Looking for change?

[timcsaw]

Hey guys! I think someone has a crush on me!

Smashed as flat as a bug under the sole of a shoe is how I'd describe it.... Oh, what? Sorry... I misread your post above.

[timcsaw]

Not true in either case. What is true in 2010 is that there was a lot of divergence among the polls, though ALL of them showed that the Republicans were going to beat the Democrats--it was just a matter of by how much. Here's an article from just before the election. The models and methods are not in general screwed up, and when something really IS amiss, then it becomes apparent because the polls begin to diverge and show disparate results. This is a red flag by which they, along with everybody else, recognize that the results are not very reliable, and they all start scrambling to figure out what's up and make corrections. When all the polls show pretty much the same thing--as they do now--it's almost always right.



Wrong. The polls are NOT broken--or at least, neither your nor all the other critics have any way of knowing whether they are, but there's no particular reason to think so (other than people don't like the results). The polls are really very good. Yes, it's hard to sample properly, but over the last half century there has been a lot of resources poured into the problem, and continue to be, and as a result they have become astonishingly good at it. I don't think you can point to an election in the last couple of decades where there was consensus about the results and the pollsters were caught flat-footed and wrong.

As it happens, I do remember one case where this did happen: in 1982 the black LA mayor Tom Bradley led the gubernatorial polls over then-Attorney General George Deukmejian by a substantial margin, but lost the election. The theory--as far as I know, still the only explanation anybody has offered--is that a lot of white people were unwilling to say that they were going to vote against the black candidate. This phenomenon/theory actually has a name: the Bradley effect. So if you're looking for some hope that the polls are wrong, there's a possibility. However, I don't believe that this effect showed up in 2008, so there may not be a lot of reason to think it will happen this year, either.

Oh, by the way: Fox News polls show rather the same results as the others. So those who postulate that the polls are being deliberately skewed to help Obama had better go hunting for the moles over at the official Republican network.

A classic case of falling/failing to assumptions. Don't read everything you believe Oliver.

The Five False Assumptions Behind Poll-Skewing

Polls polls polls polls polls. In the weeks leading up to a presidential election, that’s all anyone talks about. Polls subsume all other news: Every soundbite, disaster, current event, policy, gaffe, decision and incident are merely vectors in pollspace, data which may or may not nudge the candidates’ numbers up or down a notch.

Therefore he who controls the polls can retroactively control everything that happens: Any event or utterance can be afterward spun as wonderful or ruinous if you can demonstrate that the subsequent poll showed a bounce or a dip. Polls are seen as irrefutable ex post facto evidence that a slanted news report was in fact accurate: “See? You complained when we quickly labeled the candidate’s joke as a ‘gaffe,’ but this new poll shows he dropped three points, so that proves it really was a gaffe.”

As a result, the 2012 presidential campaign is paralleled by a surrogate Poll War enjoined by each side’s supporters in the punditocracy. Whatever else happens in real life, the partisans are in an endless down-and-dirty mud-wrestling match over the veracity and reliability of polls.
...
ASSUMPTION #1
• When a person sees that his team is in second place, he gives up and stops fighting.

As P.T. Barnum is credited with saying, 'there's one born every minute.'

Signed,
A guy who's polled numerous times as a Black woman, elderly White man, and a Hispanic man among others.

[OliverH]

A classic case of falling/failing to assumptions. Don't read everything you believe Oliver.



As P.T. Barnum is credited with saying, 'there's one born every minute.'

Signed,
A guy who's polled numerous times as a Black woman, elderly White man, and a Hispanic man among others.

I don't see what you're getting at with the "assumptions" claim and other witticism. Nor do I see that the article excerpt you posted has anything to do with the reliability or unreliability of the polls. Yes, we've already seen your various poll exploits. Ha ha. Cute and witty, but at best irrelevant, at worst, a false implicit claim that nobody tells the polls the truth and thus they can't be trusted.

The point still stands: polls, certainly over the last several decades, have consistently been very good indicators of what it is people think and intend as of the polling date. This is a matter of fact, not of opinion or interpretation. In general, and certainly in the aggregate, neither the methods nor the results are skewed or manipulated.

[timcsaw]

I don't see what you're getting at with the "assumptions" claim and other witticism.

Yes, nuff' said.

[Triton]

Well since the other thread got locked where I asked one of our estwhile liberals essentially this same question that I asked as part of the OP in this thread I thought I would bump this one up and ask this part again:

What I'm wondering though is what do obama voters expect if their guy wins? Do they think that he will do something (positive) in the next 4 years that he didn't do in the last 4 years? Will his economic policies suddenly start turning things around even though they have obviously failed to do so up to this point? Will he convince the wackos in the middle east to love us since he has obviously failed to do so up to this point? Will he create jobs that he hasn't created yet? Will he get government spending under control that he hasn't been able to do anything about in the last 4 years? Will he suddenly start working with the congress that he hasn't worked with in two years? What will the obama do that he hasn't already done which will actually help the United States?

