Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 19, 2014, 06:50:37 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2012 Elections (Moderators: Mr. Morden, Bacon King, Sheriff Buford TX Justice)
| | |-+  Current polling, Obama vs. Romney
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 Print
Author Topic: Current polling, Obama vs. Romney  (Read 18151 times)
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10112
United States


View Profile
« Reply #150 on: July 17, 2012, 03:44:50 pm »
Ignore

Iowa, PPP -- Obama up 4%.
Florida, Purple Strategies -- Romney up 3%
New York -- the expected Obama blowout.
New Hampshire --  Obama up 5%.
Florida, Survey USA -- Obama up 5%.
 

 


under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- Last poll discredited (like anything from We Ask America)

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

* Wisconsin -- about a 6% margin (40% saturation) if Mitt Romney chooses anyone other than Paul Ryan.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 03:45:44 pm by pbrower2a »Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10112
United States


View Profile
« Reply #151 on: July 24, 2012, 03:42:52 pm »
Ignore

Civitas, NC -- Romney up 1%.
Survey USA, WA -- Obama up 9%
Michigan, Rasmussen -- Obama up 6%.
Pennsylvania, Rasmussen -- Obama up 5%.

 

 


under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- Last poll discredited (like anything from We Ask America)

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

* Wisconsin -- about a 6% margin (40% saturation) if Mitt Romney chooses anyone other than Paul Ryan.
Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10112
United States


View Profile
« Reply #152 on: July 24, 2012, 03:46:39 pm »
Ignore


Civitas, NC -- Romney up 1%.
Survey USA, WA -- Obama up 9%
Michigan, Rasmussen -- Obama up 6%.
Pennsylvania, Rasmussen -- Obama up 5%.

California, Pepperdine University -- Obama blowout.

 

 


under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- Last poll discredited (like anything from We Ask America)

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

* Wisconsin -- about a 6% margin (40% saturation) if Mitt Romney chooses anyone other than Paul Ryan.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2012, 01:24:58 pm by pbrower2a »Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10112
United States


View Profile
« Reply #153 on: July 25, 2012, 01:29:12 pm »
Ignore

New York, Quinnipiac -- Obama blowout.
Michigan, PPP -- Obama up 14%. (Mitchell poll discredited)
Pennsylvania, PPP -- Obama up 6%.

Technically I am averaging the Rasmussen and PPP polls in Michigan and Pennsylvania. Neither is really a swing state.  Condi Rice supposedly makes the contests much closer in both states -- but she has no experience in electoral politics and would be no asset. 

 


under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- Last poll discredited (like anything from We Ask America)

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

* Wisconsin -- about a 6% margin (40% saturation) if Mitt Romney chooses anyone other than Paul Ryan.

Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
coyolxauhqui
a Person
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4720
Costa Rica


View Profile
« Reply #154 on: July 25, 2012, 02:18:53 pm »
Ignore

Michigan, PPP -- Obama up 14%. (Mitchell poll discredited)
Partisan wish fulfillment aside, PPP and Mitchell are probably about equally wrong.
Logged


pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10112
United States


View Profile
« Reply #155 on: July 26, 2012, 02:43:11 pm »
Ignore

Ipsos, Illinois. One state that rarely gets polled is polled.

Obama up 20. Boring!

 


under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- Last poll discredited (like anything from We Ask America)

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

* Wisconsin -- about a 6% margin (40% saturation) if Mitt Romney chooses anyone other than Paul Ryan.


« Last Edit: July 26, 2012, 03:29:02 pm by pbrower2a »Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10112
United States


View Profile
« Reply #156 on: July 26, 2012, 07:49:15 pm »
Ignore

Survey USA -- Obama up 5 in Florida
Rasmussen -- Obama up 5 in Nevada.
Monmouth University -- Obama up 13 in New Jersey.

We Ask America -- Romney up 9 in Missouri (wouldn't change the map, but a suspect pollster).
 


under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- Last poll discredited (like anything from We Ask America)

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

* Wisconsin -- about a 6% margin (40% saturation) if Mitt Romney chooses anyone other than Paul Ryan.


« Last Edit: July 26, 2012, 07:52:18 pm by pbrower2a »Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
Darius_Addicus_Gaius
Full Member
***
Posts: 138
United States


View Profile
« Reply #157 on: July 27, 2012, 12:23:41 am »
Ignore

It's been interesting how much Obama falls when only likely voters are polled. He did the same thing against Hillary Clinton.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10112
United States


View Profile
« Reply #158 on: July 27, 2012, 08:16:01 am »
Ignore

It's been interesting how much Obama falls when only likely voters are polled. He did the same thing against Hillary Clinton.

Note well the commonplace observation of Barack Obama in 2008: that the vote for him goes well beyond the "likely voters" model that fits a pared electorate because the electorate is not excited. He campaigns so that he can win over people who might be not-so-regular voters. Such indicates a strong campaign and an adept politician.

"Registered voters late in the campaign"  well described Obama in 2008, but "likely voters" well described the midterm election of 2010.  "Likely voters" tend to be older voters who vote in any election. If the not-so-likely voters are younger and different in their voting habits than the older "likely voters", then pollsters who rely upon "likely voters" models can get a Presidential election very wrong (they didn't see the Reagan landslide in 1980 coming and underestimated that of 1984) but might get a midterm right (1982, 2010). Note that voters born around 1960 were much more 'conservative' on most issues than were their elders and made the difference between the elections of 1976 and 1980. Reagan got the young-adult vote in 1980; he couldn't have done so in 1972 or 1976.   

