outside its normal operating procedure during a disaster.

Because it really screws with their logistics.

Oct 31, 2012#43

Dei

GasBandit said:
How dare Romney buy and donate $5000 worth of supplies to the red cross. String em up.[DOUBLEPOST=1351712590][/DOUBLEPOST]
Only New Hampshire could possibly have this scenario, and they're not exactly New York.

Well I can say that if the entirety of NYC didn't vote there's a reasonable chance NY could swing red. Somehow I don't find that likely. (I know that the Western part of the state is pretty red, I enjoy pointing out to my family that it doesn't matter who they vote for, they are still going to be voting for Obama

)

Oct 31, 2012#44

strawman

sixpackshaker said:
Because it really screws with their logistics.

Not necessarily. They don't even have to use them for this disaster (though I suspect they will because they'll need to).

Besides, a lot of SOPs go out the window during a disaster, and the Red Cross is nimble enough to be able to manage out of stream donations of sufficient size.

The problem is when a lot of little donations from a lot of little sources come into the Red Cross.

But a big donation from a single source poses a much smaller problem for logistics.

Not that it matters. You are convinced that the Romney campaign is actively hurting and hampering the Red Cross relief efforts, and I feel differently.

Oct 31, 2012#45

sixpackshaker

Where the hell did I say anything about Romney hurting the Red Cross. You asked why the RC would not take hand-me-downs and I gave you the reason.

Someone else implied that Romney was grandstanding, and he likely was.

Oct 31, 2012#46

Gilgamesh

GasBandit said:
How dare Romney buy and donate $5000 worth of supplies to the red cross. String em up.

Cute. However, missing the point entirely.

Oct 31, 2012#47

Gared

I don't feel that Romney specifically went out of his way to hamper the Red Cross relief efforts, but I do know that the Red Cross was specifically asking - before he started his relief rally, during the rally, and after the rally - that people not donate goods, which they didn't have the distribution channels set up for at that point, and instead donate money. That being said, people love canned food/clothing/etc. drives, because they feel like they're really helping out, and because it lets them get rid of stuff that they already have around the house, in a lot of cases. The amount of cans and boxes of food I collected during my scouting career, and the amount of clothing we were always able to round up whenever my (former) gaming org used to hold clothing drives are proof enough of that. I can't honestly say that I'm the least bit upset that Romney's campaign allowed people not affected by the storm to feel like they were doing something to help those that were. And besides, the Red Cross is a massive organization, with enough employees and volunteers that I'm sure they had some group of people who could unload a truck full of donations; and even if they couldn't use them right that moment, there'll come a time when they can, or they'll get them to someone else who can use them.

Oct 31, 2012#48

Necronic

AshburnerX said:
I'd be more upset if the Red Cross wasn't staffed by assholes. They routinely try to shut down independent aid operations and are well known for sending people into the ones they can't shutdown to tell reporters it's a Red Cross op. This is on top of them charging people for food at times. I know it's just to support future aid ops but it's still a dick move for disaster victims.

Entire organization is full of glory hounds.

Good friend of mine is a Red Cross admin. Could you please show some references for this?

Also, along the same lines:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/18/soup-kitchen-paul-ryan-photo-donor_n_1980541.html

Kind of a sad story here. (Although Fark has rallied behind this soup kitchen to help raise money.)

Oct 31, 2012#49

GasBandit

Gilgamesh said:
Cute. However, missing the point entirely.

Yeah, I know, the point is that Romney is a horrible monster who eats babies.

Oct 31, 2012#50

Krisken

GasBandit said:
How dare Romney buy and donate $5000 worth of supplies to the red cross.

Not string them up, just shows how utterly retarded Romney is when it comes to actually being prepared and doing things the right way. If he had held a blood drive, that would have been MUCH better and hell, he would have looked like a saint. Instead he bought a photo op, much like the Ryan clean-pots photo op.

Oct 31, 2012#51

strawman

If he held a blood drive people would complain about him taking Red Cross volunteers away from the relief effort.

In fact, there's nothing he could have done that wouldn't be interpretted as a bad move by someone somewhere.

We're going to see a number of reports regarding obamas and FEMA missteps soon enough anyway, whether they exist or are bad or not. You can make political hay out of just about anything.

Oct 31, 2012#52

MindDetective

stienman said:
If he held a blood drive people would complain about him taking Red Cross volunteers away from the relief effort.

In fact, there's nothing he could have done that wouldn't be interpretted as a bad move by someone somewhere.

We're going to see a number of reports regarding obamas and FEMA missteps soon enough anyway, whether they exist or are bad or not. You can make political hay out of just about anything.

Sounds like the Corrupt Wishes forum game.

Oct 31, 2012#53

Bowielee

GasBandit said:
How dare Romney buy and donate $5000 worth of supplies to the red cross. String em up.[DOUBLEPOST=1351712590][/DOUBLEPOST]
Only New Hampshire could possibly have this scenario, and they're not exactly New York.

Well, seeing as compared to the average american's income, that was like throwing a quarter to a bum, it seems somewhat hollow.