[Preacher Man]

Well since the other thread got locked where I asked one of our estwhile liberals essentially this same question that I asked as part of the OP in this thread I thought I would bump this one up and ask this part again:

What I'm wondering though is what do obama voters expect if their guy wins? Do they think that he will do something (positive) in the next 4 years that he didn't do in the last 4 years? Will his economic policies suddenly start turning things around even though they have obviously failed to do so up to this point? Will he convince the wackos in the middle east to love us since he has obviously failed to do so up to this point? Will he create jobs that he hasn't created yet? Will he get government spending under control that he hasn't been able to do anything about in the last 4 years? Will he suddenly start working with the congress that he hasn't worked with in two years? What will the obama do that he hasn't already done which will actually help the United States?

Although not a liberal, allow me to offer my 2 cents. IMHO, for at least some, the question is not what Obama will do but what he will not do; mainly not repeat the policies of deregulation and self-oversight that caused the Great Recession. In short, some will support Obama simply because he has taken a stand against policies some think are responsible for the current economic crisis. His inability to effectively deal with the crisis is less problematic for some than the prospect of more of the same policies they think took us down the drain in the first place.

[quietmike]

Although not a liberal, allow me to offer my 2 cents. IMHO, for at least some, the question is not what Obama will do but what he will not do; mainly not repeat the policies of deregulation and self-oversight that caused the Great Recession. In short, some will support Obama simply because he has taken a stand against policies some think are responsible for the current economic crisis. His inability to effectively deal with the crisis is less problematic for some than the prospect of more of the same policies they think took us down the drain in the first place.

Bush warned about the impending crisis at least 17 times but was poo-pooed by democrats and the MSM. That the downturn worsened under obama, by every metric, says everything.

[Codger_64]

IMHO, anyone who says that our economy is not worse than it was four years ago is either not paying attention or not being honest. And yes, four years is plenty of time to affect changes in the economy. So whatever changes have happened under the current administration's watch, I'd say the current President definately owns. New housing starts are down. Commercial construction is down. Unemployment is way up. Wages have stagnated and more jobs are exported every month. People of the middle and upper income brackets are holding onto their money while the earnings of the lower brackets are eroded by inflation. People aren't buying new cars or even many used cars. Durable goods sales are down significantly. About the only thing that is selling is food and that one paper bag of groceries has increased in price by half. Oh... and overpriced fuel for transportation of people and goods. That further erodes the earnings of both individual workers and companies. The President does have the ability to force down the cost of fuel. Why has he not? Should we expect him to with another four years in office? I would expect more of the same, a progressively worsening economy. A further declining middle class. Further exporting of jobs. More deflection of responsibility.

[Preacher Man]

Bush warned about the impending crisis at least 17 times but was poo-pooed by democrats and the MSM. That the downturn worsened under obama, by every metric, says everything.

I agree. I'm only offering one of the rationales I've heard for supporting Obama, and the one clearly behind some of Obama's political adds.

[Triton]

I agree. I'm only offering one of the rationales I've heard for supporting Obama, and the one clearly behind some of Obama's political adds.

I'm guessing you are right, but considering our continued downward trajectory in many areas and complete stagnation in others, I wonder how they can justify more of the same.

[annr]

I'm guessing you are right, but considering our continued downward trajectory in many areas and complete stagnation in others, I wonder how they can justify more of the same.

It seems to me that the whole rationale for voting for Obama is irrational. I agree with Preacher Man's assessment, adding that parroting lines from ads may be about as deep and/or factual as it get.

Is there a herd mentality at work? Why do voters seem to fit so nicely into stereotypes? Or do they? For me an interesting question would be why do some of the Obama stereotypical votes not vote for him, for example: Jews, gays, MA residents, blacks, women, Hispanics for Romney? (I think I covered all of the alleged Obama stereotypes.)

[jdm61]

Remember that the press had Jimmy Carter winning all of the debates and leading in all of the polls right up to election day. We know how that turned out.

[timcsaw]

Debate over.

Surprisingly, ouch!

[quietmike]

The leftists are already making excuses.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/...ht-137447.html

[jdm61]

Let's see how Matthews "rehabilitates" the President's performance between now and his show tomorrow.

The leftists are already making excuses.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/...ht-137447.html

[timcsaw]

Let's see how Matthews "rehabilitates" the President's performance between now and his show tomorrow.

Matthews was absolutely frantic last night after the debate... he definitely had something running down his leg, but it wasn't a "tingly" feeling!

[annr]

Matthews was absolutely frantic last night after the debate... he definitely had something running down his leg, but it wasn't a "tingly" feeling!

Check out quitemike's link above and you will see his response, pretty lame performance for Obama according to him.

[timcsaw]

Yep... ol' Chris was definitely in full panic Mode!

[Preacher Man]

I was surprised to hear democrat commentators and elected officials on the ABC coverage say that Romney was the clear winner.

[Triton]

I was surprised to hear democrat commentators and elected officials on the ABC coverage say that Romney was the clear winner.

Which just means it was so bad they couldn't think of any conceivable way to spin it. Notably George Stephanopolous still managed to say "no one landed a knock out punch."