Barack Obama is a masterful politician with a superb organization. At this point I see no cause other than a collapse of the campaign of either Obama or Romney for the 2012 election to look significantly different from that of 2008. The Obama campaign is going to recruit lots of new voters and goad them to vote. 
Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10112
United States


View Profile
« Reply #159 on: July 27, 2012, 08:23:18 am »
Ignore

Insider Advantage, Georgia -- Romney up 9.  Suspect pollster; I might expect Georgia to be Romney up 6 or so, but that gets the same result. The Republican Governor is popular despite scandals? Uh-uh. 

40% saturation in blue looks much darker than 40% saturation in green. There has just been little recent polling in Georgia. I doubt that, barring a Romney collapse, that President Obama wins this state. He isn't going to campaign there as there are easier wins and no Senate seat up for grabs (contrast Arizona, Indiana, Missouri, and Montana, three of which he lost in 2008, let alone Ohio and Virginia).
 


under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- Last poll discredited (like anything from We Ask America)

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

* Wisconsin -- about a 6% margin (40% saturation) if Mitt Romney chooses anyone other than Paul Ryan.



Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
Darius_Addicus_Gaius
Full Member
***
Posts: 138
United States


View Profile
« Reply #160 on: July 27, 2012, 12:28:11 pm »
Ignore

It's been interesting how much Obama falls when only likely voters are polled. He did the same thing against Hillary Clinton.

Note well the commonplace observation of Barack Obama in 2008: that the vote for him goes well beyond the "likely voters" model that fits a pared electorate because the electorate is not excited. He campaigns so that he can win over people who might be not-so-regular voters. Such indicates a strong campaign and an adept politician.

"Registered voters late in the campaign"  well described Obama in 2008, but "likely voters" well described the midterm election of 2010.  "Likely voters" tend to be older voters who vote in any election. If the not-so-likely voters are younger and different in their voting habits than the older "likely voters", then pollsters who rely upon "likely voters" models can get a Presidential election very wrong (they didn't see the Reagan landslide in 1980 coming and underestimated that of 1984) but might get a midterm right (1982, 2010). Note that voters born around 1960 were much more 'conservative' on most issues than were their elders and made the difference between the elections of 1976 and 1980. Reagan got the young-adult vote in 1980; he couldn't have done so in 1972 or 1976.   

Barack Obama is a masterful politician with a superb organization. At this point I see no cause other than a collapse of the campaign of either Obama or Romney for the 2012 election to look significantly different from that of 2008. The Obama campaign is going to recruit lots of new voters and goad them to vote. 

I don't think he's experienced as a politician and therefore says whatever is on his mind resulting in things like going to 57 states so far. Obama tried to recruit new voters and it didn't happen. In 2008 as I said before he polled much better than he did against Clinton and to a smaller degree McCain. The youth turnout was exactly the same in 2004 but he did manage to do better amongst them. That said, he still didn't recruit new voters but simply turned more young voters. I don't understand what's so masterful about winning an election where the housing market has collapsed and the incumbant president has a 25% approval rating. As for comparing 2012 to 2008, it's too early to tell because no one is paying attention yet.
Logged
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2264
View Profile
« Reply #161 on: July 27, 2012, 12:31:31 pm »
Ignore

Needle to be withdrawn from arm!

Today is the last day for meaningful pols until a few days after the Olympics.

Obama behind 5 points in Rasmussen polls. What a bad number to freeze for over two weeks!
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
Darius_Addicus_Gaius
Full Member
***
Posts: 138
United States


View Profile
« Reply #162 on: July 27, 2012, 12:33:50 pm »
Ignore

Needle to be withdrawn from arm!

Today is the last day for meaningful pols until a few days after the Olympics.

Obama behind 5 points in Rasmussen polls. What a bad number to freeze for over two weeks!

Rasmussen reports LV which is more accurate than registered voters too. At this point those who are likely to vote would vote that way.
Logged
Reaganfan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12284
United States


View Profile
« Reply #163 on: July 27, 2012, 01:28:26 pm »
Ignore

Despite Romney's shortcomings this week, the race is still his to lose. He is up by 5 pts in today's poll.
Logged
Alfred F. Jones
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8600
United States


View Profile
« Reply #164 on: July 27, 2012, 02:16:21 pm »
Ignore

Despite Romney's shortcomings this week, the race is still his to lose. He is up by 5 pts in today's poll.

He's also down 8 points in Ohio, which for him is a must-win.
Logged



There is a lot of humor to be mined from this as the mind of LBJ in the body of an 18 month old baby girl is quite hilarious.

Alfred is the Atlasian equivalent of a malevolent deity.

Darius_Addicus_Gaius
Full Member
***
Posts: 138
United States


View Profile
« Reply #165 on: July 27, 2012, 02:18:04 pm »
Ignore

Despite Romney's shortcomings this week, the race is still his to lose. He is up by 5 pts in today's poll.

He's also down 8 points in Ohio, which for him is a must-win.