Oct 31, 2012#54

AshburnerX

stienman said:
If he held a blood drive people would complain about him taking Red Cross volunteers away from the relief effort.

In fact, there's nothing he could have done that wouldn't be interpretted as a bad move by someone somewhere.

We're going to see a number of reports regarding obamas and FEMA missteps soon enough anyway, whether they exist or are bad or not. You can make political hay out of just about anything.

If he had donated a million dollars to the Red Cross, I'd have complimented him for throwing money at a problem that can really only be solved by throwing money at it. That's what the rich are SUPPOSED to do.

Instead, he only payed for enough stuff to fit into the photo op then demanded they take it.

Oct 31, 2012#55

Bowielee

It would have benefitted either side to set aside a chunk of the millions of dollars that they're raising to fund their campaigns towards relief efforts.

Oct 31, 2012#56

Gilgamesh

stienman said:
If he held a blood drive people would complain about him taking Red Cross volunteers away from the relief effort.

In fact, there's nothing he could have done that wouldn't be interpretted as a bad move by someone somewhere.

We're going to see a number of reports regarding obamas and FEMA missteps soon enough anyway, whether they exist or are bad or not. You can make political hay out of just about anything.

Completely wrong.

If he had donated a REAL amount, without making it a Political Rally and photo OP I'd have gladly given him props. If Ryan had actually volunteered at a homeless shelter instead of washing clean dishes after everyone left and after forcing his way in after being told no, I'd have given him props. Romney has yet to do anything positive for any reason other than to try and look good. The bigger problem is he's bad at hiding the fact that he's faking it.

Oct 31, 2012#57

Krisken

stienman said:
If he held a blood drive people would complain about him taking Red Cross volunteers away from the relief effort.

In fact, there's nothing he could have done that wouldn't be interpretted as a bad move by someone somewhere.

We're going to see a number of reports regarding obamas and FEMA missteps soon enough anyway, whether they exist or are bad or not. You can make political hay out of just about anything.

Probably? I don't think it would have had legs, though. Most of the time when someone makes a stupid complaint about something someone else does that doesn't really deserve criticism, they get the stink eye from others from 'their side'. There's a lot of people in the middle (people who aren't those of us here who follow politics fairly closely) who shake their heads at the nitpicky criticisms out there.

Nov 2, 2012#58

SpecialKO

Romney didn't do anything to hurt the effort, but he sure as hell did nothing to help anyone but himself.

Look, there's no food shortage here, we have warehouses of water and canned goods for miles. What there is are food distribution and storage problems because of all the roads still trashed and all the power still out and all the trains still wrecked and the general flood damage and all the houses that have been too damaged to live in or just outright destroyed.

And then there's shit like this to deal with:

That's a 200-ft-long 700 ton cargo ship just hanging out on what used to be a major sea-side road.

We don't need food and water from out of state, we need money and equipment and disaster expertise.

Nov 2, 2012#59

Covar

To be fair, and this is true of Obama as well, there's not anything they can do, but visit the area looking solemn and concerned, giving speeches about how things will get better, and overcoming adversity.

Nov 2, 2012#60

Gilgamesh

Covar said:
To be fair, and this is true of Obama as well, there's not anything they can do, but visit the area looking solemn and concerned, giving speeches about how things will get better, and overcoming adversity.

Or you know, get federal funding there as quickly as possible for those machines/workforce to help. Oh wait no, we're downing on Obama, all he can do is look around.

Nov 2, 2012#61

SpecialKO

Covar said:
To be fair, and this is true of Obama as well, there's not anything they can do, but visit the area looking solemn and concerned, giving speeches about how things will get better, and overcoming adversity.

Actually the most important thing that got done happened in the first 24 hours after the storm.

The President called Christie, Cuomo, and Bloomberg and asked, "what do you need?"

All three of them said, "Money to fuel our National guard units, rent heavy-duty construction equipment, pay to get disaster experts who understand how to coordinate all the different OEMs in the area actually in the area, repair roads, and fuel supply trucks without bankrupting our state/city's ability to deliver on social/public services for years. Oh, and please cut orders for the Army Corps of Engineers to show up and help us drain all our submerged tunnels because that's not something we regularly do."

And the President said, "You got it."

I'm not coming down on Romney for not being able to do anything. He's not currently President. If he had stuck to a simple heartfelt statement and encouraged Americans to donate money to the Red Cross or any area-based relief organization, I would have said he had done all he could and well done on him.

But pretending like he was, for a photo op? Come the fuck on.

Nov 2, 2012#62

Gilgamesh

Pretending for a Photo Op has been the backbone of the Romney campaign since day one. They'd take a picture with a dying child to look good before they'd actually give them what they'd need to survive without and not trying to publicize it.

Nov 2, 2012#63

strawman

Gilgamesh said:
They'd take a picture with a dying child to look good before they'd actually give them what they'd need to survive

You believe they would do this?

Nov 2, 2012#64

Gilgamesh

stienman said:
You believe they would do this?

Nope, it's called exaggeration.

Nov 2, 2012#65

GasBandit

Gilgamesh said:
Nope, it's called exaggeration.

The term you are looking for, I believe, is hyperbole.

Nov 2, 2012#66

Gilgamesh

GasBandit said:
The term you are looking for, I believe, is hyperbole.

No, I mean he really does things that no sane person would do, even in the case of helping someone, for the pure purpose of a photo op, then leaving without ever helping the individual to a real extent. The dying kid comment is an exaggeration on that point.

Nov 2, 2012#67

GasBandit

Gilgamesh said:
No, I mean he really does things that no sane person would do, even in the case of helping someone, for the pure purpose of a photo op, then leaving without ever helping the individual to a real extent. The dying kid comment is an exaggeration on that point.

... which is the very definition of hyperbole. Exaggeration to illustrate a point.

Nov 2, 2012#68

Gilgamesh

Or it can just be called an exaggeration.

Nov 2, 2012#69

Dei

Or "I don't like big words so I'm going to argue for no real reason."

Nov 2, 2012#70

Gilgamesh

Yep that's me. Senor Too Stupid To Use Large Words. Herp Derp.

Nov 2, 2012#71

GasBandit

Gilgamesh said:
Or it can just be called an exaggeration.

Despite what you may think, I don't think you wanna go that way. Exaggeration has connotations associated with dishonesty because it implies attempting to knowingly bend the truth without it being known to the audience, whereas hyperbole is a recognized rhetorical device because it is not intended to be taken literally.

Nov 2, 2012#72

Espy

Damn ya'll shit just got real up in here.

Nov 2, 2012#73

Krisken

It was hyperbolic exaggeration. Can we move back to how stupid everyone is?

Nov 2, 2012#74

Gilgamesh

GasBandit said:
Despite what you may think, I don't think you wanna go that way. Exaggeration has connotations associated with dishonesty because it implies attempting to knowingly bend the truth without it being known to the audience, whereas hyperbole is a recognized rhetorical device because it is not intended to be taken literally.

Got it. Thanks.

Krisken - That would be love-r-ly.

Nov 2, 2012#75

strawman

So does the fact that Obama has only vetoed two bills in the last four years suggest that he isn't using his executive powers to push congress in the right direction, or that he works so well with them that they don't pass bills he isn't going to sign, or that we've had the lowest number of bills come out of congress this last term than we've had in the last dozen terms?

Nov 2, 2012#76

Tress

It's a Rorschach Test... which of those do you want it to be?

Nov 2, 2012#77

Krisken

I honestly think it's the third. Congress has become so polarized since the 2010 elections, especially on the House side, getting things done is not a top priority with these clowns.

When the top Republican in the Senate says their goal is to make sure the President doesn't get elected again, it sorta taints everything they do.

Nov 2, 2012#78

GasBandit

Krisken said:
I honestly think it's the third. Congress has become so polarized since the 2010 elections, especially on the House side, getting things done is not a top priority with these clowns.

When the top Republican in the Senate says their goal is to make sure the President doesn't get elected again, it sorta taints everything they do.

Harry Reid has vowed that, if Romney wins, he will stonewall EVERYTHING.

Nov 2, 2012#79

sixpackshaker

GasBandit said:
Harry Reid has vowed that, if Romney wins, he will stonewall EVERYTHING.

It is what happened to the last two Democratic Presidents.

Nov 2, 2012#80

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
It is what happened to the last two Democratic Presidents.

Assuming you mean the current and previous, as I don't think you meant Carter. Unless you've already written off Obama as having lost the election.

The opposition to Obama has often been bipartisan.

Nov 2, 2012#81

Krisken

Ooohh, five democrats in the House. That's bipartisan now.[DOUBLEPOST=1351903838][/DOUBLEPOST]

GasBandit said:
Harry Reid has vowed that, if Romney wins, he will stonewall EVERYTHING.

It saddens me, but it doesn't surprise me. Hell, I would have thought Reid mentally retarded if he didn't take the same stance the Republicans did the last two years. This won't end well for anyone, and we have no one to blame but ourselves for electing more partisan nitwits while kicking out the moderates.

Nov 3, 2012#82

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Ooohh, five democrats in the House. That's bipartisan now.

If not, then passing Obamacare wasn't bipartisan either.

Nov 3, 2012#83

Krisken

GasBandit said:
If not, then passing Obamacare wasn't bipartisan either.

I agree with that. However, I'd also say it wasn't a partisan bill. Not getting the peckerheads to vote for their own initiatives and demands should put the blame squarely on those who deserve it.

Nov 3, 2012#84

jwhouk

... I thought this was a thread about the electoral college, and who had to win what state and all that?

Nov 3, 2012#85

Krisken

jwhouk said:
... I thought this was a thread about the electoral college, and who had to win what state and all that?

Oh, that's right. My bad for getting sucked in

On the Electoral College front, I think it's still favoring Obama. State polls are showing he has a slim lead in Nevada, and slightly stronger leads in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Michigan. I think these four states will be enough for Obama to hold onto the Presidency.

Should be interesting the next 3 days, for sure. Get ready for Wednesday morning legal challenges everywhere no matter who wins.

Nov 3, 2012#86

jwhouk

Krisken - if Obama's got the lead here, what is up with all the ####in' Romney signs I saw up and down I-94/90/39 today?