Yes in July. Let's wait until November to analyze actual votes rather than polls that are taken in the dog days of summer. How many Democrats were polled in that poll. Now that's something to analyze... 60% maybe?
Logged
Alfred F. Jones
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8600
United States


View Profile
« Reply #166 on: July 27, 2012, 02:19:47 pm »
Ignore

Despite Romney's shortcomings this week, the race is still his to lose. He is up by 5 pts in today's poll.

He's also down 8 points in Ohio, which for him is a must-win.

Yes in July. Let's wait until November to analyze actual votes rather than polls that are taken in the dog days of summer. How many Democrats were polled in that poll. Now that's something to analyze... 60% maybe?

Then let's wait on that R+5 national poll. You can't dismiss polls favorable to the opposition because it's summer and then say "Look at this one!".
Logged



There is a lot of humor to be mined from this as the mind of LBJ in the body of an 18 month old baby girl is quite hilarious.

Alfred is the Atlasian equivalent of a malevolent deity.

Darius_Addicus_Gaius
Full Member
***
Posts: 138
United States


View Profile
« Reply #167 on: July 27, 2012, 02:25:34 pm »
Ignore

Despite Romney's shortcomings this week, the race is still his to lose. He is up by 5 pts in today's poll.

He's also down 8 points in Ohio, which for him is a must-win.

Yes in July. Let's wait until November to analyze actual votes rather than polls that are taken in the dog days of summer. How many Democrats were polled in that poll. Now that's something to analyze... 60% maybe?

Then let's wait on that R+5 national poll. You can't dismiss polls favorable to the opposition because it's summer and then say "Look at this one!".

You can take it into consideration if it's LV which is what Rasmussen does. Now I'm not getting too excited about it either. At least it's more accurate though. There is never a point to analyzing polls before an election takes place unless it's to determine battleground strategies.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10112
United States


View Profile
« Reply #168 on: July 27, 2012, 06:30:37 pm »
Ignore

It's been interesting how much Obama falls when only likely voters are polled. He did the same thing against Hillary Clinton.

Note well the commonplace observation of Barack Obama in 2008: that the vote for him goes well beyond the "likely voters" model that fits a pared electorate because the electorate is not excited. He campaigns so that he can win over people who might be not-so-regular voters. Such indicates a strong campaign and an adept politician.

"Registered voters late in the campaign"  well described Obama in 2008, but "likely voters" well described the midterm election of 2010.  "Likely voters" tend to be older voters who vote in any election. If the not-so-likely voters are younger and different in their voting habits than the older "likely voters", then pollsters who rely upon "likely voters" models can get a Presidential election very wrong (they didn't see the Reagan landslide in 1980 coming and underestimated that of 1984) but might get a midterm right (1982, 2010). Note that voters born around 1960 were much more 'conservative' on most issues than were their elders and made the difference between the elections of 1976 and 1980. Reagan got the young-adult vote in 1980; he couldn't have done so in 1972 or 1976.   

Barack Obama is a masterful politician with a superb organization. At this point I see no cause other than a collapse of the campaign of either Obama or Romney for the 2012 election to look significantly different from that of 2008. The Obama campaign is going to recruit lots of new voters and goad them to vote. 

I don't think he's experienced as a politician and therefore says whatever is on his mind resulting in things like going to 57 states so far. Obama tried to recruit new voters and it didn't happen. In 2008 as I said before he polled much better than he did against Clinton and to a smaller degree McCain. The youth turnout was exactly the same in 2004 but he did manage to do better amongst them. That said, he still didn't recruit new voters but simply turned more young voters. I don't understand what's so masterful about winning an election where the housing market has collapsed and the incumbent president has a 25% approval rating. As for comparing 2012 to 2008, it's too early to tell because no one is paying attention yet.

Just look at how well experience served Senator Richard Lugar in the Indiana primaries this year.

Worth noting is that the youngest voters are much more liberal than the national average. In 2008 voters under 29 voted 66-32 for President Obama. They were only 18% of the electorate, to be sure, but that is a horrible trend for Republicans. Ask yourself what the GOP can do to win that age group that will encompass voters up to age 33 in November. How can you win them if your economic program is aid to people much older and richer through which such aid must filter as profit before it reaches down as jobs with low pay? If your culture is 'believe-it-or-burn' religious fanaticism?

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_08.html#.UBMd_vWMiSo

Political patterns do not change rapidly among a group of people. Any group that votes 66-32 for the liberal Democrat is decidedly liberal. This is the only growing age category.  Groups voting more for President Obama were "liberals", "Democrats", "homosexuals", "people with incomes under $15,000", and "any non-white ethnic groups". It trumped region and even "union households".  (I saw nothing for "Jews", so I shall remain silent).

It may be that President Obama was running against the consequences of the policies of George W. Bush... but GOP policies are essentially the same in 2012 as in 2008. Beyond any question, George W. Bush makes President Obama look great by contrast.

Politics is marketing... but for good reason Ford Motor Company gave up on the Edsel within two years. The GOP needs a new product.   
Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
Darius_Addicus_Gaius
Full Member
***
Posts: 138
United States


View Profile
« Reply #169 on: July 27, 2012, 10:57:33 pm »
Ignore

It's been interesting how much Obama falls when only likely voters are polled. He did the same thing against Hillary Clinton.