Nov 3, 2012#87

Krisken

jwhouk said:
Krisken - if Obama's got the lead here, what is up with all the ####in' Romney signs I saw up and down I-94/90/39 today?

Obama's stronghold in the state is easily Madison/Dade county. You're going to see a lot of signs for Romney, for sure, but overall the more populated areas are going to swing more Obama than Romney, especially where minorities and women are concerned.

Nov 3, 2012#88

jwhouk

On a similar subject: how many GPS calls have you gotten in the last week?

I've gotten about 12 since the 1st.

Nov 3, 2012#89

Dei

What's interesting to me is that Obama's campaigning has nothing on Romney. We would get 5-6 calls a *DAY* about "VOTE FOR ROMNEY BLAH BLAH BLAH" and no calls from Obama's campaign. Our junk mail has a token Vote for Obama mailing once and a while, but it's overwhelmingly Romney crap. I was seriously ready to throw my phone out the window and lock my mailbox.

Definitely did early voting the day after it opened just to make it (mostly) stop.

Nov 3, 2012#90

jwhouk

Oh, on my iPod Touch, I have nothing BUT anti-Tammy Baldwin* ads on webpages. I suspect they'd be all over the webpages I visit if I didn't have adblock.

* - Tammy Baldwin is running for retiring Senator Herb Kohl's seat in Wisconsin - against my former "boss", Tommy Thompson.

Nov 4, 2012#91

AshburnerX

Well let's look at the scorecard for election night to get an idea of what needs to go down...

To put mildly, this is Obama's to lose. Romney has to...

- Win every state McCain won in '08. This is likely, but it's not inconceivable he could lose one and basically lose at this step.

- Win back some of the red states that Obama decisively won in '08. Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina are the most advantageous and most likely to happen at this point, but it's far from assured. I'd probably give him Indiana at least at this point though.

- He must win both Ohio AND Florida. Ohio's statistically going left this election, but it's close enough it go could ether way. Florida is just plain impossible to call because it's population is so transient. If he loses ether Ohio or Florida, he's done unless he picks up a ton of the swing states or wins back several of the one's McCain lost in '08.

- Win at least one of the other swing states. This is pretty likely, but every one he doesn't get makes it harder for him to win. He'd also have to win back several more of these if he loses Ohio, Florida, or fails to regain some of the traditional red states.

Nov 5, 2012#92

Charlie Don't Surf

Here's what I'm going to peep Election Night and Wednesday, and you should too if you like virulently conservative and mostly evil people being disappointed: https://twitter.com/GOP_Tears/republican-tears

Nov 5, 2012#93

Gilgamesh

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Here's what I'm going to peep Election Night and Wednesday, and you should too if you like virulently conservative and mostly evil people being disappointed: https://twitter.com/GOP_Tears/republican-tears

Who're the better names it's tracking?
So far I found Laura I and David Limbaugh, does it have Rush and Sean on it? They're the big 2 I'm really hoping to watch fall apart.

Loved this gem by Trump

We can't destroy the competitiveness of our factories in order to prepare for nonexistent global warming. China is thrilled with us!

Nov 5, 2012#94

Tress

Here's an interesting editorial I just came across:

My plea to the undecideds: Stay home!

By Jeff Greenfield

As the momentous day approaches, with epochal consequences for an anxiously awaiting world, I take pen in hand—make that apply fingertips to keypad—to renew a traditional plea I first made more than 30 years ago. It’s a plea I’ve made in print, on the air, and now through the miracle of digital technology. But its message never changes.

It’s a plea directed to those of you who are still uncertain about for whom you will vote. And it’s as simple as it is heartfelt: Stay home.

The candidates have been at this for years; both President Obama and Mitt Romney began running for the presidency six years ago. They’ve made speeches, answered (or evaded) questions and raised billions to persuade you of their worth—or the other guy’s worthlessness.

The media have been covering their every move and word, even when the candidates thought they weren’t. (Can you say: “Cling to their religion and guns?” “Forty-seven percent?”) The coverage has been slanted, scrupulously fair, superficial, in-depth, misleading, dead-on. With a flick of a page or the click of a mouse, you have been able to find out every conceivable piece of information you might want on their backgrounds, families, values, experience, positions taken, positions abandoned, promises made, promises broken, and what music they have on their iPods.

And after all this time, you’re still trying to make up your minds. The overwhelmingly likely reason is this: you have the reasoning power of a baked potato.

Okay, I grant you that you may be one of the small minority of concerned involved citizens who are genuinely torn, who have not yet evaluated the relative worth of the health care reform notions, or the vagaries of the tax proposals, or the respective approaches to the increasing power of the renminbi.

But I wouldn’t bet a nickel on it.

The odds are, you’ve just been too busy obsessing about the misfortunes of the Kardashians, or the quality of your ringtone, to spend any time thinking about who the better president might be.

Well, that’s your right. Unlike the Australians, we don’t compel people to vote, and it would likely be a First Amendment violation if we tried. A refusal to vote can be seen as a statement that the electoral system is rigged, or meaningless, or so thoroughly corrupt as to deserve contempt. (“I never vote,” one citizen said long ago. “It only encourages them.”)

And there are other valid reasons for not voting. As a personal matter, I stopped voting more than a decade ago, on the ground that it helped me as an analyst not to think about making a choice in the voting booth.

So it strikes me as a sound, honest statement for a prospective voter to say: “Look, I haven’t given this election a minute’s thought, and it’s just not fair for me to cancel out the vote of someone who actually gives a damn.”

Indeed, it’s not just sound and honest—it’s the ethically responsible thing to do.

Men and women in my lifetime have died fighting for the right to vote: people like James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, who were murdered in Mississippi while registering black voters in 1964, and Viola Liuzzo, murdered by the Ku Klux Klan in 1965 during the Selma Voting Rights March. In these days of early voting, we’ve seen people waiting on line for hours to exercise the franchise. Countless others, who have never had to fight for it, have spent real time either trying to decide how to cast their vote, or donating their time to persuading others.

So if you’re one of those folks who have stayed utterly disengaged through all of this, do the honorable thing: honor those for whom the vote really matters by staying home.

You’ll be doing yourself—and the country—a favor.

Nov 5, 2012#95

GasBandit

The man has a point.

Nov 5, 2012#96

Tress

GasBandit said:
The man has a point.

I agree. If you couldn't be bothered to have an opinion by now, it's probably best you just don't vote.

Nov 5, 2012#97

DarkAudit

yoinked and posted on my Tumblr... with attribution.

Nov 5, 2012#98

bhamv3

Last presidential election in Taiwan, I went down to the polling station and submitted a blank ballot. I exercised my right to vote, but I also did not think either candidate was worth voting for.

Well, okay, technically I wrote my name in the margin and voted for myself. But that'll be counted as a spoiled ballot, much like a blank one.

Nov 5, 2012#99

Eriol

I'm quoting myself from another thread: Paul Ryan thread

I don't know if you have this in the USA, but in Canada you can officially "decline" your ballot. You go up to the booth, get your ticket that you're supposed to mark which one you want, and then return it to them un-marked and tell them that you wish to officially decline it, and it is recorded that way. That is different than "spoiled" ballots which some do to express a similar sentiment, but this way you are really saying "nothing there is worth voting for" and/or "I think this system is invalid/corrupt/etc" without looking possibly like an idiot, because most of the "spoiled" ballots is of people just not following instructions, not an actual "protest" vote. It's never added up to anything significant, but it is officially recorded, rather than just not showing up, which could mean anything.

I've said before that if you don't vote, don't complain, but I would accept somebody complaining if they said they officially declined their ballot, rather than saying "oh I just didn't vote." If they go through the effort to decline it, I know they're not just being a lazy ass.

Maybe you didn't have that option in Taiwan bhamv, but if any Canadian comes in here and says they did what you did, I will call them an idiot.

Nov 5, 2012#100

bhamv3

I've been called an idiot before for doing that, in Taiwan and outside.

Nov 5, 2012#101

HCGLNS

I once declined my ballot in an election where declined ballots made up the third highest ballot count.

Nov 5, 2012#102

drifter

So I thought it would be interesting to check out that guy who essentially called Nate Silver a stupid little girly man. Here's his most current electoral map:

Pretty different from most of the other polls, but check out this one from a week earlier:

[DOUBLEPOST=1352180273][/DOUBLEPOST]Wait, I missed his latest projection, done today. Muuch closer now.

Nov 6, 2012#103

SpecialKO

I can understand the projections of a close Romney victory, but I'm having trouble imagining how anyone could have reasonably projected a 350+ Romney victory. Even at the height of his debate bump, the only way you could get that figure was to systematically ignore every poll that still gave Obama the edge in any state-by-state popular votes...oh.

Nov 6, 2012#104

Covar

A refusal to vote can be seen as a statement that the electoral system is rigged, or meaningless, or so thoroughly corrupt as to deserve contempt.

Not voting only shows apathy and tells politicians that you can be safely ignored because you're a non-participant. If you want to make a statement show up, and submit a blank ballot. Whatever you do DON'T vote for the lesser of two evils, that just says you're okay with the shit being fed. Vote for the candidate you agree with, or don't check a box at all. The important thing is participating.

Nov 6, 2012#105

@Li3n

Leaving the ballot blank can allow people to check one or the other options... be truly paranoid and check both, and write some sweet words on it about why you did it... probably won't matter, but it sure feels good...

Also, didn't know where else to put this, but Holy Cow, Romney actually comes off as human for once: http://www.salon.com/2012/11/05/romney_rant_on_mormonism_goes_viral/ and here i tohught he was just some sort of mormon automaton beamed down from Kolob to bring about the Rapture.

Nov 6, 2012#106

GasBandit

SpecialKO said:
I can understand the projections of a close Romney victory, but I'm having trouble imagining how anyone could have reasonably projected a 350+ Romney victory. Even at the height of his debate bump, the only way you could get that figure was to systematically ignore every poll that still gave Obama the edge in any state-by-state popular votes...oh.