Note well the commonplace observation of Barack Obama in 2008: that the vote for him goes well beyond the "likely voters" model that fits a pared electorate because the electorate is not excited. He campaigns so that he can win over people who might be not-so-regular voters. Such indicates a strong campaign and an adept politician.

"Registered voters late in the campaign"  well described Obama in 2008, but "likely voters" well described the midterm election of 2010.  "Likely voters" tend to be older voters who vote in any election. If the not-so-likely voters are younger and different in their voting habits than the older "likely voters", then pollsters who rely upon "likely voters" models can get a Presidential election very wrong (they didn't see the Reagan landslide in 1980 coming and underestimated that of 1984) but might get a midterm right (1982, 2010). Note that voters born around 1960 were much more 'conservative' on most issues than were their elders and made the difference between the elections of 1976 and 1980. Reagan got the young-adult vote in 1980; he couldn't have done so in 1972 or 1976.   

Barack Obama is a masterful politician with a superb organization. At this point I see no cause other than a collapse of the campaign of either Obama or Romney for the 2012 election to look significantly different from that of 2008. The Obama campaign is going to recruit lots of new voters and goad them to vote. 

I don't think he's experienced as a politician and therefore says whatever is on his mind resulting in things like going to 57 states so far. Obama tried to recruit new voters and it didn't happen. In 2008 as I said before he polled much better than he did against Clinton and to a smaller degree McCain. The youth turnout was exactly the same in 2004 but he did manage to do better amongst them. That said, he still didn't recruit new voters but simply turned more young voters. I don't understand what's so masterful about winning an election where the housing market has collapsed and the incumbent president has a 25% approval rating. As for comparing 2012 to 2008, it's too early to tell because no one is paying attention yet.

Just look at how well experience served Senator Richard Lugar in the Indiana primaries this year.

Worth noting is that the youngest voters are much more liberal than the national average. In 2008 voters under 29 voted 66-32 for President Obama. They were only 18% of the electorate, to be sure, but that is a horrible trend for Republicans. Ask yourself what the GOP can do to win that age group that will encompass voters up to age 33 in November. How can you win them if your economic program is aid to people much older and richer through which such aid must filter as profit before it reaches down as jobs with low pay? If your culture is 'believe-it-or-burn' religious fanaticism?

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_08.html#.UBMd_vWMiSo

Political patterns do not change rapidly among a group of people. Any group that votes 66-32 for the liberal Democrat is decidedly liberal. This is the only growing age category.  Groups voting more for President Obama were "liberals", "Democrats", "homosexuals", "people with incomes under $15,000", and "any non-white ethnic groups". It trumped region and even "union households".  (I saw nothing for "Jews", so I shall remain silent).

It may be that President Obama was running against the consequences of the policies of George W. Bush... but GOP policies are essentially the same in 2012 as in 2008. Beyond any question, George W. Bush makes President Obama look great by contrast.

Politics is marketing... but for good reason Ford Motor Company gave up on the Edsel within two years. The GOP needs a new product.   

Indiana Senate and President of the United States are apples and oranges. We will never win the youth vote and they will never be over 20% of the electorate. No Independents in 2012 are going to remember exactly how bad things were in 2008 because they don't pay attention as much as Republicans or Democrats. Obama has taken us further into debt and had an average unemployment rate higher than the average during Bush's 8 years. We had our deadliest months in Iraq during the latter first year of the Obama administration. His response to the Gulf oil spill made Bush look like Superman regarding Hurricane Katrina. As far as winning we need nothing but money and advertisements. Of course we aren't going to recruit Democrats anymore than they're going to recruit us but to independents concerned about limited government when it comes to the free market, the GOP will do quite well. As far as who will win this election, as I've said on every thread, it's July. Obama is about where Mondale and Dukakis were at this time.
Logged
mondale84
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1322
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -3.30

P P P
View Profile
« Reply #170 on: July 27, 2012, 11:45:23 pm »
Ignore

It's been interesting how much Obama falls when only likely voters are polled. He did the same thing against Hillary Clinton.

Note well the commonplace observation of Barack Obama in 2008: that the vote for him goes well beyond the "likely voters" model that fits a pared electorate because the electorate is not excited. He campaigns so that he can win over people who might be not-so-regular voters. Such indicates a strong campaign and an adept politician.

"Registered voters late in the campaign"  well described Obama in 2008, but "likely voters" well described the midterm election of 2010.  "Likely voters" tend to be older voters who vote in any election. If the not-so-likely voters are younger and different in their voting habits than the older "likely voters", then pollsters who rely upon "likely voters" models can get a Presidential election very wrong (they didn't see the Reagan landslide in 1980 coming and underestimated that of 1984) but might get a midterm right (1982, 2010). Note that voters born around 1960 were much more 'conservative' on most issues than were their elders and made the difference between the elections of 1976 and 1980. Reagan got the young-adult vote in 1980; he couldn't have done so in 1972 or 1976.   

Barack Obama is a masterful politician with a superb organization. At this point I see no cause other than a collapse of the campaign of either Obama or Romney for the 2012 election to look significantly different from that of 2008. The Obama campaign is going to recruit lots of new voters and goad them to vote. 