Two reasons a lot of people are doing that -
1) So very many of the polls are oversampling democrats by a LOT. As in, even more than 2008 levels, and pretending the 2010 midterms never happened.
2) People lie to pollsters. A LOT.

When it all comes down to it, all we really know is that we know nothing other than a lot of ways to reassure/alarm ourselves and drive cable news ratings.

Nov 6, 2012#107

jwhouk

The biggest problem with polling numbers nowadays is something very simple:

Caller ID.

Nov 6, 2012#108

Covar

@Li3n said:
Leaving the ballot blank can allow people to check one or the other options... be truly paranoid and check both, and write some sweet words on it about why you did it... probably won't matter, but it sure feels good...

Then you get 2000 Florida situation, where those Nader voters clearly meant to vote for Gore.

Just got back from the polling place. After my ballot was filled out in pen, it was fed into the vote counter. Big grey box that displayed the number of ballots received, it seemed pretty solid, pretty sure no one is getting into it without the key.

Nov 6, 2012#109

@Li3n

Covar said:
Just got back from the polling place. After my ballot was filled out in pen, it was fed into the vote counter. Big grey box that displayed the number of ballots received, it seemed pretty solid, pretty sure no one is getting into it without the key.

Over here we have cardboard boxes... and not even the ones with thick walls.

Nov 6, 2012#110

Dei

Check both? There's something like 17 people on the presidential ballot here.

Also I get a nice touch screen monitor in which I tap my voting options, and then when I'm all done and confirm, it prints on a little roll of paper which never leaves the machine, but shows through a window before it disappears so I can again confirm. <3 my county's voting.

Nov 6, 2012#111

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
1) So very many of the polls are oversampling democrats by a LOT. As in, even more than 2008 levels, and pretending the 2010 midterms never happened.

While the second one is an obvious concern, there really isn't evidence of actual oversampling, at least not for recent presidential elections, and definitely not consistently over history.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...-have-no-history-of-consistent-partisan-bias/

Even the Blaze has trouble making that claim: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/this-graph-shows-why-obama-is-ahead-in-the-polls/

The polls can certainly all be wrong, and people can definitely be lying, but doesn't lend itself to saying that the more Romney-leaning polls are automatically better. The problem with polling is more likely to be in how polls define "likely voter" than party-ID oversampling at this point.

Nov 6, 2012#112

GasBandit

SpecialKO said:
While the second one is an obvious concern, there really isn't evidence of actual oversampling, at least not for recent presidential elections, and definitely not consistently over history.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...-have-no-history-of-consistent-partisan-bias/

Even the Blaze has trouble making that claim: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/this-graph-shows-why-obama-is-ahead-in-the-polls/

The polls can certainly all be wrong, and people can definitely be lying, but doesn't lend itself to saying that the more Romney-leaning polls are automatically better. The problem with polling is more likely to be in how polls define "likely voter" than party-ID oversampling at this point.

CNN just released a poll yesterday that showed obama and romney tied if you oversample democrats by 11 points. Eleven. You can't tell me there's not a problem with party ID oversampling. Furthermore, the same reports are showing "independents" - which we're told are the key to every election, after all - are going toward romney by 22.

Sometimes I think the biggest reason to want Obama to lose is just to see the sour faces on the sudden crop of statistician fanboys as they dislodge Nate Silver's glans from their epiglottis.

Nov 6, 2012#113

Frank

Electronic voting needs to be straight out outlawed. Seriously.

Nov 6, 2012#114

MindDetective

GasBandit said:
CNN just released a poll yesterday that showed obama and romney tied if you oversample democrats by 11 points. Eleven. You can't tell me there's not a problem with party ID oversampling. Furthermore, the same reports are showing "independents" - which we're told are the key to every election, after all - are going toward romney by 22.

Sometimes I think the biggest reason to want Obama to lose is just to see the sour faces on the sudden crop of statistician fanboys as they dislodge Nate Silver's glans from their epiglottis.

The proof is in the pudding, as it were. The nice thing about the statistical models is that we can find out how accurate they are when the votes are all tallied. Believe it or not, many pollsters are genuinely trying for accuracy. As for Nate Silver, he has been repeatedly saying that for Romney to win, polls have to be statistical biased towards Obama. He also points out that historically that degree of bias has not occurred AND he accounts for specific polling firms' bias in his own models.

Nov 6, 2012#115

Piotyr

GasBandit said:
CNN just released a poll yesterday that showed obama and romney tied if you oversample democrats by 11 points. Eleven. You can't tell me there's not a problem with party ID oversampling. Furthermore, the same reports are showing "independents" - which we're told are the key to every election, after all - are going toward romney by 22.

Sometimes I think the biggest reason to want Obama to lose is just to see the sour faces on the sudden crop of statistician fanboys as they dislodge Nate Silver's glans from their epiglottis.

You are aware how statistics work, right? Even a 90% predicted victory from 538 doesn't mean that a landslide is being predicted.

Nov 6, 2012#116

MindDetective

Piotyr said:
You are aware how statistics work, right? Even a 90% predicted victory from 538 doesn't mean that a landslide is being predicted.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Gas once read a thing on the internet, man. You can't go discounting that!