I don't think he's experienced as a politician and therefore says whatever is on his mind resulting in things like going to 57 states so far. Obama tried to recruit new voters and it didn't happen. In 2008 as I said before he polled much better than he did against Clinton and to a smaller degree McCain. The youth turnout was exactly the same in 2004 but he did manage to do better amongst them. That said, he still didn't recruit new voters but simply turned more young voters. I don't understand what's so masterful about winning an election where the housing market has collapsed and the incumbent president has a 25% approval rating. As for comparing 2012 to 2008, it's too early to tell because no one is paying attention yet.

Just look at how well experience served Senator Richard Lugar in the Indiana primaries this year.

Worth noting is that the youngest voters are much more liberal than the national average. In 2008 voters under 29 voted 66-32 for President Obama. They were only 18% of the electorate, to be sure, but that is a horrible trend for Republicans. Ask yourself what the GOP can do to win that age group that will encompass voters up to age 33 in November. How can you win them if your economic program is aid to people much older and richer through which such aid must filter as profit before it reaches down as jobs with low pay? If your culture is 'believe-it-or-burn' religious fanaticism?

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_08.html#.UBMd_vWMiSo

Political patterns do not change rapidly among a group of people. Any group that votes 66-32 for the liberal Democrat is decidedly liberal. This is the only growing age category.  Groups voting more for President Obama were "liberals", "Democrats", "homosexuals", "people with incomes under $15,000", and "any non-white ethnic groups". It trumped region and even "union households".  (I saw nothing for "Jews", so I shall remain silent).

It may be that President Obama was running against the consequences of the policies of George W. Bush... but GOP policies are essentially the same in 2012 as in 2008. Beyond any question, George W. Bush makes President Obama look great by contrast.

Politics is marketing... but for good reason Ford Motor Company gave up on the Edsel within two years. The GOP needs a new product.   

Indiana Senate and President of the United States are apples and oranges. We will never win the youth vote and they will never be over 20% of the electorate. No Independents in 2012 are going to remember exactly how bad things were in 2008 because they don't pay attention as much as Republicans or Democrats. Obama has taken us further into debt and had an average unemployment rate higher than the average during Bush's 8 years. We had our deadliest months in Iraq during the latter first year of the Obama administration. His response to the Gulf oil spill made Bush look like Superman regarding Hurricane Katrina. As far as winning we need nothing but money and advertisements. Of course we aren't going to recruit Democrats anymore than they're going to recruit us but to independents concerned about limited government when it comes to the free market, the GOP will do quite well. As far as who will win this election, as I've said on every thread, it's July. Obama is about where Mondale and Dukakis were at this time.

Independents are not - contrary to your opinion - dumb s. They are sentient people who suffer economic pain like the rest of us. They are aware of the recent economic trajectory and realize - like most of us - that things have gotten better. They may be upset at the pace, but they do remember 2008.

Also, I love how you admit that your party is trying to buy this election. Some honesty, finally. 
Logged


"There are no men like me. There's only me."
Darius_Addicus_Gaius
Full Member
***
Posts: 138
United States


View Profile
« Reply #171 on: July 27, 2012, 11:48:42 pm »
Ignore

It's been interesting how much Obama falls when only likely voters are polled. He did the same thing against Hillary Clinton.

Note well the commonplace observation of Barack Obama in 2008: that the vote for him goes well beyond the "likely voters" model that fits a pared electorate because the electorate is not excited. He campaigns so that he can win over people who might be not-so-regular voters. Such indicates a strong campaign and an adept politician.

"Registered voters late in the campaign"  well described Obama in 2008, but "likely voters" well described the midterm election of 2010.  "Likely voters" tend to be older voters who vote in any election. If the not-so-likely voters are younger and different in their voting habits than the older "likely voters", then pollsters who rely upon "likely voters" models can get a Presidential election very wrong (they didn't see the Reagan landslide in 1980 coming and underestimated that of 1984) but might get a midterm right (1982, 2010). Note that voters born around 1960 were much more 'conservative' on most issues than were their elders and made the difference between the elections of 1976 and 1980. Reagan got the young-adult vote in 1980; he couldn't have done so in 1972 or 1976.   

Barack Obama is a masterful politician with a superb organization. At this point I see no cause other than a collapse of the campaign of either Obama or Romney for the 2012 election to look significantly different from that of 2008. The Obama campaign is going to recruit lots of new voters and goad them to vote. 

I don't think he's experienced as a politician and therefore says whatever is on his mind resulting in things like going to 57 states so far. Obama tried to recruit new voters and it didn't happen. In 2008 as I said before he polled much better than he did against Clinton and to a smaller degree McCain. The youth turnout was exactly the same in 2004 but he did manage to do better amongst them. That said, he still didn't recruit new voters but simply turned more young voters. I don't understand what's so masterful about winning an election where the housing market has collapsed and the incumbent president has a 25% approval rating. As for comparing 2012 to 2008, it's too early to tell because no one is paying attention yet.

Just look at how well experience served Senator Richard Lugar in the Indiana primaries this year.

Worth noting is that the youngest voters are much more liberal than the national average. In 2008 voters under 29 voted 66-32 for President Obama. They were only 18% of the electorate, to be sure, but that is a horrible trend for Republicans. Ask yourself what the GOP can do to win that age group that will encompass voters up to age 33 in November. How can you win them if your economic program is aid to people much older and richer through which such aid must filter as profit before it reaches down as jobs with low pay? If your culture is 'believe-it-or-burn' religious fanaticism?

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_08.html#.UBMd_vWMiSo

Political patterns do not change rapidly among a group of people. Any group that votes 66-32 for the liberal Democrat is decidedly liberal. This is the only growing age category.  Groups voting more for President Obama were "liberals", "Democrats", "homosexuals", "people with incomes under $15,000", and "any non-white ethnic groups". It trumped region and even "union households".  (I saw nothing for "Jews", so I shall remain silent).

It may be that President Obama was running against the consequences of the policies of George W. Bush... but GOP policies are essentially the same in 2012 as in 2008. Beyond any question, George W. Bush makes President Obama look great by contrast.

Politics is marketing... but for good reason Ford Motor Company gave up on the Edsel within two years. The GOP needs a new product.   

Indiana Senate and President of the United States are apples and oranges. We will never win the youth vote and they will never be over 20% of the electorate. No Independents in 2012 are going to remember exactly how bad things were in 2008 because they don't pay attention as much as Republicans or Democrats. Obama has taken us further into debt and had an average unemployment rate higher than the average during Bush's 8 years. We had our deadliest months in Iraq during the latter first year of the Obama administration. His response to the Gulf oil spill made Bush look like Superman regarding Hurricane Katrina. As far as winning we need nothing but money and advertisements. Of course we aren't going to recruit Democrats anymore than they're going to recruit us but to independents concerned about limited government when it comes to the free market, the GOP will do quite well. As far as who will win this election, as I've said on every thread, it's July. Obama is about where Mondale and Dukakis were at this time.

Independents are not - contrary to your opinion - dumb s. They are sentient people who suffer economic pain like the rest of us. They are aware of the recent economic trajectory and realize - like most of us - that things have gotten better. They may be upset at the pace, but they do remember 2008.

Also, I love how you admit that your party is trying to buy this election. Some honesty, finally. 

When did I say independents were dumb? I know what you mean about economic pain but I think that's the end of where we agree. Things have gotten better? Stop! Oh I'm sure they remember the promises made in 2008 about how everything was going to be perfect if we just voted Democrat. When did I say buy the election? Let's grow up and realize that both parties do the same thing to try and win.
Logged
Darius_Addicus_Gaius
Full Member
***
Posts: 138
United States


View Profile
« Reply #172 on: July 27, 2012, 11:52:44 pm »
Ignore

It's been interesting how much Obama falls when only likely voters are polled. He did the same thing against Hillary Clinton.

Note well the commonplace observation of Barack Obama in 2008: that the vote for him goes well beyond the "likely voters" model that fits a pared electorate because the electorate is not excited. He campaigns so that he can win over people who might be not-so-regular voters. Such indicates a strong campaign and an adept politician.

"Registered voters late in the campaign"  well described Obama in 2008, but "likely voters" well described the midterm election of 2010.  "Likely voters" tend to be older voters who vote in any election. If the not-so-likely voters are younger and different in their voting habits than the older "likely voters", then pollsters who rely upon "likely voters" models can get a Presidential election very wrong (they didn't see the Reagan landslide in 1980 coming and underestimated that of 1984) but might get a midterm right (1982, 2010). Note that voters born around 1960 were much more 'conservative' on most issues than were their elders and made the difference between the elections of 1976 and 1980. Reagan got the young-adult vote in 1980; he couldn't have done so in 1972 or 1976.   

Barack Obama is a masterful politician with a superb organization. At this point I see no cause other than a collapse of the campaign of either Obama or Romney for the 2012 election to look significantly different from that of 2008. The Obama campaign is going to recruit lots of new voters and goad them to vote. 

I don't think he's experienced as a politician and therefore says whatever is on his mind resulting in things like going to 57 states so far. Obama tried to recruit new voters and it didn't happen. In 2008 as I said before he polled much better than he did against Clinton and to a smaller degree McCain. The youth turnout was exactly the same in 2004 but he did manage to do better amongst them. That said, he still didn't recruit new voters but simply turned more young voters. I don't understand what's so masterful about winning an election where the housing market has collapsed and the incumbent president has a 25% approval rating. As for comparing 2012 to 2008, it's too early to tell because no one is paying attention yet.

Just look at how well experience served Senator Richard Lugar in the Indiana primaries this year.

Worth noting is that the youngest voters are much more liberal than the national average. In 2008 voters under 29 voted 66-32 for President Obama. They were only 18% of the electorate, to be sure, but that is a horrible trend for Republicans. Ask yourself what the GOP can do to win that age group that will encompass voters up to age 33 in November. How can you win them if your economic program is aid to people much older and richer through which such aid must filter as profit before it reaches down as jobs with low pay? If your culture is 'believe-it-or-burn' religious fanaticism?

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_08.html#.UBMd_vWMiSo

Political patterns do not change rapidly among a group of people. Any group that votes 66-32 for the liberal Democrat is decidedly liberal. This is the only growing age category.  Groups voting more for President Obama were "liberals", "Democrats", "homosexuals", "people with incomes under $15,000", and "any non-white ethnic groups". It trumped region and even "union households".  (I saw nothing for "Jews", so I shall remain silent).