Nov 6, 2012#117

Piotyr

Frank said:
Electronic voting needs to be straight out outlawed. Seriously.

*vid*

That looks more like a case of bad touch screen recognition on likely outdated tech than a vote being changed.

Electronic voting needs to be improved.

Nov 6, 2012#118

Charlie Don't Surf

yeah, gasbandit is staggeringly wrong

also Republican and Libertarians and Tea Party members identify "Independent" often since 2008/2010 and still vote exactly down Republican party lines

Nov 6, 2012#119

strawman

Frank said:
Electronic voting needs to be straight out outlawed. Seriously.

Posted in another thread, but it's really not a problem, since it shows the check. The voter can go to a precinct official and have the machine fixed or taken out of service.

It's not uncommon for a heavily used touchscreen to lose its calibration, and with some machines where the touchscreen is some distance from the video display the perspective makes a huge difference, so it's possible to create this video without a bad machine simply by locating the video camera and finger strategically.

Nov 6, 2012#120

Gilgamesh

The voter DID address the issue with the people working there. Their answer was to leave it as is.

Nov 6, 2012#121

Piotyr

Straight from Nate:

If you are following some of the same people that I do on Twitter, you may have noticed some pushback about our contention that Barack Obama is a favorite (and certainly not a lock) to be re-elected. I haven’t come across too many analyses suggesting that Mitt Romney is the favorite. (There are exceptions.) But there are plenty of people who say that the race is a “tossup.”
What I find confounding about this is that the argument we’re making is exceedingly simple. Here it is:

Obama’s ahead in Ohio.
A somewhat-more-complicated version:

Mr. Obama is leading in the polls of Ohio and other states that would suffice for him to win 270 electoral votes, and by a margin that has historically translated into victory a fairly high percentage of the time.
The argument that Mr. Obama isn’t the favorite is the one that requires more finesse. If you take the polls at face value, then the popular vote might be a tossup, but the Electoral College favors Mr. Obama.
So you have to make some case for why the polls shouldn’t be taken at face value.
Some argue that the polls are systematically biased against Republicans. This might qualify as a simple argument had it been true on a consistent basis historically, but it hasn’t been: instead, there have been some years when the polls overestimated how well the Democrat would do, and about as many where the same was true for the Republican. I’m sympathetic to the notion that the polls could be biased, statistically speaking, meaning that they will all miss in the same direction. The FiveThirtyEight forecast explicitly accounts for the possibility that the polls are biased toward Mr. Obama — but it also accounts for the chance that the polls could be systematically biased against him.
Others argue that undecided voters tend to break against the incumbent, in this case Mr. Obama. But this has also not really been true in recent elections. In some states, also, Mr. Obama is at 50 percent of the vote in the polling average, or close to it, meaning that he wouldn’t need very many undecided voters to win.

Nov 6, 2012#122

drifter

I'm pretty curious to know the results of that Ohio lawsuit regarding the 'experimental patch' to voter machines.

Nov 6, 2012#123

Piotyr

Charlie Don't Surf said:
yeah, gasbandit is staggeringly wrong

also Republican and Libertarians and Tea Party members identify "Independent" often since 2008/2010 and still vote exactly down Republican party lines

I identify independent, which to me mostly means I'll never punch a partisan ticket.

Which makes voting take forever, and includes tons of people I'd never heard of going for school board and county judge positions.

Nov 6, 2012#124

GasBandit

stienman said:
Posted in another thread, but it's really not a problem, since it shows the check. The voter can go to a precinct official and have the machine fixed or taken out of service.

It's not uncommon for a heavily used touchscreen to lose its calibration, and with some machines where the touchscreen is some distance from the video display the perspective makes a huge difference, so it's possible to create this video without a bad machine simply by locating the video camera and finger strategically.

I have a feeling we're going to see a lot more of that video, along with a lot of people late to the party and with their fingers in their ears.

Charlie Don't Surf said:
yeah, gasbandit is staggeringly wrong

also Republican and Libertarians and Tea Party members identify "Independent" often since 2008/2010 and still vote exactly down Republican party lines

The single most definite indicator of something's veracity is that CDS thinks it's wrong.

MindDetective said:
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Gas once read a thing on the internet, man. You can't go discounting that!

I'm sorry I insulted your man-crush, MD.

Piotyr said:
You are aware how statistics work, right? Even a 90% predicted victory from 538 doesn't mean that a landslide is being predicted.

I didn't say it's going to be a landslide either way. I said the data we have is unreliable and some people go out of their way to make it moreso. Polls aren't about showing what people think anymore (if indeed they ever were), they're about trying to make people think they way the pollster wants them to be thinking.

Nov 6, 2012#125

Dave

You mean the patches put in to the closed systems that has no governmental oversight by the company that has ties with Karl Rove and have been proven to be unsafe and not secure? Those patches?

Nov 6, 2012#126

strawman

GasBandit said:
I have a feeling we're going to see a lot more of that video, along with a lot of people late to the party and with their fingers in their ears.

Probably, but only if it ends up in a swing state, and that state goes for Romney by a very small margin.

It could be chads all over again, though, and that would just be a massive face palm.

Nov 6, 2012#127

Piotyr

stienman said:
Probably, but only if it ends up in a swing state, and that state goes for Romney by a very small margin.

It could be chads all over again, though, and that would just be a massive face palm.

Fortunately (?), at this point, the only state projected to be close enough for faulty voting and recounts to matter would be Florida.

And we've already done that 12 years ago, so we should be experts on that by now, right?

Nov 6, 2012#128

GasBandit

Bet you guys can't wait for the lawyering to begin tonight, eh?

Nov 6, 2012#129

Dave

GasBandit said:
Bet you guys can't wait for the lawyering to begin tonight, eh?

Nope. It's gonna happen no matter who wins and it's going to make us look like idiots. The American system of voting is a joke. It's partisan, outdated, and rife with stupidity.

Nov 6, 2012#130

MindDetective

GasBandit said:
I'm sorry I insulted your man-crush, MD.

I actually know nothing about Silver at all. But he does have a clear grasp on statistics and statistical theory (I teach it myself) and he explains his methodology, both qualities that don't exist in some predictions people are making.

I guess I should say something snarky too. I'm sorry your third or lower choice is favored to win as assessed by reliable and verifiable statistical modeling.

Nov 6, 2012#131

Dei

Most electronic voting machines have you double check all your choices not once, but TWICE. I hate that checking over your stuff twice is not enough idiot proofing for some people. I also hate that calibration issues automatically equal corruption to some people, and not the more simple answer. Hell, I hate everything about election season. I can't wait for it to be over.

Nov 6, 2012#132

Dave

I haven't voted yet. I'll do it soon. I don't think Nebraska has the machines yet, which is weird because ES&S started here. I even applied to work there when they first started. Denied.

Nov 6, 2012#133

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
CNN just released a poll yesterday that showed obama and romney tied if you oversample democrats by 11 points. Eleven. You can't tell me there's not a problem with party ID oversampling.

Whether there is oversampling or not, that democrats were represented at D+11 over Republicans in a poll is not proof of it; it's merely proof that there were more Democrats in the poll.

That's not what "oversampling" means. "Oversampling" would mean that democrats are overly represented in the population of the sample compared to the real proportion of the democrats in the population of likely voters.

Given the difficulties inherent in polling already, and the possibility of Republicans choosing to identify as independents (something which would not be surprising given independents overindexing on Romney), you simply can't say from the D+ number that oversampling is occurring. D+11 does seem quite high, but even then, you could only determine actual oversampling by measuring whether the probability of CNN's polling database resulting in that number being not within the realm of chance is statistically significant. You can't just look at the D+ number.

Nov 6, 2012#134

GasBandit

SpecialKO said:
Whether there is oversampling or not, that democrats were represented at D+11 over Republicans in a poll is not proof of it; it's merely proof that there were more Democrats in the poll.

That's not what "oversampling" means. "Oversampling" would mean that democrats are overly represented in the population of the sample compared to the real proportion of the democrats in the population of likely voters.

Given the difficulties inherent in polling already, and the possibility of Republicans choosing to identify as independents (something which would not be surprising given independents overindexing on Romney), you simply can't say from the D+ number that oversampling is occurring. D+11 does seem quite high, but even then, you could only determine actual oversampling by measuring whether the probability of CNN's polling database resulting in that number being not within the realm of chance is statistically significant. You can't just look at the D+ number.

From what I've read, those new "I" affiliations sound more like disaffected "D" types rather than crafty "R" types.

Nov 6, 2012#135

jwhouk

As of right now (9:30 PM CST), Fox News has the race tied at 162 electoral votes each.

What's somewhat surprising is that they've called Wisconsin for Obama, despite Romney having a large lead.

Nov 6, 2012#136

Krisken

I thought that was weird too. Also being projected in Wisconsin is Tammy Baldwin beating former Governor Tommy Thompson for the US Senate race, which makes her the first openly gay Senate member.

With 64% reporting, WI now has Obama up by over 60,000 votes.

Nov 6, 2012#137

@Li3n

SpecialKO said:
Whether there is oversampling or not, that democrats were represented at D+11 over Republicans in a poll is not proof of it; it's merely proof that there were more Democrats in the poll.

That's not what "oversampling" means. "Oversampling" would mean that democrats are overly represented in the population of the sample compared to the real proportion of the democrats in the population of likely voters.

C'mon guy, this is GB, he knows that very well... never stopped him before.

Nov 7, 2012#138

Piotyr

Nate Silver, everybody.

Nov 7, 2012#139

Krisken

Piotyr said:
Nate Silver, everybody.

I really thought he would be way off on his state projection, but wow was I wrong.

Nov 7, 2012#140

Piotyr

Nate Silver 30 minutes ago
@fivethirtyeight This is probably a good time to link to my book: http://t.co/cVCB3gVn

Nov 7, 2012#141

jwhouk

I found out after I got to work last night why CBS et al. were calling Wisconsin for Obama and for Tammy:

Milwaukee and Madison weren't reporting yet.

Forums