It may be that President Obama was running against the consequences of the policies of George W. Bush... but GOP policies are essentially the same in 2012 as in 2008. Beyond any question, George W. Bush makes President Obama look great by contrast.

Politics is marketing... but for good reason Ford Motor Company gave up on the Edsel within two years. The GOP needs a new product.   

You're right about politics being marketing. I'm glad that you've admitted that and I agree. It's also the lesser of two evils. While we don't agree on a whole lot we at least agree on those things. I think that's where our agreement stops though. What were you saying about religious fanaticism?
Logged
mondale84
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1322
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -3.30

P P P
View Profile
« Reply #173 on: July 27, 2012, 11:53:46 pm »
Ignore

It's been interesting how much Obama falls when only likely voters are polled. He did the same thing against Hillary Clinton.

Note well the commonplace observation of Barack Obama in 2008: that the vote for him goes well beyond the "likely voters" model that fits a pared electorate because the electorate is not excited. He campaigns so that he can win over people who might be not-so-regular voters. Such indicates a strong campaign and an adept politician.

"Registered voters late in the campaign"  well described Obama in 2008, but "likely voters" well described the midterm election of 2010.  "Likely voters" tend to be older voters who vote in any election. If the not-so-likely voters are younger and different in their voting habits than the older "likely voters", then pollsters who rely upon "likely voters" models can get a Presidential election very wrong (they didn't see the Reagan landslide in 1980 coming and underestimated that of 1984) but might get a midterm right (1982, 2010). Note that voters born around 1960 were much more 'conservative' on most issues than were their elders and made the difference between the elections of 1976 and 1980. Reagan got the young-adult vote in 1980; he couldn't have done so in 1972 or 1976.   

Barack Obama is a masterful politician with a superb organization. At this point I see no cause other than a collapse of the campaign of either Obama or Romney for the 2012 election to look significantly different from that of 2008. The Obama campaign is going to recruit lots of new voters and goad them to vote. 

I don't think he's experienced as a politician and therefore says whatever is on his mind resulting in things like going to 57 states so far. Obama tried to recruit new voters and it didn't happen. In 2008 as I said before he polled much better than he did against Clinton and to a smaller degree McCain. The youth turnout was exactly the same in 2004 but he did manage to do better amongst them. That said, he still didn't recruit new voters but simply turned more young voters. I don't understand what's so masterful about winning an election where the housing market has collapsed and the incumbent president has a 25% approval rating. As for comparing 2012 to 2008, it's too early to tell because no one is paying attention yet.

Just look at how well experience served Senator Richard Lugar in the Indiana primaries this year.

Worth noting is that the youngest voters are much more liberal than the national average. In 2008 voters under 29 voted 66-32 for President Obama. They were only 18% of the electorate, to be sure, but that is a horrible trend for Republicans. Ask yourself what the GOP can do to win that age group that will encompass voters up to age 33 in November. How can you win them if your economic program is aid to people much older and richer through which such aid must filter as profit before it reaches down as jobs with low pay? If your culture is 'believe-it-or-burn' religious fanaticism?

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_08.html#.UBMd_vWMiSo

Political patterns do not change rapidly among a group of people. Any group that votes 66-32 for the liberal Democrat is decidedly liberal. This is the only growing age category.  Groups voting more for President Obama were "liberals", "Democrats", "homosexuals", "people with incomes under $15,000", and "any non-white ethnic groups". It trumped region and even "union households".  (I saw nothing for "Jews", so I shall remain silent).

It may be that President Obama was running against the consequences of the policies of George W. Bush... but GOP policies are essentially the same in 2012 as in 2008. Beyond any question, George W. Bush makes President Obama look great by contrast.

Politics is marketing... but for good reason Ford Motor Company gave up on the Edsel within two years. The GOP needs a new product.   

Indiana Senate and President of the United States are apples and oranges. We will never win the youth vote and they will never be over 20% of the electorate. No Independents in 2012 are going to remember exactly how bad things were in 2008 because they don't pay attention as much as Republicans or Democrats. Obama has taken us further into debt and had an average unemployment rate higher than the average during Bush's 8 years. We had our deadliest months in Iraq during the latter first year of the Obama administration. His response to the Gulf oil spill made Bush look like Superman regarding Hurricane Katrina. As far as winning we need nothing but money and advertisements. Of course we aren't going to recruit Democrats anymore than they're going to recruit us but to independents concerned about limited government when it comes to the free market, the GOP will do quite well. As far as who will win this election, as I've said on every thread, it's July. Obama is about where Mondale and Dukakis were at this time.

Independents are not - contrary to your opinion - dumb s. They are sentient people who suffer economic pain like the rest of us. They are aware of the recent economic trajectory and realize - like most of us - that things have gotten better. They may be upset at the pace, but they do remember 2008.

Also, I love how you admit that your party is trying to buy this election. Some honesty, finally. 

When did I say independents were dumb? I know what you mean about economic pain but I think that's the end of where we agree. Things have gotten better? Stop! Oh I'm sure they remember the promises made in 2008 about how everything was going to be perfect if we just voted Democrat. When did I say buy the election? Let's grow up and realize that both parties do the same thing to try and win.

Things have...we aren't loosing 700k jobs per month...

but that's a fact, so you don't like those...
Logged


"There are no men like me. There's only me."
Darius_Addicus_Gaius
Full Member
***
Posts: 138
United States


View Profile
« Reply #174 on: July 27, 2012, 11:57:05 pm »
Ignore

It's been interesting how much Obama falls when only likely voters are polled. He did the same thing against Hillary Clinton.

Note well the commonplace observation of Barack Obama in 2008: that the vote for him goes well beyond the "likely voters" model that fits a pared electorate because the electorate is not excited. He campaigns so that he can win over people who might be not-so-regular voters. Such indicates a strong campaign and an adept politician.

"Registered voters late in the campaign"  well described Obama in 2008, but "likely voters" well described the midterm election of 2010.  "Likely voters" tend to be older voters who vote in any election. If the not-so-likely voters are younger and different in their voting habits than the older "likely voters", then pollsters who rely upon "likely voters" models can get a Presidential election very wrong (they didn't see the Reagan landslide in 1980 coming and underestimated that of 1984) but might get a midterm right (1982, 2010). Note that voters born around 1960 were much more 'conservative' on most issues than were their elders and made the difference between the elections of 1976 and 1980. Reagan got the young-adult vote in 1980; he couldn't have done so in 1972 or 1976.   

Barack Obama is a masterful politician with a superb organization. At this point I see no cause other than a collapse of the campaign of either Obama or Romney for the 2012 election to look significantly different from that of 2008. The Obama campaign is going to recruit lots of new voters and goad them to vote. 

I don't think he's experienced as a politician and therefore says whatever is on his mind resulting in things like going to 57 states so far. Obama tried to recruit new voters and it didn't happen. In 2008 as I said before he polled much better than he did against Clinton and to a smaller degree McCain. The youth turnout was exactly the same in 2004 but he did manage to do better amongst them. That said, he still didn't recruit new voters but simply turned more young voters. I don't understand what's so masterful about winning an election where the housing market has collapsed and the incumbent president has a 25% approval rating. As for comparing 2012 to 2008, it's too early to tell because no one is paying attention yet.

Just look at how well experience served Senator Richard Lugar in the Indiana primaries this year.

Worth noting is that the youngest voters are much more liberal than the national average. In 2008 voters under 29 voted 66-32 for President Obama. They were only 18% of the electorate, to be sure, but that is a horrible trend for Republicans. Ask yourself what the GOP can do to win that age group that will encompass voters up to age 33 in November. How can you win them if your economic program is aid to people much older and richer through which such aid must filter as profit before it reaches down as jobs with low pay? If your culture is 'believe-it-or-burn' religious fanaticism?

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_08.html#.UBMd_vWMiSo

Political patterns do not change rapidly among a group of people. Any group that votes 66-32 for the liberal Democrat is decidedly liberal. This is the only growing age category.  Groups voting more for President Obama were "liberals", "Democrats", "homosexuals", "people with incomes under $15,000", and "any non-white ethnic groups". It trumped region and even "union households".  (I saw nothing for "Jews", so I shall remain silent).

It may be that President Obama was running against the consequences of the policies of George W. Bush... but GOP policies are essentially the same in 2012 as in 2008. Beyond any question, George W. Bush makes President Obama look great by contrast.

Politics is marketing... but for good reason Ford Motor Company gave up on the Edsel within two years. The GOP needs a new product.   

Indiana Senate and President of the United States are apples and oranges. We will never win the youth vote and they will never be over 20% of the electorate. No Independents in 2012 are going to remember exactly how bad things were in 2008 because they don't pay attention as much as Republicans or Democrats. Obama has taken us further into debt and had an average unemployment rate higher than the average during Bush's 8 years. We had our deadliest months in Iraq during the latter first year of the Obama administration. His response to the Gulf oil spill made Bush look like Superman regarding Hurricane Katrina. As far as winning we need nothing but money and advertisements. Of course we aren't going to recruit Democrats anymore than they're going to recruit us but to independents concerned about limited government when it comes to the free market, the GOP will do quite well. As far as who will win this election, as I've said on every thread, it's July. Obama is about where Mondale and Dukakis were at this time.

Independents are not - contrary to your opinion - dumb s. They are sentient people who suffer economic pain like the rest of us. They are aware of the recent economic trajectory and realize - like most of us - that things have gotten better. They may be upset at the pace, but they do remember 2008.

Also, I love how you admit that your party is trying to buy this election. Some honesty, finally. 

When did I say independents were dumb? I know what you mean about economic pain but I think that's the end of where we agree. Things have gotten better? Stop! Oh I'm sure they remember the promises made in 2008 about how everything was going to be perfect if we just voted Democrat. When did I say buy the election? Let's grow up and realize that both parties do the same thing to try and win.

Things have...we aren't loosing 700k jobs per month...

but that's a fact, so you don't like those...

Big woopdy doo! Things could be alot better and we could have alot more freedoms. I'd like to see an Obama ad that advertises not losing 700,000 jobs a month. "We're no longer losing 700,000 jobs a month, vote for Barack Obama in November." Come on!
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines